Cross-Racial Casting

[JKgo]

I kind of feel bad for the young actress portraying Ariel. I'm pretty sure she, and everyone else who worked on the film, must've given their 100% to make it a success, but her race seems to have taken over the discourse instead. Now, I fear people will remember the film only for this dumb race row.

With my cynical hat on, though, I have to blame Disney for this situation. They should've managed the discourse a bit better. From what I understand about paid posters, it seems pretty easy to control the marketing and narrative with enough budget, and that's one thing Disney does not lack the last time I checked.

 

[TexRex]

I kind of feel bad for the young actress portraying Ariel. I'm pretty sure she, and everyone else who worked on the film, must've given their 100% to make it a success, but her race seems to have taken over the discourse instead. Now, I fear people will remember the film only for this dumb race row.

With my cynical hat on, though, I have to blame Disney for this situation. They should've managed the discourse a bit better. From what I understand about paid posters, it seems pretty easy to control the marketing and narrative with enough budget, and that's one thing Disney does not lack the last time I checked.

Disney isn't responsible for bigoted ****wits.

 

[Liquid]

I don't really care about cross-racial casting or box-ticking when it comes to fiction, fairytales and the like. A black mermaid? So what, who cares? A fictional, shape-shifting alien with nine previous transformations turning into a woman? So what, who cares? A popular TV show with a gay couple? There've been plenty of straight couples on telly so why is this any different? Really, when it comes down to it you'll either watch it or you won't. Like voting with your wallets, vote with your viewing figures. If you don't want to watch something, guess what? There are plenty of other channels out there.

The only problem I have is when it's something being redone. One of the biggest gripes I have with the film-TV continuum is the lazy, uninspiring need to reboot, remake and restart everything. Give me an original story:

You want to redo a fairytale but have a black ensamble cast? Pick an African fairytale, I'm sure there are many out there.
You want to remake a popular Japanese-Korean show? Pick an original Japanese or Korean story, there're plenty we don't know about.

Studios and production companies aren't willing to take risks on something new. I'm sure shareholders need to be pleased and something safe will placate their bank managers, rehashing something familiar is the unflavoured meal they think everyone wants.

Remaking Ghostbusters with an all-female cast? Why not make an original story for four female leads? Ghostbusters was an original story. Reimagining a popular show or film with a diverse case for diversity's sake? Fine, inclusive employment in acting is important but why not give me a gripping new show or an original, complex and engaging story with a diverse cast for a dynamic production that means I simply have to watch?

Having more diverse casting or inverting the ensamble like an all-female cast instead of all-male is fine but constantly abusing pre-existing material, stories already told, to do so comes across very ham-fisted and as the most wet, soppy pandering imaginable.

 

[UKMikey]

Why not make an original story for four female leads?

I'm not defending the practice but Paper Girls was cancelled this week. I suspect the bigwigs and CEOs want to cash in on name recognition.

They've been remaking shows without diverse casts for years though so I kinda doubt the push for diversity is chiefly to blame for this trend.

 

[Liquid]

They've been remaking shows without diverse casts for years though so I kinda doubt the push for diversity is chiefly to blame for this trend.

Which is the point I was trying to make; diverse casts aren't the problem in entertainment, it doesn't (shouldn't) matter what the cast is, rehash syndrome is the core problem.

 

[UKMikey]

Which is the point I was trying to make; diverse casts aren't the problem in entertainment, it doesn't (shouldn't) matter what the cast is, rehash syndrome is the core problem.

Apologies. When I saw phrases like "wet, soppy pandering" I took it for a dig at people who support diversity rather than the unimaginative movie and programme makers who are actually to blame. I don't feel Carmen Jones (say) was a waste of time although @Joey D probably wouldn't watch it as a matter of preference.

 

[Sprite]

@Liquid said it so concisely I don’t have much to add. However there are occasionally exceptions when it comes to remakes of movies and shows.

Dune springs to mind of something recent which was successful despite a lot of hate for casting and remaking, despite they critics not being as vocal as much as they are about Little Mermaid.

The new HBO Hellraiser is also getting some flack online for recasting Pin Head. So much so the original actor has taken to twitter to offer his support of the casting. Going from a male role holder to female role holder has quite a few up in arms. The thing is, the new casting is closer to the book and so is look of Pinhead.

 

[Joey D]

I don't feel Carmen Jones (say) was a waste of time although @Joey D probably wouldn't watch it as a matter of preference.

