|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 29, 2018 18:43:31 GMT
I'd recommend Patrick Stewart's white Othello with an all black cast as how it could work (you can look that up if you're curious, I didn't see it but very interesting it sounds like). Maybe we don't see how it would work until somebody dares to try it, but if we are preventing actors from even playing a part maybe we never get a chance to see or learn or appreciate anything different too.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Dec 29, 2018 19:55:06 GMT
On a sidenote: what about Johnny Depp playing native-american characters? Do you think it's okay? Also, and Phoenix? I think I've read somewhere that he has some indigenous heritage as well.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 2,117
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 29, 2018 20:04:21 GMT
On a sidenote: what about Johnny Depp playing native-american characters? Do you think it's okay? Also, and Phoenix? I think I've read somewhere that he has some indigenous heritage as well. Depp seems to have Cherokee grandfather from maternal side. About Phoenix, I've talked about his ancestry in a previous post here.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 29, 2018 20:07:08 GMT
I'd recommend Patrick Stewart's white Othello with an all black cast as how it could work (you can look that up if you're curious, I didn't see it but very interesting it sounds like). Maybe we don't see how it would work until somebody dares to try it, but if we are preventing actors from even playing a part maybe we never get a chance to see or learn or appreciate anything different too. I concur with what you're saying, but casting a white man in the role and then just leaving the rest of the cast as white is both pointless and pisses people off.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 30, 2018 19:12:03 GMT
I'd recommend Patrick Stewart's white Othello with an all black cast as how it could work (you can look that up if you're curious, I didn't see it but very interesting it sounds like). Maybe we don't see how it would work until somebody dares to try it, but if we are preventing actors from even playing a part maybe we never get a chance to see or learn or appreciate anything different too. I concur with what you're saying, but casting a white man in the role and then just leaving the rest of the cast as white is both pointless and pisses people off. But, the Stewart production is he a white man in the lead and the cast is black. So, if anything that wouldn't p*ss people off (would it?) it would require them to actually think and it certainly wouldn't be pointless (see below)? On the other hand p*ssing people off is part of the point of Art...... It was Stewart who came up with the concept. "I've been imagining myself playing Othello and, in a sense, preparing for it, since I was about 14," he said in a statement. "When the time came that I was old enough and experienced enough to do it, it was the same time that it no longer became acceptable for a white actor to put on blackface and pretend to be African. One of my hopes for this production is that it will continue to say what a conventional production of Othello would say about racism and prejudice... To replace the black outsider with a white man in a black society will, I hope, encourage a much broader view of the fundamentals of racism."
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 30, 2018 19:44:52 GMT
I am not even asking this literally, it's more rhetorical to discuss - heck- quetee raised a better example even - Joe Fiennes playing Michael Jackson in this decade and no one, zip, nada on here had any comment on that (he ain't Olivier either). Can you defend that? If so, I'd like to hear it - I could but in that case I wouldn't be buying my own defense of it....Olivier I legit defend though. I remember quite a few posters very vocally attacking the casting when it was announced. Don’t think there’s really anything to add since almost no one was defending it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 30, 2018 20:01:30 GMT
I am not even asking this literally, it's more rhetorical to discuss - heck- quetee raised a better example even - Joe Fiennes playing Michael Jackson in this decade and no one, zip, nada on here had any comment on that (he ain't Olivier either). Can you defend that? If so, I'd like to hear it - I could but in that case I wouldn't be buying my own defense of it....Olivier I legit defend though. I remember quite a few posters very vocally attacking the casting when it was announced. Don’t think there’s really anything to add since almost no one was defending it. Yeah no one has to defend or attack that example however. Rather, I sort of said there I would defend Olivier - a much bigger star/historical figure/actor but not Fiennes because of his lesser stature relative to the small scale of the project. I think just that specific distinction is interesting and hopefully some will add to that aspect of it. Nobody really cares about Fiennes per se specifically.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 30, 2018 20:03:11 GMT
