Color-Blind Casting -- Should Hollywood Ignore Race In Casting?

My two cents:

I hate the organic web-shooters in Spider-Man: The Movie because I thought that it was uncalled for doesn't do anything to enhance the story. I won't go into detail on this because it's off-topic, but Daredevil is a different case.
Having the Kingpin of Crime as a black master criminal in Hell's Kitchen serves to add something 'more' to the story. The director said that he told that it would be more 'realistic' to protray a criminal mastermind as black in regards to the setting of the story.
Look at it anyway you want, but my opinion is that a fat white guy wouldn't last very long in place like Hell's Kitchen, much less become the Kingpin of crime.

I think that casting should be colour blind to an extent.
Casting a woman as BATMAN would be wrong, unless it was a BATGIRL/BATWOMAN flick.
Bond should be white, and Shaft should be black, it's what defines them.

Anyway, I think it's fun when characters are cast against norm... it makes the story seem different from the original that we already know by heart.

Now, if only I was director, Spidey would have mechanical webshooters...

 

"Bond should be white, and Shaft should be black, it's what defines them."

Thank you for saying those exact words. That encompasses exactly how it should be. Defining. What defines the character...Kingpin can be black and STILL be Kingpin.

 

Imagine Billy Dee Williams with a British accent: "Bond. James Bond."

Disagree if you so desire, but I think it could work.

 

That'd be good, but I believe Bond is referred to as 'white' specifically by one of the villains in the earlier bond movies.

It would upset the theme a little. But I wouldn't have an issue with it personally.

- Scarlet.

 

interesting points. I don't think it is a big deal that the Kingpin is black in the movie. I'm a fan of the Frank Miller daredevil stories. You gotta remember, when the Kingpin was invented, it wasn't likely that you would have a respectable CEO who was black. Nowadays, it's not the case. So this change, IMO, is not going to detract from the story.

Matthew Broderick's charecter in Glory being played by a black guy wouldn't work, IMO. The point of the film is about breaking down race barriers.

But let me put something else into the equation. For years, Hollywood has had white actors play non white charecters. Native indians in westerns is an example. OK, they were shown in a bad light so if there were any native indians who were actor at the time, they probably wouldn't want to be in the movie anyways.

But white people portrayed black people in Hollywood films for years. Was this because they were better actors or because black people were not cast?


Somebody mentioned Malcolm X. Yes, it would be unthinkable to have a non black guy play him. But what if a white actor played him, with make up on? Originally, the film was going to be directed by a white guy. No problem. But Spike Lee kicked up a fuss, saying only a black guy should make the film. Is that right?

Gandhi, the multi oscar winning film, directed by Sir Richard Attenborough. Brilliant film, brilliant director. But Ben Kingsley played the part of gandhi. They used make up to show him as an Indian. Now, i'm Indian, born and lived my whole life in the UK, but my parents are Indian. So ethnically, I'm Indian, but i consider myself a British citizen. But i wasn't offended by a white guy playing an Indian. Ben Kingsley was superb in the film and made it really believable. And my parents thought so too.

And I think that's what counts, if the best actor can carry off the part, give it to him.

For historical parts, try to keep to the original ethnic race, for fiction, be creative. That's what story telling is about.

But don't get me startedon U-571. switching the british sailors for americans....... akin to switching the NY fire fighters on sept 11 to british ones......

 

Thank you for saying those exact words. That encompasses exactly how it should be. Defining. What defines the character...Kingpin can be black and STILL be Kingpin.

Thanks, and you're welcome.
Speaking about what defines a character... I heard that they are casting Hellblazer main man John Constatine as an American. That is just so wrong because he's Britishness defines him! It defines the way he talks, they way he does things, heck, it even define's the cigarettes that he smokes.
Why oh why would they **** with the formula?

Can he not be American and still be interesting? I mean, Hellblazer has been one of the most successful Vertigo titles, heck, I believe that it's the longest running Vertigo title. Doesn't that prove that people actually like the status quo?

