...Yes and no. Literature and film are not and never will be color blind, nor should they be. Race is a result of descent, which usually parallels a cultural gap of some nature. Assigning roles partially based on race in cinema isn't being racist; it's effective communication with the audience about what culture which characters belong to. I mean, I can imagine a movie of Langston Hughes' Invisible Man, but can you see Brad Pitt playing the lead part? No. Is it because he's a bad actor?...No, it's because race and culture is key for the part and seeing someone the audience KNOWS belongs to another descent is very jarring and lowers suspension of disbelief.
Take another example. Finding Forrester. It's a key part of the movie's conflict that Jamal can't succeed in school too much and still be accepted in his Black subculture; success in school is seen as "being white." Do basketball, not poetry. Now here's the kicker; communicating that would have been impossible had casting not reflected race as well as acting skills. Had the cast been a random assignment, the story would have made no sense.
I don't think the ideal of being racially blind and seeing only abilities is always true. Part of the concern with cinema is that race (and it's paralleling cultural membership) is easy to see and it WILL confuse the viewer to see mismatches, so an actor of the wrong race literally has a harder part to act to still pull the part off. A MUCH harder part to act; depending on the audience, it may be completely impossible.
Am I being racist? No. It's just as hard for a white actor to play an anachronistic black figure as for the other way around. Some roles (where race is of secondary importance to a character's culture) may be interchangeable, and some audiences may be able to tolerate the switching. There is no iron rule that there can't be any switching parts, just that it MAY cause problems to do it carelessly.
In my opinion, films (and literature) are an artistic expression. It may not always be GOOD art, but art nonetheless with a message to convey. Thus how a movie is cast will reflect that. A movie like Finding Forrester with a specific message about black struggles would require a black actor. And, as had been brought up a million times before, if this Thor movie were a more serious piece on actual Norse mythology, then casting convincing Scandinavians as Norse gods would be a requisite too without being the least bit racist. Whereas a more modern take targeted towards a younger, more liberal and culturally diverse audience, it would be the exact opposite.
But isn't thinking that technically racist? If we were truly racially blind then it wouldn't matter either way and the color of his skin wouldn't have entered anyone's thoughts at all. He'd just be a male actor playing a male role. Of course we're not that racially blind but still.
By that logic, why not cast a female and a male role, because to specify the gender of an actor is sexist?
Oh, you mean like how Katee Sackhoff and Grace Park played Starbuck and Boomer respectively in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica? Heck Grace Park is an asian woman playing a role that previously a black man's role. Of course people called foul, especially the original Starbuck no less.
Color blind is a great ideal from a political standpoint. The law should look at everyone equally. That doesn't change the fact that different races exist, and they are not interchangeable in certain acting roles. I think the film industry is one that has a right to specify the race of its employees.
Yeah but by that same token they also have the right NOT to specify race (or gender) if they so choose. It's their artistic license to do so. If people don't like it, they don't have to watch it.
My bottom line:
Casting people according by their race when targeting a specfic race in your audience in your core message=NOT RACIST
Casting people with little to no regard to race when targeting a more diverse audience=NOT RACIST
Audiences getting offended or confused when an actor's race jars with the movie's message=NOT RACIST
Audiences getting offended or confused when an actor's race jars with some preconceived notion while COMPLETELY missing the film's message=Well's maybe not racist but even so that's their freedom of speech and I'll defend to the death their right to be so
Audiences getting offended or confused when an actor's race jars with some preconceived notion while COMPLETELY missing the film's message and trying to force the government's hand to ban the film based on an actor's race offending them=Definately racist not to mention squashing the freedom of speech of the movie's creative team
So long as no one's inciting anything harmful or illegal, people have the right to be as racist and ignorant as they want but the minute they start demanding special treatment for their beliefs and demand all others be censored that's when it goes too far.
Edit: Actually strike that last comment as it thankfully hasn't THAT far.... yet. But if the CofCC does try to ban the movie then yes, that's too far.
Edited by SOAP, 31 December 2010 - 04:58 PM.