I am not even asking this literally, it's more rhetorical to discuss - heck- quetee raised a better example even - Joe Fiennes playing Michael Jackson in this decade and no one, zip, nada on here had any comment on that (he ain't Olivier either). Can you defend that? If so, I'd like to hear it - I could but in that case I wouldn't be buying my own defense of it....Olivier I legit defend though. I remember quite a few posters very vocally attacking the casting when it was announced. Don’t think there’s really anything to add since almost no one was defending it. The only person who would probably be okay with a white man playing Michael Jackson would be Jackson himself.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 30, 2018 20:09:56 GMT
But, the Stewart production is he a white man in the lead and the cast is black. So, if anything that wouldn't p*ss people off (would it?) it would require them to actually think and it certainly wouldn't be pointless (see below)? On the other hand p*ssing people off is part of the point of Art...... It was Stewart who came up with the concept. "I've been imagining myself playing Othello and, in a sense, preparing for it, since I was about 14," he said in a statement. "When the time came that I was old enough and experienced enough to do it, it was the same time that it no longer became acceptable for a white actor to put on blackface and pretend to be African. One of my hopes for this production is that it will continue to say what a conventional production of Othello would say about racism and prejudice... To replace the black outsider with a white man in a black society will, I hope, encourage a much broader view of the fundamentals of racism."Stewart was fully aware of the pitfalls that playing that role would entail, so he attempted to try and invert it. It is commendable that in doing so, he gave minority actors the opportunity to play parts that they otherwise wouldn't, but it also invites the valid criticism of adding a negative racial tone to Iago and Desdemona, as if their race equals treachery and deception. With Stewart being the lone white guy in a sea of brown faces, and as the protagonist to boot, that opens up a whole different can of worms. I think there is something to be said by having a production of Othello with multi-ethnic casting, rather than simply inverting the color palette. Emphasize Othello's "otherness" beyond simply his skin color. The production mentioned above in using a Muslim actor is a strong case in point. There are clever "outs" that one could take to try and do a bold re-telling of the story that doesn't rely too heavily on race being the sole defining factor of Othello being different (religion, accent, etc.), but it feels like people fear that more subtle nuances might not translate well on stage or screen, so instead they just fall back on skin color, and if you're a white actor seeking to play Othello, there's not really a path you can take that will pan out well for you.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 12, 2019 22:26:50 GMT
Not whitewashing but interesting article in general about some things we've discussed, with Bryan Cranston discussing playing disabled: "As actors, we're asked to be other people, to play other people. If I, as a straight, older person, and I'm wealthy, I'm very fortunate, does that mean I can't play a person who is not wealthy, does that mean I can't play a homosexual? "I don't know, where does the restriction apply, where is the line for that? I think it is worthy for debate to discuss those issues." news.sky.com/story/bryan-cranston-defends-playing-disabled-character-in-the-upside-11601790?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jan 16, 2019 4:27:21 GMT
How about Pinky, 1949. Highly praised at the time (NYT, Kael) and I think the 2nd highest grossing movie of its year, which is something.
The casting of Jeanne Crain is the questionable element now. But I think it's an interesting case. For one, the character has to be so light-skinned that she'd capably pass as white; does that mean they shouldn't have casted a black/mixed actress, no. But does Crain still, for argument's sake, serve the material, I mean, yes. I think her casting hurt the reputation of the film, over the years, more than its quality. Her performance is actually pretty good, especially the first half where she's subtle in a way that feels modern, compared to other performances at the time... she's balancing a new felt pride, with buried shame, resentment, sorrow. Second half she's softened and more one-note.
More - we can't blame Elia Kazan bc he came onto the picture post-casting, and disagreed with it too. Can we blame the studio? Sure. But at the same time, was anybody else putting out a major release, vehemently pro-african american? Crain was nom'd for an Oscar, but so was Ethel Waters (!) whose performance is kinda terrific and whose career was given a boost.
