It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Following months of backlash, Ridley Scott has finally addressed the casting controversies surrounding "Exodus." In an interview with Variety, Scott said the reason he cast white actors to play Egyptians in his Biblical film was because of monetary considerations.
"I can't mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such," Scott told Variety. "I'm just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn't even come up."
Scott's film cost near $200 million before European tax credits pushed the eventual reported budget down to $140 million. Christian Bale plays Moses in the film, with white actors such as Joel Edgerton (as Ramses), Sigourney Weaver (as Tuya), John Turturro (as Seti I) and Aaron Paul (as Joshua) filling out other major roles. Non-white actors with significant parts in "Exodus: Gods and Kings" include Ben Kingsley, María Valverde and Hiam Abbass. (Black actors were seemingly cast as slaves and servants.)
"Ridley Scott is one of those guys who’s apparently hellbent on historical accuracy but doesn’t care enough to cast a person of color as Moses or a goddamn African queen while simultaneously filling out the rest of the movie with Black servants and thieves," David Dennis Jr. wrote in a post on Medium. "But to make the main characters white and everyone else African is cinematic colonialism. It’s creating a piece of historical 'art' that carries on oppressive imagery that’s helped shackle entire countries and corners of the world.
www.huffingtonpost.com...
"
originally posted by: projectvxn
Scott should stick to making Alien movies.
What an idiot.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: starwarsisreal
Well the movie might flop if he doesn't apparently.
Even worse, he might be right
originally posted by: daaskapital
I don't understand why this is a big deal. It's a movie based on mythological events. It doesn't have to strictly adhere to everything when its content reflects mythological fiction.
That said, ancient Egypt was a multicultural society. And while i understand why some would be hesitant at the choice of actors, it makes sense to include multiple ethnicities. Not all Egyptians were black, and not all Egyptians were tanned. Would people be kicking up such a storm if all the actors were either black or tanned? No, i don't think so.
The movie isn't historically accurate, and the events it is based on are regarded as fiction. Complaining about the choice of actors and costumes is pointless when regarding the overall material.
originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: Spider879
Uhhh.. It's a Hollywood film. You need super famous actors to sell it. Maybe there weren't any people of color who could play the part well.
Quality over accuracy, probably.
originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Sremmos80
Then he can keep Bale as the main actor and then the rest are Arab, Ethiopian, and European Jews. At the very least try to show some Historical accuracy. Also make some Egyptian officials Black and Arab.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Spider879
So what about Idris Elba? He would have made some money for the film. He's a win win choice! The ladies like him, the males respect the fact that he is built like a tank, and can deliver a line, and allegedly he can pilot a giant mechanical monster bashing machine! What's wrong with that?
There comes a point, where one has to insist that if a thing cannot be done right, and make money, then it should not be done at all. Protecting artistic integrity requires steadfastness, and a preparedness to scrap a project unless you can make it as close to perfect as you can imagine!
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Spider879
So what about Idris Elba? He would have made some money for the film. He's a win win choice! The ladies like him, the males respect the fact that he is built like a tank, and can deliver a line, and allegedly he can pilot a giant mechanical monster bashing machine! What's wrong with that?
There comes a point, where one has to insist that if a thing cannot be done right, and make money, then it should not be done at all. Protecting artistic integrity requires steadfastness, and a preparedness to scrap a project unless you can make it as close to perfect as you can imagine!
originally posted by: James1982
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Spider879
So what about Idris Elba? He would have made some money for the film. He's a win win choice! The ladies like him, the males respect the fact that he is built like a tank, and can deliver a line, and allegedly he can pilot a giant mechanical monster bashing machine! What's wrong with that?
There comes a point, where one has to insist that if a thing cannot be done right, and make money, then it should not be done at all. Protecting artistic integrity requires steadfastness, and a preparedness to scrap a project unless you can make it as close to perfect as you can imagine!
If you want to bring up Idris Elba, why is he allowed to play a European (white) Mythological character (in Thor) yet white actors cannot play Egyptians?
Idris Elba played Heimdall, who is not black in mythology. In fact, he is described as being "the whitest of the gods" yet a black actor was cast to play him. Why? Do you have a moral outrage against that as well? I don't. Idris Elba is badass, I don't care what color he is, this is mythology not historical documentary. Just like it makes far more sense to cast western actors in a western film. Just like the movie industries in other countries use local talent to fill roles even if it isn't accurate to the character being depicted. Plenty of foreign films using non-white actors to portray white characters from history/fiction, again I ask where is your outrage?
Only getting upset when it's non-white figures being cast with white actors reeks of hypocrisy.