how do you all feel about whitewashing?

Except Ben Kinglsey is of Indian ancestry. Ben Kingsley is His nom de plume His given name is Krishna Ghranj or something like that..

a reply to: TinySickTears

When I read the title I thought back to having to whitewash the trees in our garden and orchard when we were growing up.

To the point of the OP, why would a director or producer want some Jane Doe instead of a familiar talent? Movies do cost a lot of money to create and market, that's a lot of risk. But I would just be contrary just to poke those SJW in the eye. The PC crap is ruining the world.

Hey Johnny depp played a native.
The movie sucked too.
I'm more annoyed at the femonizing of movies.
To many mary sue's.

On a side note,
Do Chinese get mad about Japanese actors playing Chinese characters?
Or is generic Asian good enough?

a reply to: fiverx313

Then how is it not whitewashing to have "Hamilton" going around? Basically, we all know those characters very well and they're not the ethnicities of the actors portraying them.

Or is it only OK to let an actor of another ethnicity play a role when he or she is an actor of color portraying a role that is traditionally/historically understood to be white?

If so, then why do we allow this double standard to exist?

And don't feed me crap about opressor class stuff, either.

Oh, yes, I forgot that Denzel Washington was in Kenneth Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing." He was the Prince of Aragon, so Spanish, but Washington is a bit dark for that. I suppose Branagh was playing the Moorish angle. I have no problem with Washington being in it. He was fine in the role, and he's a good actor. So he carried it ably enough.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fiverx313

Then how is it not whitewashing to have "Hamilton" going around? Basically, we all know those characters very well and they're not the ethnicities of the actors portraying them.

Or is it only OK to let an actor of another ethnicity play a role when he or she is an actor of color portraying a role that is traditionally/historically understood to be white?

If so, then why do we allow this double standard to exist?

And don't feed me crap about opressor class stuff, either.

Oh, yes, I forgot that Denzel Washington was in Kenneth Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing." He was the Prince of Aragon, so Spanish, but Washington is a bit dark for that. I suppose Branagh was playing the Moorish angle. I have no problem with Washington being in it. He was fine in the role, and he's a good actor. So he carried it ably enough.

regarding hamilton and sergeant fury, i wasn't planning on using the phrase 'oppressor class' but, most fictional roles have been written by white people, for white people. usually for white, straight men. that's just the numbers. making some of those roles over into people of color (or women, or gay people) is correcting an imbalance that was created and perpetrated by, yes, the power structures in the society of the time.

that is why it is not equivalent to whitewashing roles of color. when you pretend those things are equivalent, you are ignoring history and context because it suits your 'it's all the same mindset' -- but that doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TinySickTears

It's ignorance, not to mention racism. There are whites (spanish, german ancestry), mestizos, blacks, arabs, and Amerindians. Whites and Mestizos make up 86% of the population.

Demographics of Columbia

What would we call their aversion to South and Central American whites, brown-washing?

IWubUMan!!!!! I'sDoI'sReallyDo!!!!!! Star for you.....

Wait, what ...Now the snowflakes are offended by someone emulating another race...oh, gawd

a reply to: fiverx313

regarding hamilton and sergeant fury, i wasn't planning on using the phrase 'oppressor class' but, most fictional roles have been written by white people, for white people. usually for white, straight men. that's just the numbers. making some of those roles over into people of color (or women, or gay people) is correcting an imbalance that was created and perpetrated by, yes, the power structures in the society of the time.

that is why it is not equivalent to whitewashing roles of color. when you pretend those things are equivalent, you are ignoring history and context because it suits your 'it's all the same mindset' -- but that doesn't make it true.

I don't understand. Altering a story or mythology or a fictional character for the purposes of identity politics might be the silliest thing I've ever heard. One of my favorite authors, James Baldwin got a lot of trouble from the "black community" because his main character in Giovanni's Room was white. It would be a shame to disfigure and spit upon Baldwin's writings for the purpose of identity politics.

a reply to: fiverx313

No.

If they want their own stories, then they need to write their own stories, not appropriate the stories of others. See how that works?

Clearly the playwrites who did Hamilton are talented men, so why not write about Frederick Douglass? Nat Turner? Harriet Tubman?

