|
Lord Krangdar posted:Because the people making the movie decided they wanted Benedict Cumberbatch to play the role. Why? And why should the politics and effect of that decision in this context be immune from consideration? quote:Don't say its not an issue of violating canon and then bring canon into it. It's not an issue of violating canon, but the tension the film has with what's come before means that we look where the changes are made. Like, your constant refrain that it's no big deal, nothing to see here, because it's a reboot presupposes they changed everything, when they really didn't change much at all! It's a reboot and it's still whitewashing Khan. quote:The distinction is that when the character's specific race is important to the film its important to the casting, when its not its not. Casting a white person as Django would have been needlessly confusing and would have weakened the film, but so would casting Jason Momoa. I doubt Tarantino cast Jamie Foxx as Django as part of a fight against systemic racism in Hollywood. What's the line for "when it's important to the casting"? You said it matters when race "serves the story." What does that mean, then? I would also argue that Khan being white doesn't do much for the film's themes - certainly not what Khan being nonwhite would have done. Hollis posted:I think people aren't looking at the flip side of the argument which is say if he had been cast as a well known Sikh actor or Muslim actor then it would have just been loving horrible. Like the movie would fall apart. It would be awful and bring more criticism than if they had a white character. This has been dealt with throughout the thread, so don't worry, people are looking at it! Hollywood's racism in the 60s and 80s does not justify its racism now. Though I have no idea what you mean by "it's even truer to the original idea of Khan."
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
The Warszawa posted:
So you would argue it does impact the themes, then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:So you would argue it does impact the themes, then. Yeah, absolutely - changing Khan's race does. I'm not arguing that race only matters (in text or in casting) when it "serves the story." Whether Prince-of-Persiaing Khan (casting white for an ostensibly nonwhite character) does so is more questionable. Casting white for Django would have also impacted the themes, that doesn't make it good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Something people continually miss about Star Trek is that it's not about exploring other worlds and cultures, it's about exploring our own culture and using imaginary space people as a personification of aspects of ouselves. It veers back and forth between exploring fundamental aspects of human nature and current social issues, but it has never been a National Geographic In Space in anything but a superficial way. The films dress this up with more action scenes but they still cover the same ground (See Wrath of Khan for the former, Undiscovered Country for the latter). 2. I wish ST was actually about exploring other worlds though. Or at least more about it. In general. Humans are so BORING!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Why? And why should the politics and effect of that decision in this context be immune from consideration? Ok so now you're suddenly interested in the why part? Well we don't know exactly. Why is anyone cast in anything? It could be as simple as they liked his sneer, or he's a friend of a friend of Abrams, or whatever. Once again, we don't know beyond that quote from those two women who do casting for Bad Robot productions. The point was that I don't think anybody involved in the film said to themselves "this Khan will be white now", and I know you probably wouldn't claim that either but you don't seem to have fully understood that importan distinction. They liked a specific actor for the role and he happens to be a white person, that's all. quote:It's not an issue of violating canon, but the tension the film has with what's come before means that we look where the changes are made. Canon is the only reason you have to think this Khan was a role of color "on the page", which was where you claimed to draw the line. I feel like they changed a whole lot. The ship's engineering section is now a brewery, for example, and the ship looks more like an Apple Store than a 60s diner. Then there's the changes in technology and the distance between planets, details like that. Someone more familiar with TOS could probably list all the changes (and which ones can't be explained solely by Nero's time meddling), but I'm not that guy. You can keep repeating this term "whitewashing" but an ominous label alone will not convince me; I'd have to be a chump to fall for that kind of argument. "What, you're defending whitewashing!?" is the same kind of terminology game argument as "What, you're against the Patriot Act!? You hate America!?" or "So you do want children left behind!?". quote:What's the line for "when it's important to the casting"? The distinction is that Django Unchained is a film about a black person facing racial discrimination because he is black. Therefore the role and the actor playing that role had to be black, and they were. Nothing about this film requires this new Khan to be a person of color, except for canon and your personal feelings on the matter (both outside of the film). Nothing requires him to white either, but the filmmakers wanted Benedict Cumberbatch in the role so now this Khan is white. Even if you disagree, why is that distinction so hard to understand? This discussion is really going in circles, so maybe we should wrap it up. Even though I may seem like I haven't conceded any of your points, this has made me think differently about Hollywood's racial problems and question some of my own assumptions. I just maintain that this whole Khan issue is a dumb example of a real problem. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
I do think that they should have cast an Indian as Khan, or at least someone non-white- but at the same time I really liked Cumberbatch's performance and thought he did really well, so it's sort of a bird-in-the-hand-worth-two-in-the-bush thing. It's hard to compare an actual performance to a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:The distinction is that Django Unchained is a film about a black person facing racial discrimination because he is black. Therefore the role and the actor playing that role had to be black, and they were. Nothing about this film requires this new Khan to be a person of color, except for canon and your personal feelings on the matter (both outside of the film). Nothing requires him to white either, but the filmmakers wanted Benedict Cumberbatch in the role so now this Khan is white. Even if you disagree, why is that distinction so hard to understand? None of the main crew need to be white, yet despite the fact that it's not the 60's anymore only one of them is black.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:None of the main crew need to be white, yet despite the fact that it's not the 60's anymore only one of them is black. I already said earlier in the thread that it would make more sense to me if that was the controversy here, rather than the specific focus on the racial canon of one role and this weird rule about roles of color being immutable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
