Color blind casting or color quota casting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”

You know that the comparison is not the same at all. Having actors of a different race to play the founding fathers was done intentionally to make a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.

Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.

And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.

And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.

Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.

Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.

And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.

And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.

Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.

Okay. No. White people have NOT been cast in non-white rolesbecause of the scarcity of non-white actors. They have always existed and always been in this country since film and television began

this post right here is the problem with using film as any kind of history. The fact that non-white people did not appear in film or television from their inceptions does not mean that non-white people did not live here

This is wishful thinking that is a little bit nuts.

it is like the person who thinks people didn't use the word f*** in the 50s. If you read anything, that word prevalent among many crowds. People knew the word. Just because it wasn't in a movie doesn't mean it wasn't being used. You cannot use film and television as accurate representations of Life at any time really

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incidentally I thought that actor was really good in that role. Sort of funny how everyone is focused on his race but no one can remember if he was a solicitor, a barrister or a teller!

I also thought he was really good! I admit that I didn't know the difference between a solicitor and a barrister until I looked it up, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.

Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.

And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.

And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.

Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.

You are really going with that? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP DCUM is not representative of the real world. Most people feel the same way you do.

Could you supply some supporting statistics for that? TIA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just saw the new Mary Poppins movie. The issue of casting diversity is hardly new and I thought the color blind casting of Lin-Manuel Miranda in a "white" role was very effective because he was very believable in the role (not to mention he's incredibly talented). Yes, his accent was a little weird but I had no problem believing that he could have been a lamplighter in that era of London. Good casting.

Then there was the casting of black actors as one of the lawyers and the executive secretary to the man at the bank. Let's be real: in 1930s-1940s London (the implied era), there wouldn't have been black people in those jobs. By pretending that they would have, it glosses over the racism and discrimination of that era. Yes, this is a fantasy Disney movie, but it's highly unrealistic casting for a historical setting.

Which leads me to wonder if this was color "blind" casting or color "quota" casting? It felt like Disney was worried this period piece would feel too white so they decided to plop some black faces into roles that were historically inaccurate so they could take some credit for diversity on film. Isn't that tokenism?

Don't get me wrong, I totally support color blind casting when it makes sense, but there are certain times when this casting push gets distracting and frankly feels like pandering when placed into a historical setting.

I don't care about skin color, but Miranda was truly awful in that role.

Awful accent, awful singing. I guess he was casted there for his marketing value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”

You know that the comparison is not the same at all. Having actors of a different race to play the founding fathers was done intentionally to make a point.

True. A very misleading point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”

You know that the comparison is not the same at all. Having actors of a different race to play the founding fathers was done intentionally to make a point.

True. A very misleading point

But it is still historically inaccurate. Why does Hamilton get a pass? Disney's point is to not have a totally blindingly white cast in its big Christmas release film. Or maybe its point was that that world is fantasy so you can indulge in wishful thinking..That point is not good enough?

[Anonymous]

You must have not seen any Shakespeare productions at all for the past...more than 100 years, actually (Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet).

Welcome to the world! It's about capturing the spirit of a character, creating a mood. The assignment isn't "convince me that this is literally Germany in the 1940s," it is "tell me this story, and make me feel these feelings."

[Anonymous]

To think...all these silly ballet directors and producers have been casting PEOPLE all these years, when they should have been casting swans.

I wanted to see a Firebird, I tell you! A FireBIRD!

[Anonymous]

Only on DCUM could people be seriously arguing that it's racism if they include black actors and it's racism if they don't.

Sigh.

[Anonymous]

I hate all of you people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To think...all these silly ballet directors and producers have been casting PEOPLE all these years, when they should have been casting swans.

I wanted to see a Firebird, I tell you! A FireBIRD!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.

Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.

And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.

And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.

Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.

You are very, very wrong. There have been many, many actors of color who have been trying to break into Hollywood. Read about Sidney Poitier's struggles, or Chita Rivera, or George Takei or Nichelle Nichols, or the dozens of other actors of color who have tried for many years to break into the business. Most were limited to small bit parts specifically written for minorities and watched significant larger roles written for minorities played by white actors. It was very common for books to be adapted and minority characters rewritten for white actors, like Tilda Swinton in the 2017 movie Dr. Strange.

Typical white attitude, that despite the bigotry and white supremacy unwritten rules in Hollywood that severely restricted options for actors of color, PP says there weren't many non-white actors. There were many actors of color, just very few opportunities for actors of color.