Why wouldn't their stories or voices be compelling when using the style of Hamilton? Why appropriate the narrative of a bunch of Old Dead White Men and whitewash it to suite their purpose? It isn't their story in that way. Isn't that the argument they make when someone like John Wayne plays Temujin?

here's an interesting bit... the dr. strange movie. tilda swinton's character was asian in the comic. she's specifically called out as being 'of celtic origin' in the movie. and there was an interesting dialogue to be had about that, i think. the character itself, the old asian master, repository of mystic wisdom, is a bit of a trope in itself. was it making it less racist to make the character not asian? was it unfair to an asian actor who could have given the role life while subverting some of the tropes?

and what to make of tilda's confusion at the uproar, and her decision to email margaret cho, an asian actress and comedian she didn't actually know, to explain it to her, as if margaret coudl speak for all asian actors or asian people? seemed out of touch to me.

and then, interestingly enough, i recently learned that dr. strange was originally depicted as asian in the comics as well. he started off as a minor character with distinct asian tropes in his appearance... and then as the decision was made to make him more of a featured character, he became as all-american and white as you could want. apparently comics audiences of the time weren't ready for an asian superhero main character. and come to think of it, we still don't have a lot of those.

there's more sensitivity to questions like this these days, and a lot of dialogue. i don't think that's a bad thing, at all. i definitely like seeing more than just white people and white stories on the screen (or the tv, or in books)... i've definitely seen a lot of that in my life so far. nice to have some changes.

a reply to: fiverx313

That was done to avoid offending the Chinese because the original character *was* an ancient Tibetan mystic. China has a very, very large movie market.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fiverx313

No.

If they want their own stories, then they need to write their own stories, not appropriate the stories of others. See how that works?

and they do. and they write their own takes on what has become part of cultural mythology.

i'm not sure why that's so upsetting to you. do you feel you've lost something?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fiverx313

That was done to avoid offending the Chinese because the original character *was* an ancient Tibetan mystic. China has a very, very large movie market.

and the character still could have been asian, without being tibetan, if that was a concern.

a reply to: fiverx313

No.

I am asking why POC can get away with it when white people cannot.

Do you not see the ginormous double standard?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't understand. Altering a story or mythology or a fictional character for the purposes of identity politics might be the silliest thing I've ever heard.

i'm not sure why you find it silly. stories are a part of culture. culture is always in flux. stories that don't evolve tend to die. stories that have been passed down through the ages have changed again and again.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: fiverx313

No.

I am asking why POC can get away with it when white people cannot.

Do you not see the ginormous double standard?

i feel that i explained why it is not actually a double standard.

would you like to remake porgy and bess with an all-white cast and then argue that it's just the same as hamilton? because i feel that would, again, for the record, be presenting an argument clearly stripped of context and reference to history, society and culture.

which is your prerogative, but it won't make you right.

ETA: YES, i am aware that porgy and bess is essentially a take on carmen. that does not change my essential point.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don't understand. Altering a story or mythology or a fictional character for the purposes of identity politics might be the silliest thing I've ever heard.

i'm not sure why you find it silly. stories are a part of culture. culture is always in flux. stories that don't evolve tend to die. stories that have been passed down through the ages have changed again and again.

Ah, so you approve of cultural appropriation, but only if it's cultures you approve of appropriating from the one culture you do not approve of.

It's good that you admit that.

a reply to: fiverx313

No, you only made the critical race theory argument I told you not to make because it's a crap argument and flawed from its inception.

Is there some other good reason beyond some races being more equal than others that you can defend this double standard?

a reply to: fiverx313

i'm not sure why you find it silly. stories are a part of culture. culture is always in flux. stories that don't evolve tend to die. stories that have been passed down through the ages have changed again and again.

I find it silly because it distorts the vision of an author for racist reasons.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ah, so you approve of cultural appropriation, but only if it's cultures you approve of appropriating from the one culture you do not approve of.

It's good that you admit that.

No, you only made the critical race theory argument I told you not to make because it's a crap argument and flawed from its inception.

Is there some other good reason beyond some races being more equal than others that you can defend this double standard?

no offense, but if you're going to childishly misconstrue what i say to fit your own view, then i think there's not much more to be said. you are clearly aware of the points i have made and dismiss them out of hand. how, i'm not sure. but that's your business.