It's really interesting that this is being focussed on to the exclusion of all other aspects of the film!!! Like a dartboard grid with two axes (white/no, good/bad), and everyone gets a toss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok so now you're suddenly interested in the why part? Well we don't know exactly. Why is anyone cast in anything? It could be as simple as they liked his sneer, or he's a friend of a friend of Abrams, or whatever. Once again, we don't know beyond that quote from those two women who do casting for Bad Robot productions. The "why" doesn't matter insofar as good intent does not absolve a bad act. It does matter insofar as it will help you understand that people's "moment of inspiration flashes of brilliance" aren't immune from social influences like systemic racism. I fully understand the distinction but I reject its importance, especially considering that reliance on "oh, you know, it could've been anything!" comes up pretty much every time a person of color gets screwed over. If you've ever interacted with the law of employment discrimination, you'd know that "there was just something about him," or "friend-of-a-friend" is pretty much how the systemic preference of white candidates over nonwhite candidates gets brushed off. quote:Canon is the only reason you have to think this Khan was a role of color "on the page", which was where you claimed to draw the line. Yes, when a role is written in reliance in previous material, that previous material becomes part of "on the page," like how the script Hook probably didn't explicitly lay out the total origin of Peter Pan's adventures with Wendy in Neverland and yet still relied on them. You're failing to make the distinction between "the problem is they changed canon" and "we can look at the implications of where they've deviated from the past of the franchise." The decision to deviate is a choice, and looking at the consequences of those choices in context - not some fake-rear end "we can't ever look at anything that's come before" line. Hey, it's always possible that this isn't a problem because in the film itself, they haven't explicitly states that Hollywood has a problem with systemic racism! Would you equally defend white Uhura or Sulu? quote:You can keep repeating this term "whitewashing" but an ominous label alone will not convince me; I'd have to be a chump to fall for that kind of argument. "What, you're defending whitewashing!?" is the same kind of terminology game argument as "What, you're against the Patriot Act!? You hate America!?" or "So you do want children left behind!?". It's what pretty much everyone uses to describe this phenomenon, if it's "ominous" it's because it describes a really pervasive and lovely thing. I was emphasizing that the "reboot" aspect doesn't actually wipe the slate clean. quote:The distinction is that Django Unchained is a film about a black person facing racial discrimination because he is black. Therefore the role and the actor playing that role had to be black, and they were. Nothing about this film requires this new Khan to be a person of color, except for canon and your personal feelings on the matter (both outside of the film). Nothing requires him to white either, but the filmmakers wanted Benedict Cumberbatch in the role so now this Khan is white. Even if you disagree, why is that distinction so hard to understand? Laurence Olivier played Othello in Othello, which is about a black person facing discrimination because he is black (obviously this is a gross oversimplification). Is it just that your definition of "has to be a person of color" involves Old Spock saying "he's the Sikhest Sikh that ever did Sikh"? Do you get that identity can inform characters, themes, and even plot even without it being central to the story? If they make a Black Panther movie, can a white person play T'Challa? Why or why not? Lord Krangdar posted:I already said earlier in the thread that it would make more sense to me if that was the controversy here, rather than the specific focus on the racial canon of one role and this weird rule about roles of color being immutable. This is the controversy because if they're not casting people of color for roles that have previously been and were presented as people of color to begin with, they sure as poo poo aren't casting us for roles that were originated as white people. You've also missed the distinction I've been making throughout, which is that this hardline stance on "immutability" is a product of protecting the opportunities that people of color have carved out to date from being erased - because giving that up in the hopes that a future Kirk will be black or brown is goddamn stupid. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
It's interesting how people keep talking about Django as being immutably black: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(character) He was originally white, before being Japanese, and is now African-American. The character was changed on the textual level, and recast in accordance with that textual change. SMG is arguing that Cumberbatch's casting is also a textual change, along with the name "John Harrison," and the deliberate assertion of his identity in the second brig scene. Frankly, I think that the whitewashing is a product of a lack of thoughtfulness on the part of JJ Abrams/the casting director. Without recognizing the significance of the original character's race (or ethnicity, depending on how you read it) he went with an actor whom he believed to be capable of playing the role, and didn't mean to intentionally deny opportunities to actors of color--his prejudices and general lack of awareness of more apt casting options took care of that for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Frankly, I think that the whitewashing is a product of a lack of thoughtfulness on the part of JJ Abrams/the casting director. Without recognizing the significance of the original character's race (or ethnicity, depending on how you read it) he went with an actor whom he believed to be capable of playing the role, and didn't mean to intentionally deny opportunities to actors of color--his prejudices and general lack of awareness of more apt casting options took care of that for him. It's basically this. The worst thing about systemic racism is that it doesn't need help to perpetuate harms against people of color, it just needs acquiescence - conscious or otherwise. SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's really interesting that this is being focussed on to the exclusion of all other aspects of the film!!! Like a dartboard grid with two axes (white/no, good/bad), and everyone gets a toss. Only it's not because people are having multiple parallel conversations at once?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:The "why" doesn't matter insofar as good intent does not absolve a bad act. It does matter insofar as it will help you understand that people's "moment of inspiration flashes of brilliance" aren't immune from social influences like systemic racism. I never said that people's "moment of inspiration flashes of brilliance" are immune from social influences like systemic racism. Especially since you take this "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude to that issue. It's more that its not realistic to expect creative people to constantly be second guessing their gut decisions, even if that means Hollywood's attitudes will be slower to progress than would be ideal to you or I. Filmmakers are trying to make films, which is a long, arduous, frustrating, often irrational process. They can't afford to second guess every single decision in the moment in order to meet your own idiosyncratic standards, since their primary goal must be to make a film and not to solve Hollywood's systemic problems. You're bringing in a lot of baggage here which I don't think is warranted. Sure after the fact you can fit this one casting decision, which again you really know nothing about, into that larger pattern but that's because of the lens with which you're choosing to view the situation and not necessarily anything grounded in the reality of that decision. quote:Yes, when a role is written in reliance in previous material, that previous material becomes part of "on the page," like how the script Hook probably didn't explicitly lay out the total origin of Peter Pan's adventures with Wendy in Neverland and yet still relied on them. When making an adaptation or new entry in a franchise filmmakers can choose to rely on or reference past material but they can also choose not to. quote:You're failing to make the distinction between "the problem is they changed canon" and "we can look at the implications of where they've deviated from the past of the franchise." The decision to deviate is a choice, and looking at the consequences of those choices in context - not some fake-rear end "we can't ever look at anything that's come before" line. Hey, it's always possible that this isn't a problem because in the film itself, they haven't explicitly states that Hollywood has a problem with systemic racism! Would you equally defend white Uhura or Sulu? Casting a white Uhura or Sulu wouldn't have made much sense and would have needlessly confused the story of ST09, which was still playing on the line between reboot and continuation (which is probably why the main crew were all cast as the same colors as they were in TOS). So if that happened I might suspect it was motivated by bad attitudes towards race. Also it would be a shame because Zoe Saldana is really good as Uhura, even though the writers haven't given her as much material to work with as I would like. On the other hand, except for the (out of place, to me) cameo by Nemoy STID