Note: Vertigo is DC Comics' mature/non-maintream line of comic books
Good reading stuff, critically acclaimed and some of the books have won awards too.

 

I agree that color shouldn't matter. On eof my favorite actors is Denzel Washington. I can't remember the name of the movie it's the one where he takes over the Hospital to et a transplant for his son. If they had put a White or latino character in place of Denzel it wouldn't have mattered. But I don't think there are many actors who could have played that role like he did.


And actors should be picked for historically accurate roles even if it is a work of fiction. You wouldn't want a black plantation owner in the old south for example

 

Acting is a glorified job. Sure, to the individual it's usually more than that, and other times it leads to downright misery. But it's still a job, just like writing or directing or designing costumes. And we all know that there's no excuse for discrimination in the workplace. I've been the victim of affirmative action in the place where I work, so I'm no big proponent of it. Just examine your options, find whoever meets your requirements the closest, and pick 'em. Sure, maybe the script requires the character to be black or white for the sake of the plot, but that's why the key word is "requirements".

If you allow your judgment to be influenced by political correctness, then you run the risk of getting a poorer performance. My dad's boss, for instance, is nothing short of incompetent. This is a well-known fact, but nobody can do anything about it because the guy's race has rendered him untouchable. Bring on the ever-popular "It's quality, not quantity." Just because somebody is in a minority doesn't make him any better than the other guy.

So yes, unless we're talking about historical fact or a key plot point, Hollywould should ignore race when casting. If you've got an equally qualified white guy and black guy in contention for a role, then flip a coin. Fifty years down the pike, it'll be easier for you than being accused of discrimination.

 

Here's an interesting thing to mull over: The producers of the Superman films originally considered Muhammad Ali for the role,until someone said "Wait,isn't he colored?".

BTW,that Denzel Washington film is John Q. And I agree,he was great in that film in the role he played. He was also great as the FBI agent in The Siege. One thing about that film is that his color wasn't mentioned,so anyone could've played that part.

 

BTW,that Denzel Washington film is John Q. And I agree,he was great in that film in the role he played. He was also great as the FBI agent in The Siege. One thing about that film is that his color wasn't mentioned,so anyone could've played that part.

Could a non-Middle Eastern actor have played Tony Shaloub's part in The Siege?

 

It al depends.

If I saw a black or asian Superman or Spiderman or Professor X, I would not like it at all. It would just be way off to me.

Same goes, as someone mentioned, if I ever saw a white or asian actor playing Shaft or Storm, it would be way off.

It depends on the part in my opinion.

Although to an earlier comment, my parents are latin and I'm a pale red head. So, it does not bother me at all when I see latins portrayed in films as blonde, red, chestnut, white, black, brown, semetic, whatever. Because THAT is reality. South America is a culture composed of heavy immigration just like in North America. Just as diverse. It's what bulit and made the Americas. Immigration and the founding fathers which came from England, Spain, France and Portugal to top it off.

 

In answer to the name of the thread, no and yes.

No: Film-makers should listen to what the story and setting calls for and cast accordingly.

Yes: They should not cast and/or refuse to cast actors based entirely on their skin tone; for example if they feel pressured by 'minority rights' activists to cast a black woman as the protagonist and a white man as the antagonist.

Did that make sense?

 

Interesting. In the case of a character such as the Kingpin, I do not know how important his colour is, since I've never read the comic. I'm guessing that because he's a major character, purists would indeed argue his skin colour is vital, however, are the guy's personality or circumstances ever scripted in such a way that his colour is important. For example, if a film/play about a fictional white supremecist is remade/adapted, it might seem ridiculous to have a black or asian guy playing him, whereas a protagonist who has merely been depicted one colour or another, but for no obvious reason other than that was how the artist/author imagined him, or the first actor to play him was a particular colour, might seem less important.

