May 26, 2010

The Rules of Proper Racial/Ethnic Casting in Hollywood, According to Liberals Who Are Not Hollywood Elite

So I ran across this article on Huffington Post yesterday about how The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia are racist because they cast white people in the lead roles.

Look, is Hollywood still racist? Undoubtedly. There's been a great deal of progress over time, there's still too little diversity, and too little portrayal of accurate diversity, despite cartoon-liberal cries to the contrary. Too many African Americans talk jive, too many Latins are lusty, and all Arabs who aren't Tony Shalhoub just want to blow things up. Aboriginal peoples all speak like Tonto (even if they're blue and from another planet) and always live in utopian paradises that middle-class white people like to daydream about when they're mowing the lawn or telling the kids to shut up. If only I could don a loincloth and frolic about Eden with the brown/blue people!

But the more I read of the article and comments, the more inconsistent and nonsensical the whole argument became.

I must confess I don't know much about the source material of either movie. After watching the trailer for Airbender, I did have to laugh at the idea of a white kid playing a part that certainly seems to require an Asian.

But with Prince of Persia, I just don't see a problem with Gyllenhaal. So he's half-Swedish, half-Jewish. Does this guy look any more Persian than Gylllenhaal?


(Andre Agassi is of Iranian heritage, in case you didn't know.)

Now I doubt very seriously that the studio heads sat around in top hats while smoking cigars and said, "We can't have one of those swarthy wog fellows fouling up our movie. We need an A-list star. How about Jake Gyllenaal?" For one thing, is Jake Gyllenhaal A-list? Really? But he is semi-recognizable, at least, and plausible.

And yet blogger and independent filmmaker Jehanzeb Dar is outraged:
"This part really needed to go to someone who's Persian . . . It's not only insulting to Persians, it's also insulting to white people. It's saying white people can't enjoy movies unless the protagonist is white," he said.
So according to this rule, any character of a particular ethnicity or race must be portrayed by an actor of that ethnicity or race.

Thus it is very very very bad that Jewish James Caan played Italian Sonny Corleone in The Godfather.

Wait, except that once I read the comments, I discovered that it isn't bad! It's okay for Jewish people to play Italians, and Italians to play Jewish people. That's different!

You see, Italians and Jews are just white people of different ethnicity, whereas half-Swede half-Jews and Persians are separated by race.

Now I thinks to meself, Self, there's probably no more ethnic difference between Jewish people and Persians than Jewish people and Italians. And according to the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as science, Italians, Jews, Persians, Arabs, Greeks, Irish, Swedes, Germans (and more!) are all part of the white/Caucasian race. No doubt this notion annoys a great many people, and yes, we generally think of white people in this country as defined by attendance at NASCAR events or Episcopal churches, but, you know, science.

But even if I were right (which of course I must not be), Persians are apparently an "aggrieved group," and therefore all of their roles in movies must be filled by Persians. I can only assume the same applies to Arabs, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asians, but apparently not Jews, since Robert De Niro played a Jewish person not once, but twice!!! Italians are of course not aggrieved, apparently because of pizza and Joe DiMaggio or something. They got off the list a while back.

Being a simple person, however, I found this all very confusing, and attempted to locate some place that listed The Rules of Proper Racial/Ethnic Casting in Hollywood According to Liberals Who Are Not Hollywood Elite. Sadly, Google turned up nothing, so I decided to give it a go:

  1. A character of a particular race must be played by a member of that race (EXCEPTION:see #3 and #4)
  2. Characters of one ethnicity may be played by an actor of another ethnicity if observers can't tell the difference. For example, it is fine for Jewish James Caan to portray Italian Sonny Corleone if he "looks Italian" to you, and for Italian Robert De Niro to portray Jewish Noodles or Jewish Sam "Ace" Rothstein. Indian-British actor Naveen Andrews may play Iraqi Sayid. It is also fine for Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, and pretty much any East Asian to play any other East Asian, since to your Average Joe American, they all look alike, what with their slanty eyes and everything.
  3. Persons of a particular ethnicity or race may NOT portray a member of said ethnicity or race IF they do not fully embody commonly held perceptions of that ethnicity. Thus, a light-skinned Arab may not portray an Arab, since EVERYONE knows that ALL Arabs are dark-skinned. However, a Persian, Jew, Greek, Italian, or Spanish (even Mexican--Anthony Quinn) person may portray an Arab if said person is "dusky" and thus sufficiently "Arab-y."
  4. It is wrong for a white person to be cast in a role previously played by an African American, but "a fascinating examination" if an African American is cast in a role previously played by a Caucasian.
  5. Race is more important than ethnicity. You can cross the ethnic line, but not the racial line. The Prince of Persia controversy is a racial matter, because Persians are not members of the white race (except that they are). Of course Gyllenhaal is half-Jewish, but he doesn't really look Jewish (see #3).
  6. No rules apply to pure regional differences. Thus a Yankee or Brit can be cast to play a Southerner and use some fake, TV Southern accent, because who gives a shit, you know? Southerners are not an aggrieved group, anyway, except for African American Southerners, though apparently they can be played by Yankee African Americans. Accent differences between British and Australians qualify as "regional" since it's hard for some Americans to tell the difference. Hence, it's okay for Russell Crowe to play quintessentially British Robin Hood, just as it's okay for British Jude Law to play quintessiantly Southern Jack Burden (actually, no, that wasn't okay--the 2006 All the King's Men (one of my favorite books) sucked backwards and forwards.)

The one rule I haven't figured out is about mixed-race, mixed-ethic heritage. Can you play a Persian if you're half Persian? What if you're half-Persian, half-Japanese, and you look Japanese? What if you're one-quarter Persian? One-eighth Persian (a Persiaroon)?

So it just comes down to appearance--often ignorant assumptions about appearance--and a sophomoric demand for what's perceived to be "realism," a notion that plagues many forms of entertainment. Personally, while I enjoy the immersive experience, I know that I'm watching a projection on a screen, or reading words on a page, so I can roll with a lot of stuff, so long as it's done well.

Though he's too old now (age-ism!), I personally would have had zero problem with Denzel Washington playing Batman/Bruce Wayne. Denzel likes to play obsessed people who are a little bit crazy. He would have been perfect. Of course lots of white people would have been in an uproar. But I think it would have been cool.

That's not to say that Hollywood shouldn't try to find the right, best person for the role, and to consider ethnicity if the role demands it. Even if she is a queen, Queen Latifah would be an odd choice to play Queen Elizabeth I, and Jason Alexander an odd choice to play Jimi Hendrix. But if everyone gets a shot, and the result is good, then like I said, I'll roll with it.

The whole controversy is actually the racial profiling argument flipped on its head. Civil rights advocates are (I think rightly) upset about racial and ethnic profiling in terrorism and immigration matters, so isn't it odd that they want to mandate that a character of a race or ethnicity must be played by a member of that group? Yet the very absurdity of that also pokes holes in the pro-profiling argument, since the guy who doesn't look Arab-y or Mexican-y may be just the guy you're looking for, and the ones who do may just be minding their own business.

What I don't understand is why more people aren't in an uproar about the Green Lantern casting. Blond Blake Lively has been cast as Carol Ferris, and anyone who knows anything about Green Lantern knows that Carol Ferris is a brunette.

9 Comments:

Mike said...

So what about Idris Elba being cast as Heimdall in the new Thor movie?

As far as racial heritage goes, it's hard to know for sure, but if language is any clue, then the Swedish side of Gyllenhaal's heritage is closer to Persian than the Jewish side. Persian is, after all, an Indo-European language, and Hebrew a Semitic one.

There's even a website about it:
http://www.persiansarenotarabs.com/

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of the posts regarding this issue are missing the point.