didn't seem to concerned with past canon at all. quote:It's what pretty much everyone uses to describe this phenomenon, if it's "ominous" it's because it describes a really pervasive and lovely thing. I was emphasizing that the "reboot" aspect doesn't actually wipe the slate clean. Ok, but a term is not an argument. Are you familiar with the expression "the map is not the territory?". quote:Laurence Olivier played Othello in Othello, which is about a black person facing discrimination because he is black (obviously this is a gross oversimplification). I'm not familiar with that particular adaptation but I don't see why its really relevant here, since I never argued that nobody has ever innapropriately "whitewashed" a role ever before. That sounds like a counter-productive and dumb decision but I haven't seen it, so who knows. quote:Is it just that your definition of "has to be a person of color" involves Old Spock saying "he's the Sikhest Sikh that ever did Sikh"? Do you get that identity can inform characters, themes, and even plot even without it being central to the story? Nothing at all in this specific film suggests that Khan should have been a "role of color on the page". This Khan's race is neither central to the story nor really important at all in my mind. quote:If they make a Black Panther movie, can a white person play T'Challa? Why or why not? I'm not too familiar with that character, but from the few comics with him I've read his ethnicity and heritage seem pretty important to the character and his storylines so making him white would be hard to justify. quote:This is the controversy because if they're not casting people of color for roles that have previously been and were presented as people of color to begin with, they sure as poo poo aren't casting us for roles that were originated as white people. Except sometimes they do. And I didn't say I expect Hollywood to have better attitudes in that way, just that would be a better direction to agitate (to use your term) for. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Benedict Cumberbatch played the hell out of the role to the point that the original looks loving corny in comparison. I mean it was a great movie ,but he blew it out of the water. He overcame racial stereotyping to do this. This movie kicked rear end and was really good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Hollis posted:Benedict Cumberbatch played the hell out of the role to the point that the original looks loving corny in comparison. I mean it was a great movie ,but he blew it out of the water. He overcame racial stereotyping to do this. Cumberbatch has a nice face, that's what I got out of his role. Unfortunately it was frozen in one expression for most of the film. Bringing Khan back was a useless piece of fanbait that made the backstory more complicated than it needed to be. I noticed they were reluctant to outright mention the Eugenics Wars, which will make it hilariously inexplicable to non-fans when they start calling Khan 'a tyrant' at the end. It was a good movie, but I wish Abrams would have tried something than taking just the biggest, shiniest toys out of the Star Trek box.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Hollis posted:Benedict Cumberbatch played the hell out of the role to the point that the original looks loving corny in comparison. I mean it was a great movie ,but he blew it out of the water. He overcame racial stereotyping to do this. I'm gonna leave aside Wrath of Khan even though it's memorable because I hear Montalban was having legitimate trouble acting as someone other than the dude from Fantasy Island. In Space Seed, Khan was a passionate guy who actively attempted to engage with his circumstances. He made charismatic appeals to others, and used ambiguity over his identity to put his opposite numbers off guard. He was passionate; his main Starfleet compatriot was a woman he seduced, more or less, by identifying her romantic image of the past and pressing on it, hard. Until such time as he attempts to jack Kirk's Star Trek in order to (presumably) take over a colony world and resume Khanning it up, the Starfleet officers admit to a certain respect for him, something like a modern set of naval officers might acknowledge Napoleon. (Interlude: In Wrath of Khan, Khan has a towering rage boner and is out to gently caress Kirk to death with it. I would say this version of Khan is very simple, and if we are taking that version of the character as our sole reference Cumberbatch did provide a more nuanced portrayal. HOWEVER, Khan was chosen BECAUSE of his presence in the show, as I recall, so consulting the performance in Space Seed seems fair.) I feel the version of Khan we see here fails because he seems to completely lack passion. He does not attempt to engage with Kirk other than some perfunctory 'wouldn't you do anything for your crew? captain? kirk?' and essentially behaves much as he did as Sherlock. This may have been a deliberate marketing decision, but I didn't feel he had meaningful presence or a demonstration of charisma; what we got was more or less a prop labelled 'khan, but now with that thing you like.' Indeed, the strongest part of the reactions between Kirk and Khan were largely on Kirk's side, with Chris Pine (who I almost think is carrying the character of Jim Kirk better than the Shat did) combining fury at 'Khan's' crime with apparent disbelief - 'look at this loving guy, is he seriously doing a Grinch smile at me, Spock?' I don't know if Cumberbatch could've done Khan with more passion. I don't think he did an awful performance, just an awful Khan, in the same way that if Zach Quinto was emoting strongly the great majority of the time, he would be playing Spock poorly. e: As for the corniness, I would agree that there was a certain weighty, scenery-chewing hamminess to the TOS episode, but I would say that it was uniform - you could consider it simply part of the 'style' of a nearly-fifty-year-old TV drama. It would have been straightforward to have a calm, warm, jovial Khan seeking to solicit Kirk's aid - but instead they cast Cumberbatch, "because reasons," of whatever sort. Nessus fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
I think this Khan was lacking warmth and charisma, but gained in menace. He also did a good job getting across his sense of superiority over others. And in fairness, the circumstances Khan was in during this movie called less for charm and more for manipulation and aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm glad Cumberbatch didn't try to be Montalban's Khan in the same way I'm glad Pine doesn't try to be Shatner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
Why wouldn't this Khan have a hate-boner, too? He's been wronged by Starfleet. He had no reason to be warm and charismatic. Kirk has already seen what he's capable of. Edited to add: Although, we do see some charisma and manipulation when Khan talks about Kirk's conscience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Maybe Harrison was lying about being Khan? Maybe he claimed to be Khan because either Khan had died (so he took his identity), or was still frozen (and he took Khan's identity to protect him). Of course, it could be all hand waved away with this being an alternative time created by Nero when he went back in time. "But Davros1," you say, "we've already dismissed that hypothesis since Khan was born in the 20th century, so Nero traveling back in time wouldn't have affected that." But Nero traveling back in time could have affected that. Since Nero altered the timeline, that means he's most likely affected all the times the Enterprise traveled back in time in the original timeline. "The beat of a butterflies wings" and all that. Maybe their postponed time travel resulted in a timeline where the eugenics resulted in a Khan who looks more like Sherlock Holmes and less like Mr. Roarke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
EVERYBODY STOP REPORTING PEOPLE FOR TALKING ABOUT THE RACIAL ASPECTS OF THIS MOVIE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:It's interesting how people keep talking about Django as being immutably black: Django Unchained's Django is not an adaptation of Franco Nero's character Django anymore than Pam Grier's Jackie Brown is an adaptation of Steven Keats's character Jackie Brown in The Friends of Eddie Coyle
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Django Unchained's Django is not an adaptation of Franco Nero's character Django anymore than Pam Grier's Jackie Brown is an adaptation of Steven Keats's character Jackie Brown in The Friends of Eddie Coyle So wait, are you saying that he's based on an Elmore Leonard character?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