Kael mentions the film's "vicious undercurrent" - and it's true, its portrayal of racism is effectively conveyed and at times chilling. Its bigger portrait of the South is detailed and builds to at least some surprising suggestions. But it's also sensitive (the grandmother relationship) and by the end moving despite feeling preachy too. So what I'm getting at - I don't think the casting offends more than other whitewashing examples. It's, for that time, at least arguably, understandable. What's damaged is the legacy of the film. Sure it plays on TCM now and then, but there's that "what if" - with an african american lead this would've been more effective, better remembered, a cultural and cinematic milestone? Or is it already that? eg Supreme Court overturned the Texas ban, etc.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2019 4:35:57 GMT
How about Pinky, 1949. Highly praised at the time (NYT, Kael) and I think the 2nd highest grossing movie of its year, which is something. The casting of Jeanne Crain is the questionable element now. But I think it's an interesting case. For one, the character has to be so light-skinned that she'd capably pass as white; does that mean they shouldn't have casted a black/mixed actress, no. But does Crain still, for argument's sake, serve the material, I mean, yes. I think her casting hurt the reputation of the film, over the years, more than its quality. Her performance is actually pretty good, especially the first half where she's subtle in a way that feels modern, compared to other performances at the time... she's balancing a new felt pride, with buried shame, resentment, sorrow. Second half she's softened and more one-note. More - we can't blame Elia Kazan bc he came onto the picture post-casting, and disagreed with it too. Can we blame the studio? Sure. But at the same time, was anybody else putting out a major release, vehemently pro-african american? Crain was nom'd for an Oscar, but so was Ethel Waters (!) whose performance is kinda terrific and whose career was given a boost. Kael mentions the film's "vicious undercurrent" - and it's true, its portrayal of racism is effectively conveyed and at times chilling. Its bigger portrait of the South is detailed and builds to at least some surprising suggestions. But it's also sensitive (the grandmother relationship) and by the end moving despite feeling preachy too. So what I'm getting at - I don't think the casting offends more than other whitewashing examples. It's, for that time, at least arguably, understandable. What's damaged is the legacy of the film. Sure it plays on TCM now and then, but there's that "what if" - with an african american lead this would've been more effective, better remembered, a cultural and cinematic milestone? Or is it already that? eg Supreme Court overturned the Texas ban, etc. Why couldn't they just cast someone who was fair. It's not like none existed back then. To me it is far more interesting to actually cast a person who could pass.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 16, 2019 4:42:46 GMT
Well, I guess since it was 1949, they couldn't show an interracial couple kissing.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 16, 2019 11:45:05 GMT
More - we can't blame Elia Kazan bc he came onto the picture post-casting, and disagreed with it too. Can we blame the studio? Sure. But at the same time, was anybody else putting out a major release, vehemently pro-african american? Crain was nom'd for an Oscar, but so was Ethel Waters (!) whose performance is kinda terrific and whose career was given a boost. Pinky is a great example here - the oldest film anyone has brought up by far - because I think a lot of this is confusing to people in terms of who actually "makes" the movies - clearly in a lot of these cases it's the actor themselves who made it happen - ie, Pacino more or less produced Scarface/Carlito's Way through his people, Olivier literally got Othello made etc. - so they are different than just being cast, they made those films to stretch and they did them to much acclaim (at least in some circles), the performances have greatness in them etc. But it changes the discussion on actors overall - ie I'd argue Pacino as a better actor than Newman (who never did anything close to whitewashing and nothing as out on a limb as Scarface/Carlito's) but a big part of that "better" are those roles and if you can legitimately say "Pacino shouldn't have ever played those roles to begin with!" it changes the whole discussion. Similarly Pinky is a pivotal African American film about race but not starring an African American in the lead, or directed by one so that you could marginalize it even more going forward. It's almost like I say often - the recent film that had some of the most interesting things to say about American race relations (imo) wasn't made without an African American in the principal cast at all, or directing (or even an American) - 3 Billboards......even now that's controversial to say, in 20 years well........it's hard to know how things will age.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 18, 2019 22:33:56 GMT