The fact is that people are upset over Gyllenhal's being a Persian character because he's white. You make a huge fuss over distinguishing Jews v. Italians v. Swedish, and that distinction may have carried weight 50 or 100 years ago (depending on the comparison) but your framing of the issue misses the point.

Race in America isn't about science, it's about perception. The reason why so many characters of different ethnicities can get away with switching, say from Jewish to Italian, is because, by the average American, both groups are PERCEIVED and therefore CODED as "white." I know for a fact that historically it isn't that simple, but we're not in history, we're in 2010.

Second, is the issue that the protagonist played by Gylenhall is representing a race most frequently coded as terrorists. This is where your argument really falls apart. Again, race in America is about perception. Are you saying that just because Jewish people and Arabs are scientifcally of the same race that the fact Gyllenhall is perceived as white (i.e. nonthreatening) is irrelevant. I don't think so. Besides, your logic never works in reverse. Rarely, if ever do white artists dawn makeup to play unrepentant terrorists or gang-bangers (it's easy for them to play the almost-always white heroines though). That's the whole point. White people play anything-"other" races get the stereotyped leftovers.

Doting over ethnicities of characters in roles that are perceived as white in modern society just skirts the issue of racial portrayal of marginalized groups like Persians. It's not so much the fact that it is so in the case of Gyllenhall, but that a)terrorist representationa are 99 percent of Middle Eastern characters in modern movies b) in a rare depiction of a positive Persian character, a white actor gets the role.

Bottom line: the scientific angle on the issue is bunk since race is a social construct dealing in majority perceptions, and whether or not Gyllenhall is technically Persian is irrelevant since his casting reflects the long standing Hollywood maxim that white actors can play anything while other races get stereotypical roles.

Dave Baker said...

A couple more exceptions to the rule:

1) Ben Kingsley can play an character of any ethnicity he chooses as long as said character is bald.

2) Keanu Reeves may never play anyone with any sort of an accent, ever.

Lein Shory said...

Anonymous,

The point of the post is that while I most certainly agree that there's racism in Hollywood and America, and we have a lot of work to do regarding our perceptions of Arabs and Persians, among others (see my last post), I also think it's absurd to argue that any ONE example of Hollwood jackassery is more important than any other.

You say Italians are "coded white." Well how about you go tell that to all the Italians who only get jobs as gangsters. Maybe they can take a "coded white" sign to their next audition. Go tell it to all the women over 30 while you're at it, too. They'll enjoy being "coded white" while they're waiting another 15-20 years so they can get "matronly" roles.

It's not that I don't think you have a point. It's when you start telling me that your issue is somehow more important the others that I have a problem.

Plus, if you make the statement that "we're not in history, we're in 2010," then don't later use the word "longstanding."

Anonymous said...

Hello, it's Anonymous again. Your response to my post makes two mistakes. You falsely assume that I assert racism as the preeminent typecasting issue in Hollywood. You then asserted that this assertion you believe I made was erroneous, a statement which I am about to complicate. Neither of these counter arguments relate to my comment and neither one is true.

As far as me supposedly saying race is the ultimate casting evil, you are mistaken. I never asserted as much. You may have thought I implied it; that however, is irrelevant. I neither said nor set out to prove such a thing. Read my first post again; it contains no such statement.

On to the false dichotomy. When you countered my assumed position by telling me not to say race was more important than gender, age, and white ethnicities, your argument has one huge weakness: assumes that these categories exist in vacuums.

Implying that I would have to choose between all typecasting isms being equal and ranking them is a ridiculous idea. So you believe that ageism, sexism, racism, etc. are all equal. Fine, all are equally bad. To bad a lot of the times they coexist.