You're post reminds me of how awesome it was to see Peter Weller on screen again, it was just such a out there casting choice I think but I had forgotten he was such a drat fine actor.  It's strange that he's consistently done really great films and projects through his career and is pursueing a PHD. That's so great.I love Peter Weller and didn't even know he was in the movie so it was a awesome surprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:So wait, are you saying that he's based on an Elmore Leonard character? He's based on Jango Fett I think. (Leonard's version of the character was named Burke, the name Jackie Brown comes from The Friends of Eddie Coyle which is one of those mid-70s low-budget crime thrillers that Tarantino eats up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
penismightier posted:He's based on Jango Fett I think. Honestly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a character in the general oeuvre of "darkly funny action/thriller/crime film" that isn't somewhat inspired, influenced, or just correlated with an Elmore Leonard character or plot. The guy's prolific. Lord Krangdar posted:I never said that people's "moment of inspiration flashes of brilliance" are immune from social influences like systemic racism. Especially since you take this "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude to that issue. It's more that its not realistic to expect creative people to constantly be second guessing their gut decisions, even if that means Hollywood's attitudes will be slower to progress than would be ideal to you or I. I mean, I think that fighting systemic racism is more important than giving institutions and individuals a free pass to do whatever the hell they want without criticism. You do know that no one's talking about banning, right? Just saying that doing it is a bad thing. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect "creative people" to review and revise their works - that's why we have reshoots, recasting, second auditions, second drafts, deleted scenes, etc. etc. For someone who got condescending about me not understanding the creative process, you're sure demonstrating a blistering ignorance here. The whole goddamn process involves constantly second-guessing decisions, why should this be exempted? As for my "attitude," it's more a statement of fact. In a racist system, the default is racism - if you're not actively uprooting it - considering where it's influencing and how to fight that - you're letting it persist. quote:Filmmakers are trying to make films, which is a long, arduous, frustrating, often irrational process. They can't afford to second guess every single decision in the moment in order to meet your own idiosyncratic standards, since their primary goal must be to make a film and not to solve Hollywood's systemic problems. You know, you keep saying my "idiosyncratic" standards like writers of color aren't talking about this as a bad thing, when they are (and they've been linked!), and it's not like it's some obscure and byzantine idea to cast people of color when the role is a person of color. That said, I think that an artist has an obligation - the same as any human - to work for justice with the tools she or he has available. Art is political. quote:You're bringing in a lot of baggage here which I don't think is warranted. Sure after the fact you can fit this one casting decision, which again you really know nothing about, into that larger pattern but that's because of the lens with which you're choosing to view the situation and not necessarily anything grounded in the reality of that decision. What "baggage" do you see me bringing in, besides "hey systemic racism that's bad!" quote:When making an adaptation or new entry in a franchise filmmakers can choose to rely on or reference past material but they can also choose not to. Yes, and the decision to do so is open to analysis and criticism! I'm not sure you've quite grasped the key element of this, which is that the right to choose is not the right to be absolved from the consequences of that choice, like your film supporting and entrenching systemic racism. quote:Casting a white Uhura or Sulu wouldn't have made much sense and would have needlessly confused the story of ST09, which was still playing on the line between reboot and continuation (which is probably why the main crew were all cast as the same colors as they were in TOS). So if that happened I might suspect it was motivated by bad attitudes towards race. Also it would be a shame because Zoe Saldana is really good as Uhura, even though the writers haven't given her as much material to work with as I would like. I've bolded a serious problem here: no one is talking about the motives for whitewashing Khan as the reason why whitewashing is a problem. It does not matter why JJ Abrams personally felt that Cumberbatch was white for the role, because it had the effect of further marginalizing people of color. Before you go "oh, so now the why doesn't matter," you should note that the point of bringing up systemic racism's influence on the individual whys is a way of illustrating that even people without racist intentions can further racism. The other problem is that your framework gives us no means to hold "creative people" accountable for even baldly pernicious poo poo, because that would be unreasonably asking them to second guess their decisions. quote:On the other hand, except for the (out of place, to me) cameo by Nemoy STID didn't seem to concerned with past canon at all. And yet, there it is, right there in the film. (Also, Section 31, KHAAAAAAAAN, the warp core repair, Ketha Province, and etc. assorted winks, nods, and references all show a deep concern with past canon). quote:Ok, but a term is not an argument. Are you familiar with the expression "the map is not the territory?". You know, if my posts in this thread hadn't laid out an argument for 1) why this is whitewashing and 2) why that is bad, you might have a point. I thought it was pretty clearly established what we were arguing over. quote:I'm not familiar with that particular adaptation but I don't see why its really relevant here, since I never argued that nobody has ever innapropriately "whitewashed" a role ever before. Well, we're talking about "immutable" roles of color (for which my view is more accurately described as "roles of color that are immutable barring the actual eradication of systemic racism") and a role quote:Nothing at all in this specific film suggests that Khan should have been a "role of color on the page". This Khan's race is neither central to the story nor really important at all in my mind. Yes, I imagine the filmmakers realized how offensive and ridiculous it would be to try to make it really explicit that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing a North Indian Sikh. The problem is that making sure that your whitewashed role doesn't indicate the character's original background doesn't cure the problem - you're trying to disregard the preexisting character when you can't actually erase the context in which these decisions are made. Unless you're seriously arguing that Abrams & co. came up with Khan in Star Trek completely independently of the past incarnation, the changes made from one to the other are still subject to analysis and criticism. Your centrality point is still vague. Basically, I'm reading that a character can be any race (read: white), despite any indications to the contrary, unless the plot of the movie is explicitly about that character's racial identity. That's pretty dumb, and basically confines people of color to the least subtle portrayals of their identity. Khan being nonwhite in STID would've lent power to themes about subjugation, control, collective vengeance, and other narratives of race and racism, all without making his racial identity "central." But of course you don't think his racial identity is central in this film, they made him white! Again, the ability to erase poo poo doesn't cure the implications of that erasure. quote:I'm not too familiar with that character, but from the few comics with him I've read his ethnicity and heritage seem pretty important to the character and his storylines so making him white would be hard to justify. Based on what? His name? His stated origin in "canon" that would be freely disregarded to cast white in your framework? What makes T'Challa different from Khan? quote:Except sometimes they do. And I didn't say I expect Hollywood to have better attitudes in that way, just that would be a better direction to agitate (to use your term) for. On the one hand, protecting what we've done so far is pretty essential to progressing further. On the other, if we want to appease you, we need to give up our current gains for some other goal that you deem more legitimate. Hm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
