The original voice actors were (and are) crazy-talented. I think most of Apu’s portrayals were positive and handled well. The only problem is that it’s an Indian man being voiced by a white dude. Despite not watching The Simpsons for well over a decade now, I think this is a positive change, and I might even try to figure out how to watch this episode!
It seems a little discriminatory to say only some people can play some characters.
I can understand the sentiment. It seems weird. Though it’s far less about doing art “correctly” and more about actually hiring minorities for roles that are aping off of their uniqueness. Similar to how Warwick Davis was complaining about Disney not using real little people for the real life Snow White. A lot of people misconstrued his complaints, but he just wants little people actors to have jobs and not have to scrounge around and struggle for work and end up exploited.
Also similar to people complaining about Tom Cruise starring in Digger. Piles of makeup just to make him look old and frumpy. They could’ve saved millions and not paid scientology and had an actual old frumpy actor do the role, which would’ve been infinitely better than Cruise.
So I’m not sure the Digger argument really makes sense.
Without spoiling the film any actor who played the role of Digger was going to have to wear a bunch of makeup to look old and frumpy. The makeup is important to the film, so even someone who was old and frumpy would still wear makeup to look different. It’s not a hard requirement, but it would definitely change the film without it.
Are you claiming there are no old and frumpy actors in Hollywood? Really?
The point is they wouldn’t have had to go as far and spend as much and gotten a better result. Both on and off screen.
No, not at all. My point is that even if the film had starred an old and frumpy actor, then would have still needed to apply a bunch of makeup. The character being in makeup is part of the character.
Spoilers for Digger
Tom Cruise is playing a character named “Curtis Markson” in the film. That character is in a satirical stage play where he plays “Digger Rockwell”. The reveal that the film is actually a stage play is a surprise that occurs about 20 minutes into the film.
There are a number of hints in the first 20 minutes. For example the opening of the film has a “curtains rise” that in the moment feels like a stylistic choice. Another is an obviously robotic cat. Another is when we’re seeing characters move about the house and enter the scene the building layout doesn’t really make sense with characters playing with doorways. And finally the fact that Tom Cruise is heavily done up in makeup.
OK? That’s still only one of three points. Do you think it’s totally fine to pay a scientologist? Do you think it’s totally fine to give even more money to an extremely popular and wealthy star instead of literally anyone else capable of the job?
That’s the only point I was arguing.
To your second point, I take no objection to your dislike of Tom Cruise or Scientology. It’s a horrid cult and fuck Scientology and Tom Cruise.
To your third point, someone else playing the role, looking purely at the acting performance, Cruise did an excellent job. However I don’t think it’s a performance only he could have done, so I agree someone else could have done an excellent job in the role. As an example early in production Leonardo DiCaprio was in consideration, he could also have taken on the role.
Now there is a secondary question, if the film would have been made without Tom Cruise’s involvement. He was involved in the film early in production and was a producer. It’s possible the film wouldn’t have been made without his involvement. I do think it is better that the film exist rather than not, but I won’t argue if you feel it’s better that it not exist.
This is the type of thinking that enables hiring based purely on marketing and reinforces existing power dynamics and stereotypes within the industry. It’s why they retconned the character of Motoko Kusanagi for the live action Ghost In The Shell - they wanted to cast a white Hollywood leading actress because Asian women are not considered marketable in leading roles.
Funnily enough, the idea that anyone can play anyone is actually the discriminatory position because it implies we live in a fair and balanced utopia where casting is based purely on merit, something that is clearly not true. Arguing in support of the status quo, when the status quo is discriminatory, is discrimination.
Ya, only people with yellow skin should be allowed to voice yellow skinned characters
That’s not how discrimination works. Anyone can play Apu (it’s obviously not illegal or banned by the company or anything), but it could be problematic. Think of an impressionable young South Asian kid watching the Simpsons and listening to a white dude with a thick fake accent pretending to “represent” him. And if you’re okay with that, what’s wrong with looking the part in filmed TV/movies? Then it’s blackface again with white men used to exclude and stereotype other races and nationalities…
like minstrels you mean, instead of black people ? /s
Not the same. Deliberatley excluding PoC from white entertainment or wearing blackface as a caricature is not the same as say RDJ’s portrayal in Tropic Thunder.
The only problem is that it’s an Indian man being voiced by a white dude
The definition of racism.
I don’t see it as racist. Someone raised in India whose tongue was trained on a different language is going to sound that way regardless of what they look like. Assuming that everyone who works in a convenience store sounds like this is racist. But being an Indian immigrant is part of the character’s back story. The color of the skin of the voice actor is irrelevant. What if Homer was voiced by an Indian man doing an American accent? Bart is voiced by a woman acting as a boy. Is that sexist?
Okay, but still not gonna watch this zombie show.
I haven’t seen the new episode yet and stopped reading the article once it got into spoiler territory, but I’m looking forward to seeing how Apu is played going forward.
In season 32 Carl (of Lenny and Carl fame) changed voice actors and while it took a little while for the new voice actor (Alex Désert) to figure out the voice and the character nowadays he does a solid job of playing Carl.
Also in season 32 Dr. Hibbert changed voice actors and while the new voice actor Kevin Michael Richardson is an excellent voice actor, he is a terrible Dr. Hibbert. But, he’s made the character his own. He’s a sillier character. Honestly if he were a new character he’d fit in well, but after 30+ seasons of Dr. Hibbert the new Hibbert just feels odd.
While on the subject, in season 32 Megan Mullally began to voice Sarah Wiggum and portrayed her wildly different from her previous appearances. She didn’t have as much of a character historically, but the shift was still odd.
Also in season 36 Pamela Hayden retired and her characters, Milhouse, Jimbo & Rod Flanders all got new voice actors while keeping the same basic character.