This is where your dichotomy falls apart. So women over thirty get sidelined until they can play "matronly" roles. Obviously, there are white matronly roles and black matronly roles, maybe because the families in question are white or black and the matron is a grandmother, or because of setting (the role is in an upscale library in Beverly Hills so a black lady would look out of place). In this case, being a women over thirty obviously shoehorns any potential candidates into a certain age range. If the role is white, then the Black actress going for the role has one more point against her.

Both women face typecasting stigmas, obviously. They are both women and they are both middle aged. Only one of the women is also black. Even if all the isms hurt people equally if you have 3 of them against you instead of two, it doesn't matter much.

And what if some isms are worse than others? How would you even begin to compare them to each other? Is there a "Scale of Badness" which you can place each ism on with a number one out of a hundred which works for every case? How would you convert the badness factor of being a black women followed in a store for no reason to the badness factor of being a white male denied a role because of signs of age? You can't because typecasts of race, gender and age are not abstracts in their own spheres which can (or should) be measured equally to or ranked among themselves. They co-exist in everyone and interrelate to each other. They can mitigate or enhance one another, depending on the circumstance.

Which brings me back to the assertion that Gyllenhall's casting is racist. I never said that because I believed his ethnicity had to match exactly with his role, but because of his race-which I perceive as white, ethnicity notwithstanding. Additionally, it isn't the casting in and of itself which is bad, but the fact that it occurs in the context of a marginalized group such as Persians. Again, it must be noted that the flexibility aforded to Gyllenhal has not proven reciprocal-Persians are pretty much stuck playing Persians.

The fact that you had nothing to say on the case of Gyllenhall's casting in particular suggests you have conceded that point-you can't argue that laypeople and not just liberals see race in terms of perceptions and not genetics.

Well, now you can wipe the second claim off your list too. Even if all the isms are equal, people who fall into multiple "disadvantaged" categories are effected worse, and even if they aren't the effects of the categorizations intertwine. It's pointless to compare "Hollywood Jackasseries" in the case of typecasting, because they are not equal or unequal but copresent and intertwined at all times.

SteveW said...

Anonymous,

Horseshit.

Jason Tyson said...

I am totally going to steal this fucking awesome fucking shit from Anonymous and turn it in for my fucking paper on race and shit. This is fucking awesome shit. Finally I'll be able to get out of the 10th fucking grade. Hell yeah. Upperclassman, bitches.

Lein Shory said...

Anonymous,

You know, if you keep contradicting yourself long enough you might eventually hit upon a valid argument.

I did address Gyllenhaal. The entire post is about Gyllenhaal. If you somehow missed that, go back to Eng. Comp. 101.

You tell me that the Persia casting IS more important than casting different ethnicities who are "coded white" -- conveniently ignoring those who aren't -- and then, when called on it, your argument devolves into quasi/crypto/crit theory baloney about "neither equal nor unequal, but copresent and intertwined." A convenient way of having your cake and eating it too.

But you don't do half-measures, I'll give you that. You're all in--all in to full-blown, Ivory-Tower, liberal-caricature victimization ideology: the more "disadvantaged" badges you earn, the more important you are. Earn enough, you go to the front of the line. We common-sense liberals spend all our time telling conservatives that that's just straw-man argument, that no one really believes that stuff, and then you come along and prove us wrong. Thanks.

And then the capper: "I never said that because I believed his ethnicity had to match exactly with his role, but because of his race-which I perceive as white, ethnicity notwithstanding."

At the bottom of all this is YOUR perceptions. And we're back to my original question, which you've completely ignored (since it renders your argument absurd): if PERCEPTIONS are what's important, could the Prince be played by an "ethnically correct" person who is nonetheless perceived as "white" (Agassi, for example, if he were an actor)? Could a young Mexican Anthony Quinn could have played the Prince (just as he played an Arab, and of course a Greek)? Do you "perceive" Mexicans as being "coded white," or does his Mexican-ness earn him sufficient "disadvantaged" badges? If exact ethnicity is not important to you, does it all just come down to sufficient brownness?

Anonymous said...

So, can a white guy finally play Othello?