penismightier posted:(Leonard's version of the character was named Burke, the name Jackie Brown comes from The Friends of Eddie Coyle which is one of those mid-70s low-budget crime thrillers that Tarantino eats up. I know. I'm a fan of Leonard's work and its film adaptations. I'd lose my poo poo if they ever announced a good Cuba Libre adaptation. The Warszawa posted:Honestly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a character in the general oeuvre of "darkly funny action/thriller/crime film" that isn't somewhat inspired, influenced, or just correlated with an Elmore Leonard character or plot. The guy's prolific. He also wrote a ton of westerns that have probably been adapted in some way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Django Unchained's Django is not an adaptation of Franco Nero's character Django anymore than Pam Grier's Jackie Brown is an adaptation of Steven Keats's character Jackie Brown in The Friends of Eddie Coyle I'm not sure that's true, honestly. I think he is a new take on an established character, who has a different backstory, but in some ways is very much supposed to be the same dude. After all, Franco Nero's character was played by a ton of different actors in movies that were only loosely connected to each other; at least Nero was IN Django Unchained.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I mean, I think that fighting systemic racism is more important than giving institutions and individuals a free pass to do whatever the hell they want without criticism. You do know that no one's talking about banning, right? Just saying that doing it is a bad thing. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect "creative people" to review and revise their works - that's why we have reshoots, recasting, second auditions, second drafts, deleted scenes, etc. etc. For someone who got condescending about me not understanding the creative process, you're sure demonstrating a blistering ignorance here. The whole goddamn process involves constantly second-guessing decisions, why should this be exempted? I know that filmmakers have lots of things constricting their creative freedom, for better and worse. An amount that would overwhelm anybody. That's why I don't expect them to add your rules on top of all that. Are you actively working against all injustices in the world all the time? Which ones did you support, entrench, or uphold today? quote:You know, you keep saying my "idiosyncratic" standards like writers of color aren't talking about this as a bad thing, when they are (and they've been linked!), and it's not like it's some obscure and byzantine idea to cast people of color when the role is a person of color. That other people have had the same idea before, which goes without saying, still doesn't obligate anyone to have heard of it or follow it. I think that's one role of art, but not necessarily the only worthwhile one. quote:What "baggage" do you see me bringing in, besides "hey systemic racism that's bad!" I think I misunderstood what you were implying by "there was just something about him,". quote:I've bolded a serious problem here: no one is talking about the motives for whitewashing Khan as the reason why whitewashing is a problem. It does not matter why JJ Abrams personally felt that Cumberbatch was white for the role, because it had the effect of further marginalizing people of color. Before you go "oh, so now the why doesn't matter," you should note that the point of bringing up systemic racism's influence on the individual whys is a way of illustrating that even people without racist intentions can further racism. The motivation matters to me. And I didn't say that creative people should never second guess any decision ever. I'm not convinced that either of us can hold anyone powerful in Hollywood accountable for anything in any real way. But if by "hold accountable" you mean "criticize on the internet" I would say motivation is a good line to separate out the "baldly pernicious poo poo". When casting calls go out that explicitly exclude people of color, for example, I think its safe to conclude that the people involved specifically want to exclude people of color. quote:And yet, there it is, right there in the film. (Also, Section 31, KHAAAAAAAAN, the warp core repair, Ketha Province, and etc. assorted winks, nods, and references all show a deep concern with past canon). I meant it doesn't seem that this film is concerned with keeping canon, or strictly adhering to the franchise's previous continuity. The filmmakers treated the element's you've listed the same way they treated Khan: they took a few parts that they wanted from the previous installments and did something new with them, sometimes in a winking way. For example, the redo of the "KHAAAAN" scream functions more as a meta-wink in this film than a logical extension of past continuity; otherwise we have to swallow the idea that such a similar scenario would just happen to take place in both timelines but with the roles reversed. I don't think that kind of approach works for this film, nor is it meant to. quote:Your centrality point is still vague. Basically, I'm reading that a character can be any race (read: white), despite any indications to the contrary, unless the plot of the movie is explicitly about that character's racial identity. That's pretty dumb, and basically confines people of color to the least subtle portrayals of their identity. Khan being nonwhite in STID would've lent power to themes about subjugation, control, collective vengeance, and other narratives of race and racism, all without making his racial identity "central." But of course you don't think his racial identity is central in this film, they made him white! Again, the ability to erase poo poo doesn't cure the implications of that erasure Except that any race doesn't have to mean white. Nick Fury's race is not central to his identity or role in the film Avengers, so he could have been cast as any race. They decided to cast Samuel L. Jackson, who is black. Would you place that version of Nick Fury among the least subtle portrayals of racial identity? I'd like to see more of that, but we've already been over this. quote:Based on what? His name? His stated origin in "canon" that would be freely disregarded to cast white in your framework? What makes T'Challa different from Khan?Based on what? His name? His stated origin in "canon" that would be freely disregarded to cast white in your framework? What makes T'Challa different from Khan? What makes it different is it's a hypothetical version of a new character, the original of which I'm not that that familiar with in the first place. If they wanted to reboot the character entirely and ignore all previous comic book canons, making him Black Panther in name only, then they could do whatever they wanted with him. I never really understand the point of Hollywood doing that (the Aeon Flux film still irks me), but then I might just choose not to see the film. I only know the role from the current run of New Avengers, where his role as leader of a fictional African nation is pretty important. quote:On the one hand, protecting what we've done so far is pretty essential to progressing further. On the other, if we want to appease you, we need to give up our current gains for some other goal that you deem more legitimate. Hm. A new version of a past role played by a currently dead man 46 and 31 years ago and now rebooted and played by Benedict Cumberbatch is not one of your current gains, and you can't exercise any control over that version of the role because the film has already been made and released. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I know that filmmakers have lots of things constricting their creative freedom, for better and worse. An amount that would overwhelm anybody. That's why I don't expect them to add your rules on top of all that. Yeah, well, I think it says something that you describe "don't make poo poo worse for people of color in this context and, where possible, make poo poo better" as low-priority "my rules." quote:Are you actively working against all injustices in the world all the time? Which ones did you support, entrench, or uphold today? Wow. Really? In my profession, I actually do work towards racial justice and racial advocacy, because those are the tools I've got. At the very least, can we expect JJ Abrams not to further entrench systemic racism through whitewashing? quote:That other people have had the same idea before, which goes without saying, still doesn't obligate anyone to have heard of it or follow it. Well, when art actively harms - by entrenching systemic racism - we run into problems. Birth of a Nation is a technical masterpiece, but it's still loving racist and that impacts its value. It's the same principle. quote:The motivation matters to me. And I didn't say that creative people should never second guess any decision ever. Well, it shouldn't. The idea that racism has an intent component is a product of laziness and stupidity on the part of the masses while people get to perpetuate the rigged game. quote:I'm not convinced that either of us can hold anyone powerful in Hollywood accountable for anything in any real way. But if by "hold accountable" you mean "criticize on the internet" I would say motivation is a good line to separate out the "baldly pernicious poo poo". When casting calls go out that explicitly exclude people of color, for example, I think its safe to conclude that the people involved specifically want to exclude people of color. Why? Why should we not put the burden of expectations on the people with institutional power to use that power to not further entrench systemic racism? I mean, given that it's like pulling loving teeth to get people to stop trying to concoct "canon" explanations for whitewashing, I'll admit that progress is going to be loving slow, but I don't think that means it's not a fight worth having (or that anyone here is particularly qualified to make those determinations). quote:I meant it doesn't seem that this film is concerned with keeping canon, or strictly adhering to the franchise's previous continuity. The filmmakers treated the element's you've listed the same way they treated Khan: they took a few parts that they wanted from the previous installments and did something new with them, sometimes in a winking way. For example, the redo of the "KHAAAAN" scream functions more as a meta-wink in this film than a logical extension of past continuity; otherwise we have to swallow the idea that such a similar scenario would just happen to take place in both timelines but with the roles reversed. I don't think that kind of approach works for this film, nor is it meant to. Right, but I'm not talking about a strict adherence to canon, I'm talking about being concerned with canon - aware of it and aware of its deviations. The creators of STID know or should be expected to know that Khan is a character of color, and the decision to change that is an active choice that should be second-guessed - if not by Abrams & co., then by us. quote:Except that any race doesn't have to mean white. Nick Fury's race is not central to his identity or role in the film Avengers, so he could have been cast as any race. They decided to cast Samuel L. Jackson, who is black. Would you place that version of Nick Fury among the least subtle portrayals of racial identity? I'd like to see more of that, but we've already been over this. You do get how exceptional the Fury casting is, don't you? Not to mention that it wouldn't have happened without Fury being black in the Ultimate comics, which is the actually inspired decision. For every Fury, there're six Last Airbenders. quote:What makes it different is it's a hypothetical version of a new character, the original of which I'm not that that familiar with in the first place. So you don't think it'd be politically hosed up at all? You don't think it'd be justified to say "that's hosed up and emblematic of systemic racism"? quote:A new version of a past role played by a currently dead man 46 and 31 years ago and now rebooted and played by Benedict Cumberbatch is not one of your current gains, and you can't exercise any control over that version of the role because the film has already been made and released. Having an iconic nonwhite role like Khan was one of our gains, and now it's been lost. Your proposition is that we should just take it lying down, and that's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wow. Really? In my profession, I actually do work towards racial justice and racial advocacy, because those are the tools I've got. Ok but are you actively working against all injustices in the world all the time? I don't agree that not always acting to fix an injustice (or a pattern of injustice) is always the same as supporting that injustice. If that's what you think then go ahead and try to fix every injustice ever or admit to supporting the ones you haven't. Or stop seeing these issues as so clear cut, since in practice they are not whether for JJ Abrams, for you, or for I. quote:Well, when art actively harms - by entrenching systemic racism - we run into problems. Birth of a Nation is a technical masterpiece, but it's still loving racist and that impacts its value. It's the same principle. I have yet to see it but I'm told it still has value as an important part of film history and as a technical masterpiece. (From what I know) that seems like a perfect example of why films can have merit beyond the political aspects, not the opposite. quote:I mean, given that it's like pulling loving teeth to get people to stop trying to concoct "canon" explanations for whitewashing. I haven't, though. I've been saying filmmakers are not obligated to honor canon when making a reboot. quote:Right, but I'm not talking about a strict adherence to canon, I'm talking about being concerned with canon - aware of it and aware of its deviations. The creators of STID know or should be expected to know that Khan is a character of color, and the decision to change that is an active choice that should be second-guessed - if not by Abrams & co., then by us. No, a different Khan was a character of color. They didn't change that Khan, they made a new take on the character. quote:You do get how exceptional the Fury casting is, don't you? Not to mention that it wouldn't have happened without Fury being black in the Ultimate comics, which is the actually inspired decision. We've already been over this a couple of times. I also didn't say that decision was inspired, just that it happened. quote:So you don't think it'd be politically hosed up at all? You don't think it'd be justified to say "that's hosed up and emblematic of systemic racism"? Motivation matters to me, and I can't comment on the motivations of non-existent people in a vague hypothetical scenario, especially since even if they existed I would not be privy to their decision making processes. I also don't think that's in danger of happening in real life, but who knows. quote:Having an iconic nonwhite role like Khan was one of our gains, and now it's been lost. Your proposition is that we should just take it lying down, and that's bullshit. First of all, where is the "we" coming from? Speak for yourself. It hasn't been lost, Montalban's Khan is still there in Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan. It's not like anyone is George-Lucasing Cumberbatch into those roles, and I'm betting that Montalban's take on the character will far outlast the new version seen in STID. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok but are you actively working against all injustices in the world all the time? I feel like you've missed the entire point here - think about it this way: systemic racism is a hill and genuine equity and equality is a boulder. Now, pushing the boulder up the hill is slow going, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that if you don't keep pushing, it doesn't stay still. Not all injustices function the same way - once again, you're trying to develop these universal rules where they don't actually exist. quote:I have yet to see it but I'm told it still has value as an important part of film history and as a technical masterpiece. (From what I know) that seems like a perfect example of why films can have merit beyond the political aspects, not the opposite. It depends on your definition of "merit." quote:I haven't, though. I've been saying filmmakers are not obligated to honor canon when making a reboot. You've also mistaken "do not get a free pass for the political implications of changes" for "must honor canon." quote:No, a different Khan was a character of color. They didn't change that Khan, they made a new take on the character. Should the decision to make this "new Khan" yet another white guy be free from criticism or "second-guessing"? Like, it seems that you're just stating the problem as an argument that there is no problem. quote:Motivation matters to me, and I can't comment on the motivations of non-existent people in a vague hypothetical scenario, especially since even if they existed I would not be privy to their decision making processes. I also don't think that's in danger of happening in real life, but who knows. It wasn't all that long ago people would've said the same thing about whitewashing Khan. My point is that your "must be central" idea is not very well thought out. It's great that motive matters to you, but I see no reason why it should mitigate, let alone absolve, lovely effect. quote:First of all, where is the "we" coming from? Speak for yourself. We = "people who are interested in erasing systemic racism and its impact on people of color in the specific context of film and television" and "people of color who want people of color to get the opportunity to make and portray iconic roles." quote:It hasn't been lost, Montalban's Khan is still there in Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan. It's not like anyone is George-Lucasing Cumberbatch into those roles, and I'm betting that Montalban's take on the character will far outlast the new version seen in STID. Again, I'd refer you to the legion of posts on why it's important for actors of color to get opportunity, because it goes way beyond just seeing someone play the role. But I guess getting one role twice is good enough. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You've also mistaken "do not get a free pass for the political implications of changes" for "must honor canon." As far as I can tell canon is the only reason you consider it a change in the first place. quote:Should the decision to make this "new Khan" yet another white guy be free from criticism or "second-guessing"? Like, it seems that you're just stating the problem as an argument that there is no problem. As far as I remember I only used the phrase "second-guessing" in the discussion on how creativity works on a gut level, not to refer to what you have been doing in this thread. I've been restating the situation because you like to rely on the way you phrase a situation to make it sound bad. To me there's a difference between changing something and making a new take on something. Should a white person not cover a song originally written or performed by someone not white? quote:It's great that motive matters to you, but I see no reason why it should mitigate, let alone absolve, lovely effect. Because people hope to, nor be reasonably expected to, control the infinite chains of effects that result from every one of their constant choices to act or not to act. For example Abrams could have cast a young unknown actor of color in the role and that man's life could have been negatively impacted by the subsequent sudden rise to fame. Would you hold Abrams responsible for that lovely chain of events? You're a lawyer so you must be way more familiar with the concept of mens rea than I, and why it's important. Why don't you explain it to me. quote:It depends on your definition of "merit." You just called it a technical masterpiece. quote:But I guess getting one role twice is good enough. Except I didn't say that. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:As far as I can tell canon is the only reason you consider it a change in the first place. So you're using "canon" as a synonym for "context," then? Because at some level, we do depend on things not explicitly laid out in the text, which is how we develop things like "thematic insight." quote:As far as I remember I only used the phrase "second-guessing" in the discussion on how creativity works on a gut level, not to refer to what you have been doing in this thread. Well, you've been acting as if expecting "creative people" to think twice is unreasonable, when it's absolutely not. How creativity works on a "gut level" is inextricable from social biases, and we should work to fight those! quote:I've been restating the situation because you like to rely on the way you phrase a situation to make it sound bad. To me there's a difference between changing something and making a new take on something. I'm sorry if the words that accurately describe this issue make you uncomfortable, but there isn't a difference when it comes to taking a role that relies heavily on the previous incarnation of that role and changing one thing - the race of the actor to white. quote:Should a white person not cover a song originally written or performed by someone not white? Hoooooo boy, cultural appropriation is a can of worms well beyond the scope of this thread. Needless to say, white artists stealing from artists of color outright is not exactly a rarity. quote:Because people hope to, nor be reasonably expected to, control the infinite chains of effects that result from every one of their constant choices to act or not to act. For example Abrams could have cast a young unknown actor of color in the role and that man's life could have been negatively impacted by the subsequent sudden rise to fame. Would you hold Abrams responsible for that lovely chain of events? You can't be serious - I know you don't intend to try to wave this off with "well really, it's for your own good," but Jesus. If you really think "hey, the action I'm taking has immediate and proximate consequences and I should be aware of those" is the same as "oh god, anything could happen," you've basically spun right off the globe. But I think you understand how ridiculous this is. quote:You're a lawyer so you must be way more familiar with the concept of mens rea than I, and why it's important. Why don't you explain it to me. Gee golly, I'm not your crim professor. Needless to say, "intent" in the law is a lot looser than "bad motivations." As it happens, you're trying to argue that it's only bad if it's done purposefully to erase people of color. I, on the other hand, am arguing that it's a strict liability issue - the harm occurs and therefore "liability" (getting called out) is imputed. It also works because Abrams was negligent and reckless in disregarding the impact of whitewashing this role. He arguably knowingly disregarded the entrenching effect of whitewashing when he cast Cumberbatch. But what you're really looking for is [url-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_Impact]disparate impact[/url], which is one of the few parts of legal doctrine that recognizes how systemic racism operates. quote:You just called it a technical masterpiece. Enoch Powell may have been articulate, but I wouldn't call his speeches meritorious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Khan is an explicitly satanic character who, in his original incarnation, was a sort of ridiculously exoticized oriental caricature designed to be opposite of Star Trek's 'western in space'. He's directly analogous to Iron Man's 'Mandarin'. Now, folks who've seen Iron Man 3 know the twist that the Mandarin isn't real - a British actor hired by a corporation to frighten people. Into Darkness demands to be read as an inversion of this, because it takes the braver stance that Bin Laden is real, and not a conspiracy or hoax by a handful of bad people. But, at the same time, Bin Laden's evil is not due to some 'clash of civilizations' with some inscrutable eastern threat, but a product of the very same logic of domination that motivates those who would hunt him down - only more purely and unabashedly totalitarian. This is the link to Kurtzman and Orci's Transformers films. Khan is the open, unapologetic Megatron to starfleet's two-faced, shameful Optimus Prime. References to Blade Runner, as you'd expect from the writer of Prometheus, make this pretty explicit. Khan in this film recalls the message of Rick Deckard - and The Thing's MacReady. The line between them and the monstrous clones is impossibly blurred. Khan isn't revealed to be white - the white character is revealed to be Khan. Big difference. Remember that this is a science fiction film about a posthuman character who has been modified from birth and may as well continue to be - evidently has been. The point, to reiterate, is to complicate and destabilize notions of whiteness (and masculinity, heterosexuality, etc.), putting renewed emphasis on class. Khan, the name, persists after the character's body has been entirely altered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:References to Blade Runner, as you'd expect from the writer of Prometheus, make this pretty explicit. Khan in this film recalls the message of Rick Deckard - and The Thing's MacReady. The line between them and the monstrous clones is impossibly blurred. Khan isn't revealed to be white - the white character is revealed to be Khan. Big difference. Remember that this is a science fiction film about a posthuman character who has been modified from birth and may as well continue to be - evidently has been. The point, to reiterate, is to complicate and destabilize notions of whiteness (and masculinity, heterosexuality, etc.), putting renewed emphasis on class. Khan, the name, persists after the character's body has been entirely altered. So basically, STID is every white guy shouting at people of color, women, and LGBTQ people that "no, no guys, it's really about class, all that other stuff if just a distraction!" Hm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
