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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.