Isn't Carmen Jones a work of fiction? When it comes to fictional works cast whomever, and if someone wants to make an "all black" version of a story I'm all for it. Like with the Little Mermaid, I see no reason why the mermaid can't be black or any other race for that matter. I probably wouldn't watch Carmen Jones though, not because of the cast, but because it's a musical and the only musical I've been able to stomach is the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

I hate pandering just to make money though. If a company doesn't care about racial diversity, it seems disingenuous to try to promote that. I feel the same way when it comes to pride month with companies that notoriously support anti-LGBT political candidates but change their profile picture on social media to a rainbow. They don't care about anything other than ticking a box because if they really cared, they wouldn't support people who are actively against LGBT rights. I don't know enough about the film/tv/theatre industry to know who they do and don't support though so I probably wouldn't really have that strong of an opinion.

 

[wfooshee]

... I think a black Ariel makes a lot of sense. Where are there tropical seas? The Caribbean. Who lives in the Caribbean? People with darker skin...

Those darker-skinned folks aren't native to the Caribbean. You know that, right?

My reaction on seeing the casting for The Little Mermaid wasn't that she was black, it was that she was a redhead. That was the incongruity to me... (Granted, a racial stereotype, but there are no natural redheads in that community that I'm aware of.) I couldn't care less about the race of an actor portraying a character, unless, like Famine stated above, it was a flagrant miscast of a historical figure.

 

[JKgo]

Out of genuine curiosity, I checked out the comment section of the Little Mermaid's official trailer on Youtube. Oh boy, now that's what you call a train wreck...

 

[TexRex]

(Granted, a racial stereotype, but there are no natural redheads in that community that I'm aware of.)

...

Merpeople?

 

[sirjim73]

...

Merpeople?

That explains Mer-mer-mer-Mrs Featherstone.

(UK Open All Hours reference)

 

[Tornado]

The real question is when it comes out and is a horrendous piece of trash like all of these have been since they started doing them, is this one going to get a pass because Ariel is black and got crap on the internet for it because of it? Like some extra extreme revisit of when people tried to gaslight everyone into thinking Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't awful because the all female cast meant if you noted that it was the schlock it was you must have been some mouth breathing CHUD of a Redditor.






I certainly think Disney is creatively bankrupt enough with these live action remakes to cast it as they have for that reason.

 

[Danoff]

The real question is when it comes out and is a horrendous piece of trash like all of these have been since they started doing them, is this one going to get a pass because Ariel is black and got crap on the internet for it because of it? Like some extra extreme revisit of when people tried to gaslight everyone into thinking Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't awful because the all female cast meant if you noted that it was the schlock it was you must have been some mouth breathing CHUD of a Redditor.

I think it's somewhat doomed to failure, but who knows - maybe it will somehow buck the trend. I agree that all of the live-action remakes have been quite painful. I've only seen a few, but the rest don't seem to be getting any love. I'd expect nothing less from this one, and I seriously doubt that it will somehow have success just because of some racist people online.

That being said... 2016 Ghostbusters was actually pretty fun. It wasn't as fun as the original, or as creative, but it was fun. It fills the same void that the original ghostbusters fills actually - which is a "scary" movie that an 8-9 year old can watch without being absolutely freaked. There aren't a ton of movies in that domain, and my kids like to put on movies like the 2016 ghostbusters right around Halloween. I'd imagine our household is in for a viewing of that very movie here in a handful of weeks.

 

[TexRex]

lol. lmao.

STOP ERASING OUR HISTORY!

 

[UKMikey]

lol. lmao.

I wonder how the Wireheads'd feel if someone remade Disney's Song Of The South but with a white guy playing Remus and the plantation owning family being people of colour. FIGHTBACK!

 

[Famine]

You may need to nudge a specific kind of nerd for this one...

 

[TexRex]

I wonder how the Wireheads'd feel if someone remade Disney's Song Of The South but with a white guy playing Remus and the plantation owning family being people of colour. FIGHTBACK!

Validated. "See? Racism goes both ways."

(Racism goes all sorts of ways, of course.)

 

[UKMikey]

Validated. "See? Racism goes both ways."

(Racism goes all sorts of ways, of course.)

I suspect the authoritarian right wouldn't like to see people of colour holding the whip hand over whites, even in fiction. Because it'd confirm their deepest atavistic fears that African-Americans want vengeance for decades of slavery and Jim Crow. If true, then depicting a family of black people owning white slaves would play into this.