How is racism (and sexism, etc.) not about class?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:How is racism (and sexism, etc.) not about class? Because those oppressions operate independently of class - and across classes. They may have economic consequences, and racism of course interacts with and impedes class solidarity, but reducing it to "it's just a mask for class" either overbroadens class (which I don't think you're doing) or grossly misunderstands how racism (and sexism etc.) actually operate. If it helps, Tim Wise summed up the problem with class-reductionism pretty well, albeit in a policy context. It's pretty basic stuff, and I'm sure you can dig up six or seven books that talk about it in more detail and depth (I recommend Guinier & Torres's The Miner's Canary): quote:Beyond the personal biases that exist to some extent within all of us (including those who are progressive), liberals and those on the left operate within institutional spaces and even in our political activism in ways that contribute to systemic racial inequity. This we do through four primary mechanisms. The first is a well-intended but destructive form of colorblindness. The second is an equally destructive colormuteness. These mean, quite literally, a tendency among many on the white liberal-left to neither see nor give voice to race and racism as central issues in our communities and the institutions where we operate, or their connection to and interrelationship with other issues. Both liberal/left colorblindness and colormuteness perpetuate the marginalization of people of color and their concerns, in the larger society and within progressive formations for social change. http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/ The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:So you're using "canon" as a synonym for "context," then? Because at some level, we do depend on things not explicitly laid out in the text, which is how we develop things like "thematic insight." I'm using the word "canon" to refer to the established diegetic parameters and history (aka continuity) of the franchise's fictional universe. Khan's racial identity and religion are details from a previous incarnation of the Star Trek franchise's canon. quote:How creativity works on a "gut level" is inextricable from social biases, and we should work to fight those! If they're truly inextricable then that makes you an enemy of creativity. quote:I'm sorry if the words that accurately describe this issue make you uncomfortable, but there isn't a difference when it comes to taking a role that relies heavily on the previous incarnation of that role and changing one thing - the race of the actor to white. See, here you're playing the same games again. That is not an accurate description of what took place. Of course they didn't change the race of the actor (Montalbán) to white. They made a new version of the Khan character and cast a different actor to play the new take. That new actor is white, but that's not the only difference he has from the previous actor; he is a totally different human being! And his take on the character seems very different from the previous one to me, along with the way this incarnation was written, although I admit its been a while since I watched WoK or Space Seed. quote:You can't be serious - I know you don't intend to try to wave this off with "well really, it's for your own good," but Jesus. If you really think "hey, the action I'm taking has immediate and proximate consequences and I should be aware of those" is the same as "oh god, anything could happen," you've basically spun right off the globe. But I think you understand how ridiculous this is. You're getting pretty close to putting words in my mouth again here, and missing the point in the process. It was a hypothetical example to illustrate that people cannot hope to, nor be reasonably expected to, control the infinite chains of effects that result from every one of their constant choices to act or not to act. Since you're talking about the abstract impact of the casting decision on a larger pattern (systemic racism in Hollywood) you aren't talking about the immediate consequences, you're talking about (assumed) cumulative consequences. Unless you would like to explain the immediate negative consequences involved in that one specific casting decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I'm using the word "canon" to refer to the established diegetic parameters and history (aka continuity) of the franchise's fictional universe. Khan's racial identity and religion are details from a previous incarnation of the Star Trek franchise's canon. Yes, which is how most of the ideas - from Kirk to Starfleet HQ to Kronos - get brought forward. I'm suggesting that the decision on what to bring forward is itself something we should examine and critique instead of just saying "hey, fresh slate, no takebacks." quote:If they're truly inextricable then that makes you an enemy of creativity. How so? Do you think that these social biases are inherently worthy of preservation? quote:See, here you're playing the same games again. That is not an accurate description of what took place. Of course they didn't change the race of the actor (Montalbán) to white. They made a new version of the Khan character and cast a different actor to play the new take. That new actor is white, but that's not the only difference he has from the previous actor; he is a totally different human being! And his take on the character seems very different from the previous one to me, along with the way this incarnation was written, although I admit its been a while since I watched WoK or Space Seed. Yes, and they did so in several contexts, among which are "overwhelmingly white Hollywood"; "franchise with a history of not being as overwhelmingly status quo"; and "one of the few iconic roles of color in the genre" and then made several decisions about how to act accordingly. These decisions are not inherently justified (in the sense of being free from being called lovely) or commendable. Of course they didn't change the race of Montalbán, and you're grotesquely distorting my post to even suggest I was saying that. They did, however, change the race of the portraying actor. I don't think you've quite reconciled how this is different from white Uhura or white Sulu, to be honest - in the abstract, aren't they identical cases? quote:You're getting pretty close to putting words in my mouth again here, and missing the point in the process. It was a hypothetical example to illustrate that people cannot hope to, nor be reasonably expected to, control the infinite chains of effects that result from every one of their constant choices to act or not to act. Much like I would to Abrams, I was suggesting that you think about the implications of what you're saying, independent from your intent, using your hypothetical to illustrate. Still, I don't think "hey, whitewashing sucks and we shouldn't do it" is such a remote goddamn thing from casting white, though. Or are we still on "whitewashing is bad"? quote:Since you're talking about the abstract impact of the casting decision on a larger pattern (systemic racism in Hollywood) you aren't talking about the immediate consequences, you're talking about (assumed) cumulative consequences. Unless you would like to explain the immediate negative consequences involved in that one specific casting decision. I would say that being aware of how your role as a blockbuster director in a major studio system acts upon, entrenches, or has the opportunity to fight prevailing pernicious norms is, in fact, the bare minimum of social awareness we should expect from people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 06:38
|
|