I wouldn't change the Wallach casting, absolutely not, or Pacino's - I mean, I'm still hoping he plays Dali or Onassis! I don't think another actor could've played either role as singularly, as vividly, as them. And if someone were to say, "Pacino shouldn't have developed it, he should know better" - isn't that a little patronizing? Take for example DiCaprio in The Revenant. The original script by Mark L Smith (on the Black List in '07) had a black protagonist. In fact Sam L Jackson was gonna star. Now what's worse? Rewriting history, portraying the white Hugh Glass as black, or changing the acclaimed script with a black Hugh Glass to white? Isn't that a little bit of a loaded question? It's a fictionalized version either way, and that argument has little to do with the quality of the movie or Leo's performance. Anyway! Just some random, caffeinated thoughts. It's widely agreed upon that Hugh Glass's character as portrayed in The Revenant is more a portrayal of the myth rather than the actual man himself, with Glass not having a son in real life or exacting his revenge against those who betrayed him the way he did in the film. The initial script (which was to be made by Chan-wook Park, originally) would've made Hugh Glass more of a mythical figure, as well as making a commentary on race in the era, treating him as more of a Paul Bunyan/Pecos Bill-type figure than any historical personage. I take your point in asking whether or not it is historically "responsible" to do something like this, but I think it boils down to a few questions: 1. What is the intent of changing the character's ethnicity? Is it merely cosmetic, or are there actual motives behind it, and if so, what are they? 2. Is it marginalizing that ethnicity in the process? 3. Furthermore, is it marginalizing any actors/performers by robbing them of opportunities they should be given the chance to pursue? If they had stuck with the initial idea of casting a black actor to play Hugh Glass, with the presumption of touching on the racial angle of Smith's original script (his race being a major reason why Fitzgerald abandons him to die), then I don't really have an issue with it. White male actors usually don't suffer for lack of quality roles, and the approach of The Revenant is dealing with larger-than-life characters as it is to the point that you could argue that historical accuracy wasn't a major sticking-point for the filmmakers.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 2,117
|
Post by cherry68 on Jan 18, 2019 22:39:13 GMT
MattsbyCharles Bronson was Tatar/lithuanian and he played different ethnicities as well. No big issues in seeing him as an Irish or a Mexican in his movies.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 19, 2019 8:58:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Oct 20, 2021 21:35:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 20, 2021 22:33:42 GMT
Well, I've defended Olivier a lot in Othello - not that he needs my defense .......and that writing by Armond White is sort of brilliant and on target - which he can sometimes be - but even he ignores all that she said (it's in The New Yorker link) - she went even farther in her review which I think he left out in his piece though he linked to the article (I may have missed this text?): Imagine a critic saying THIS today (see below) ...... It's an awful, politically correct world we live in - the Bright Sheng story is sad - but that's the dumbass world now - I probably offended someone - I've already said too much! - I mean we took down a statue of Thomas Jefferson yesterday .....um....sometimes I walk over to my bookcase look at my Chinatown DVD and hold it like an f'n weirdo - and mutter " They'll ban you only when they pry you, from my cold dead hands" - if I may quote the actor who played Moses newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/10/18/thomas-jefferson-statue-new-york-city-hall-2/ Kael: Part of the pleasure of the performance is, of course, the sheer feat of Olivier’s transforming himself into a Negro; yet it is not wasted effort, not mere exhibitionism or actor’s vanity, for what Negro actor at this stage in the world’s history could dare bring to the role the effrontery that Olivier does, and which Negro actor could give it this reading? I saw Paul Robeson and he was not black as Olivier is; Finlay can hate Olivier in a way Jose Ferrer did not dare—indeed did not have the provocation—to hate Robeson. Possibly Negro actors need to sharpen themselves on white roles before they can play a Negro. It is not enough to be: for great drama, it is the awareness that is everything.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Oct 21, 2021 2:29:47 GMT
If you're so traumatized by a single professor showing you a movie with blackface in it and not giving you a two hour lecture on why blackface is harmful, you need to go back to elementary school, as higher education is clearly too advanced for this fragile stage in your emotional development.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Oct 21, 2021 3:12:30 GMT
I didn't read the article thoroughly. Why was this particular version shown in a music composition class???