I could be wrong though. Maybe it'd just validate their victim culture. But I don't think it's just about "historical accuracy" with them judging by their choice of targets.

 

[sanrensho]

Is it okay to cast millionaires in the roles of poor people? That's perhaps a more interesting question, and one that might lead to actual social justice.

 

[UKMikey]

Is it okay to cast millionaires in the roles of poor people? That's perhaps a more interesting question, and one that might lead to actual social justice.

Sounds like the plot of Trading Places or a gameshow like Secret Millionaire.

Social justice isn't just limited to wealth inequality.

 

[sanrensho]

Sounds like the plot of Trading Places or a gameshow like Secret Millionaire.

Social justice isn't just limited to wealth inequality.

I agree that issues of social inequality aren't limited to economics. But some of we [activists] believe that economic inequality is fundamental, ie economic injustice/inequality is the cause of racism and disease.

 

[UKMikey]

I agree that issues of social inequality aren't limited to economics. But some of we [activists] believe that economic inequality is fundamental, ie economic injustice/inequality is the cause of racism and disease.

And others believe that having more money doesn't necessarily make everything all better. A lot of rich people are dicks too.

 

[Populuxe]

lol. lmao.

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but the absolute entitlement to his racism by "DJColdCutz" is staggering.

This is my 10,000th post, by the way.

 

[LeMansAid]

Is it okay to cast millionaires in the roles of poor people? That's perhaps a more interesting question, and one that might lead to actual social justice.

The sad thing is that often the most successful actors are the ones that may or may not act reasonably well but are not good enough (or sometimes choose not?) to properly erase/mask their real personas while performing roles. A lot of people seem to want a certain familiarity across roles when choosing their favourite actors. I dare say that if Billy Bob Thornton was as different to his real life self in all roles as he is in Sling Blade he'd be nowhere near as popular, for example. If a hugely successful, millionaire actor can well enough distract me from who they are in real life and properly present as a poor person then there's every chance I'll be happy to watch them. At that point, though, I'd just as happily watch a genuinely poor person and, outside of the moment, enjoy the fact that they may get a leg up in life through it. Not my place to tell financers how to spend / waste / wisely invest their money, though.

It's about suspension of disbelief. Sometimes the old "the book is better" argument is actually about the quality of content, and sometimes it's just about expectations. It's wrong to assume that cross-racial casting protestations are racist, since there's plenty of room for the criticisms being based simply on expectations and the want for the suspension of disbelief. People using cringeworthy terms such as "woke" to express their protestations does not denote racism, either.

I took a moment to watch the Ariel trailer. Without any preconceived ideas about the skin colour that Ariel "should" have I'm sure that I'd find the fact that she's clearly not actually under water when she's supposed to be under water distracting but not her skin colour. There's room for getting used to an unexpected version of a character for the sake of them ultimately giving a better experience but if the only thing to gain is "representation in the industry" I will be in opposition, as person who seeks the greatest level of suspension of disbelief in my entertainment. Race, gender, level of wealth, accent, hairstyle, height, weight..... just give me what I expect unless you're really going to make the "pain" worth it.

 

[McLaren]

lol. lmao.

"She's as established in history as Malcolm X is".

I can't even laugh at that as much as I want to. That blows my mind that someone actually tried to link a talking, animated Mermaid to one of the most historical human rights activists....

 

[SnakeOfBacon]

I was really confused at first when I heard about the movie, looked it up and misread the star as Halle Berry. "No wonder there's a controversy, she's way too old to CG into a teenage mermaid." I thought.

 

[wfooshee]

"She's as established in history as Malcolm X is".

I can't even laugh at that as much as I want to. That blows my mind that someone actually tried to link a talking, animated Mermaid to one of the most historical human rights activists....

My eyes rolled so far back I could see my brain.

 

[Imari]

"She's as established in history as Malcolm X is".

I can't even laugh at that as much as I want to. That blows my mind that someone actually tried to link a talking, animated Mermaid to one of the most historical human rights activists....

It only makes slightly more sense if you assume that they think that Malcolm X is also in fact fictional. Which is also several flavours of dumb, but they strike me as the sort of person who would absolutely like to believe that this influential black man who advocated incredibly strongly for his race is just as imaginary as the singing fish girl.

 

[Pupik]

lol. lmao.

...ergo, The Jetsons are a part of future historical record.

Eep-opp-ork-ah-ah now has a triple meaning.