I can't think of an example of where this has actually happened, but for the sake of argument, take a remake and consider whether or not one COULD have recast it with a lead from a different ethnic group. For example, consider Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. Filmed in the fifties - white guy in the lead role. When remaking it, it needn't have been a white man playing the role. The skin colour of Matthew is irrelevent - why not have cast, say, Billy Dee Williams instead of Donald Sutherland? It would have made no difference to the plot.

Then again, even where race IS important, it COULD be sapient to make a conversion for an adaptation for the purposes of the director author/whatever. For example, if one has a story about racial oppression(say the mistreatment of a black family in a predominantly white neighbourhood in a Western country), could one not adapt the story to fit the situation in Zimbabwe, where the reverse has been true of late? The political point being made that ALL race discrimination is unsavoury, but it takes different forms in different places.

Now, here's another interesting point that one of you made:

The idea of a 50-50 spread being unrealistic because it doesn't give an accurate demographic representation. Quite true. A couple of years ago, I was in Portsmouth(S. England) where I was working with a team of people running a playscheme for kids. We stayed in a school which was deserted for the summer hols, and the empty classrooms were were we placed our sleeping bags. A similar subject to this arose, and a friend of mine asked me:

"What percentage of the UK population do you suppose are from ethnic minorities?"

"I dunno," I replied, "ten?"

"Approximately seven," he answered, "yet many people are under the illusion that it's far higher. Some polls have suggested many people think as high as thirty."

I was surprised, and he pointed out that one of the reasons for this was OVER-representation in GOVERNMENT-sponsored literature.

"Go round the classrooms now," he said, "and take a look at the educational posters showing children working together(hygene and safety stuff, Road safety and so on), and note how many children, hand-picked for the purposes of the shot, are from the minorities. I'll guarantee you it's well over 7%. Then compare this with the actual photos of the school children taken here(basket ball team photo, class 7G etc) and note that it's far LESS than 7% because the spread within the country is uneven, and Hampshire has a smaller than average ethnic population."

He was right. The point he was making was that a government cannot win either way. Put in too few black or asian subjects, and it is accused of racism on the grounds that it ignores them and wishes to marginalise them. Put too MANY in and it's accused of either belittling the white majority and/or scaremongering and pandering to racist reactionaries by suggesting that the white population is being overrun by an a swelling immigrant influx. Try to give an accurate representation, and it can be accused of being over-obsessed with the demogrpahics, and spinelessly frightened of making an issue out of it. None of these are true, and the situation is, or at least SHOULD be, quite harmonious.

One final point. As a wheelchair user, I am intrigued that - unless I missed it - n

 

Anyway, I could talk about this one for hours and hours, and I apologise if I've thrown things slightly off-topic, on what is essentially an issue of RACE, but since the scope had already been widened to include issues of gender and sexual orientation, I didn't feel it was taboo to raise the point of disability since it hadn't previously been brought up.

Nope, that's perfectly fine. Imagine if Oracle (former Batgirl from the Batman universe including The Killing Joke) was depicted as NOT a parapalegic in that case. 'cause, y'know, the entire point of the Oracle character was Barbara Gordon getting back into crimefighting after having her spine severed by The Joker's bullet.

 

True indeed. However, it is the focus of the story in her case. The plot is ABOUT the disability. Same with Born on the Fourth of July.

I'm more concerned with the notion of it being an accepted, but unhighlighted point.

Take hypothetically ANY given film, and consider whether or not A character could/could not have been cast as disabled, but no mention of it ever made.

Even action movies. Watto, for example. Rather than being an alien who flies about with wings, why not just some ordinary joe who's always used a powerchair? He's involved in no action sequences, and no mention of it would ever be made. It wouldn't affect Qui-Gon's dealings with him one little bit.

I'm not saying that SHOULD be done, nor that it should happen in EVERY movie you care to mention, merely that it's an all-too-frequently overlooked possibility.

If you like, it's the irrelevence of the disability that makes it so important that this sort of thing be represented in mainstream media. Or conversely unimportant, if you follow me.