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 21, 2021 3:34:00 GMT
I didn't read the article thoroughly. Why was this particular version shown in a music composition class??? It says the course focused on analyzing Shakespeare’s works, and the intent was to show how the composer Giuseppe Verdi had adapted the play into an opera.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 21, 2021 12:48:49 GMT
If you're so traumatized by a single professor showing you a movie with blackface in it and not giving you a two hour lecture on why blackface is harmful, you need to go back to elementary school, as higher education is clearly too advanced for this fragile stage in your emotional development. It’s because college kids now think they’re entitled to be cottled and have a “safe space”
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Oct 21, 2021 14:29:20 GMT
If you're so traumatized by a single professor showing you a movie with blackface in it and not giving you a two hour lecture on why blackface is harmful, you need to go back to elementary school, as higher education is clearly too advanced for this fragile stage in your emotional development. It’s because college kids now think they’re entitled to be cottled and have a “safe space” who is this Olivia cook that complained? This reminds me of the USC situation where someone non black person complained that black people need to get a pass in taking the final cause of the George Floyd protests. If this is the same case, this case this needs to stop cause they are missing the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Oct 21, 2021 14:31:44 GMT
This post was inspired by my sometimes (but not that much!) arguing rival pupdurcs who I thought raised a really good point, below, bottom in bold in another thread. Taking this point as the basis for a whole other discussion, Pacino grew up in Harlem with a strong connection to Latino culture which (accents aside!) clearly infused his performances in two of his more iconic roles Scarface and Carlito's Way. These would be seen as "white washing" right now and maybe seen that way going forward - permanently. It was seen that way then of course too, but not to the extent that for example Carlito Brigante needed to be played by say Hector Elizondo, Raul Julia or Edward James Olmos rather than him because of well star power at the time and other factors too etc. I often use those two roles specifically as something that to me separates his talent relative to other great actors - but if he never got the chance to play them would that still hold true or if we change the way we look at them now? You run the risk of in a way "removing" him from those roles, in the same way Olivier (in black face makeup no less) is in large part removed from Othello which I have argued with stephen (but not that much!) about - a performance I would very much stand up for and that he is often lambasted for even putting on film even though major actors did the same for the role less well after him on stage. I'm not talking about blatant "poor" whitewashing where it's by consensus inferior work (Rooney in "Tiffany's" etc.) but highly acclaimed at least in some circles stuff. This of course is in a way just correcting of the unbalanced scales of history, and in some ways it won't change either - Hardy is playing Capone for example coming up. Nicholson arguably pulled off an Italian character (or not) depending on your POV, but he was nodded for it, and the question here is really do you even care of an actor at all going outside his ethnicity at all or is it all whitewashing? Have we now removed this attribute from the checklist of what's available to actors more or less forever now or is that not the case for the highest stature of actors and the project type? What are some of the best whitewashing performances or are there any? Of course not all of this is clearly whitewashing anyway - DDL in Nine isn't the same as Max Minghella in The Social Network right (?) but just as a general discussion what can't an actor do now - at what point is "that's what actors do - they pretend" lost?
Oh honey, I'm beautiful enough to make dumb mistakes... so I'm going to put this out there: Anthony Quinn (Manuel Antonio Rodolfo Quinn Oaxaca), who was Mexican, playing Zorba the Greek? Two very distinct and different cultures. Maybe TerryMontana can advise on how well he did?
Quinn also played Zampanò in Fellini's La Strada. I'm assuming Zampano was Italian with that name... over to you cherry68 Was his perf convincing?
Quinn also played an arab in Lawrence of Arabia, for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe & a BAFTA award.
Quinn also won an Oscar for playing... wait for it... ooh la la... Paul Gauguin, a Frenchman!
That's pretty impressive & versatile for a Mexican actor.
The bigger cultural problem that arises from imposing these politically correct restrictions is what happens when the Italians or Spanish, for example, want to make a movie about Jesus Christ?
Should they not be allowed unless every actor is Jewish/Middle Eastern?
Should all the Hollywood Biblical epics like The Ten Commandments, now be thrown in the trash?
Should I stop drinking Tequila because I'm not Mexican? And will anyone notice if I bulk buy the budget brands?
|
|