The article discusses not wanting Apu to be a stereotype, but I hope he’s still Apu. The same Apu we’ve known for 30+ years. (Same for his wife Manjula.)
Edit: Having seen the episode I would say Apu is still Apu. He sounds different and it’s definitely an adjustment, but the character seems to remain true to themselves.
season 36
Holy shit, I thought it was on like 28 or something.
And that was two seasons ago, we’re on 38 now.
Yea, Apu’s character was only sorta’ using the classic stereotypes to provide ground for them to work with. IMO, they did a good job making him more than the stereotypes, and did well to make him far more than a punching bag for those stereotypes. That’s a pretty good job for a ‘raunchy’ (remember how churchy types viewed it in the 90s? ha) funny cartoon.
This is like going back to the village where you grew up and everyone is still there but puffy.
It totally made sense at the beginning of The Simpsons to have ~8 people doing dozen of voices each.
They probably could have gotten around paying the core group as much if they had split the voice into more actors so they didn’t have such power to demand hundreds of thousands an episode. Greed though is how Hollywood works.
They should have done this sooner but probably thought it wouldn’t look bad by waiting a decade so people don’t have a recent comparison.
Nah, they’ve replaced other characters’ voices with much less down time. I think it’s more of just the world moving past the whole cancel culture crap some people were getting way too into. Certain groups were hating on Apu hard, and the only semi-valid critique they had was he’s voiced by a now famous white guy doing a cliche voice.
Also, don’t some of the unions stipulate that minorities should be voiced by the appropriate minority? Not for cancel culture BS, but because they’re sick of having roles go to established famous people instead of the thousands of more than qualified individuals. (and then King of the Hill hired Ronny Chieng to voice Kahn Souphanousinphone which was quite the whiplash lol)
and then King of the Hill hired Ronny Chieng to voice Kahn Souphanousinphone
Which is interesting because Ronny Chieng was born in Malaysia and per Wikipedia was born into a Malaysian Chinese family. However Kahn is famously Laotian. Is Ronny Chieng the appropriate minority? Should a Laotian voice actor be playing the role?
Also let’s look at the recent Lanterns TV show where Aaron Pierre, a British actor, plays John Stewart who is from America. Should British actors play Americans?
Or what about when John Lithgow, from upstate New York, played British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in The Crown. Should American actors play British?
I think it’s a complex subject.
It is a complex subject, though I think they have a decent place right now: Try to force Hollywood to stop white-washing everything and stop paying only famous majorities for minority roles.
US vs UK is a bit silly of an argument, because what problem would you be solving by banning crossover there? There are huge actors from both places, and “crossing the pond” is kinda’ a legitimate physical limitation vs simply not hiring minorities that are already in Hollywood.
To start, I want to be clear I have zero issues with the characters Aaron Pierre has played. He’s a talented actor and from the interviews I’ve seen a wonderful person.
Aaron Pierre, per Wikipedia, was born in London. His mother is from Jamaica, and he has Curaçaoan and Sierra Leonean heritage on his father’s side.
His acting history includes playing Malcolm X and in the case of Lanterns John Stewart who’s character history and in the show Lanterns deals with being a black American. Aaron Pierre is not a black American, should a black American have played those roles? A black American and a black Briton are both black and both minorities, but they’re not interchangeable.
To extend further, can someone who is Chinese play a Japanese character, or a Korean character because they’re all Asian?
To bring everything full circle, Hank Azaria was born in Queens, NYC. Per Wikipedia, “his paternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews from Salonika and Smyrna. His paternal grandfather… came from Salonika which was then in the Ottoman Empire, today the Greek city of Thessaloniki in Greek Macedonia. His paternal grandmother… was born in Bergama, modern-day Turkey (Izmir Province).”
Hank Azaria previously voiced Apu, Carl, Lou, Bumblebee Man, & Doctor Nick. Hank Azaria continues to voice Italian characters Luigi, Legs and Johnny Tightlips. Hank Azaria is not Italian. Should he continue to voice those characters?
Voice actors and traditional actors can and do play a wide variety of roles. I think expanding who has access to roles is a positive thing. At the same time I think we should give actors the freedom to act, even if they don’t “fit” the role.
You are really trying to hate on this idea…
It’s not difficult at all to find a happy middle ground from Euro style racism that hates different people even amongst “white” people: If you don’t have to put prosthetics and/or loads of makeup on them just to match the (presumably normal human) character, then it’s fine to cast them.
I’m really not trying to hate.
I’m just trying to look at it as a complex issue. I don’t think there are simple lines to be drawn. I’m also not asking you for a definitive answer, so I apologize if that’s how it feels, that’s not my intention. I’m asking questions that I think are worth considering, and I could reasonably argue both for and against.
And I think voice acting is extra interesting. You don’t have to put prosthetics or makeup to change your voice. Bart Simpson is voiced by a woman. On Bob’s Burgers Tina Belcher is voiced by a man. The late great James Earl Jones voiced Darth Vader. The titular character of Samurai Jack, a Japanese samurai, is voiced by Phil LaMarr a black American.
Yea, I think whatever is totally fine in voice acting, so long as they are not being weird and just hiring a bunch of big names to get them on the poster board. I know I know, it happens a lot, and it’s not exactly something you could write a law over (without collateral damage anyways). It’s just super lame when they do it, IMO.
Would still definitely prefer native people of certain ethnicities to represent the character, like Apu, but that’s because I’d rather they get paid for the representation on screen, and I’d rather media contain accurate things and not go back to shitty fake accents.
If it’s a situation like Tina and the mom, I’d say that’s more of a creative choice than a representation thing. I’d rather IRL minorities get a job for a normal character than some big name person that doesn’t need the job.
Too little, too late.
