I've been thinking about this a lot as of late. Andrew and I watched the movie, Moonrise Kingdom, a Wes Anderson film set in the early 1960's in a remote, New England island. We liked it and watched it with Cody who was rather bothered by the lack of representation of people of color. On the one hand, I totally see his point, but, on the other, it would be highly unlikely to have people of color in that setting. I asked him about the historical accuracy thing and he replied that Wes Anderson should have changed the setting to fit a new vision of the story.
This can work - even with pre-existing material. Think about movies like Clueless and 10 Things I Hate About You and other films that are re-tellings of classic tales in different settings. The fact is, I often prefer that route to the idea of altering history/cultural viewpoints of the time.
The other way I feel that "blind casting" can work is if the work itself is really universal and if the actors cast share other defining qualities with the character. For example, opera is more about voice than appearance. I don't care if Aida is white or Mimi is Chinese as long as the woman can sing. Musicals are the same way. I once cast a half-Japanese girl as Nellie in South Pacific because she was totally Nellie (cute, perky, small, soprano, good actress, etc.) in every way other than race. And, of course, Gary Oldman was technically too old to play Sirius, but he possess that unique ability to play morally-ambivalent characters with great charisma. So in those cases, I don't mind. In fact, I find myself more bothered by people who have issues with such blind casting. I recall watching the 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing with a friend who was put-off by Denzel's race, asking why is he black and his half-brother white? "It's Shakespeare!" I replied. "It doesn't matter." Paul, my friend, strongly disagreed to the point that he could not even watch it.
That said, it's a fine line when you're talking about original source material with which people are very familiar. We all know all the bitching about HP casting and how characters didn't look EXACTLY like the way they were described in the book. I really never cared about that because I "got" what was being done cinematically. That said, if the source material is less well-examined (like how many people have actually read Les Miserables and not just watched a movie/seen the musical), one might have a little more leeway.
Sci-fi and fantasy are also great ways of getting around something. I'll admit that the first time I watched an episode of Merlin, I was a bit taken aback by the anachronisms and people of different races. (Gwen as half-black? Really? And she wasn't considered Moorish or anything?) But, in the end, the show is fantasy. The do spells and ride talking dragons and it is not meant to be historical in any way. So that's great. Seriously. Set something in the future/in space/in another reality and you have a lot more freedom with characters race/gender/sexuality.
On the other hand, after talking to Cody I realized that I literally never notice the lack of people of color in something like Moonrise Kingdom or Downton Abbey/ Why? Because I never thought that there would be people of color there in the first place - at least in the historical sense. Hell, in DA, the fact that a character is Irish makes her or him ethnic. And it really would have been at the time. But then he asked it I was bothered by that and I had to admit that, on some level, I wasn't.
In the end, for me it's primarily about story more than anything else - and about context and intention. If something is way out of line historically, I can be extremely bothered by it. For example, how very often women in historical films (especially those from previous decades) are meant to be attractive to audiences of the time. The make-up and hair just doesn't always ring true, etc. Or that moment in Titanic in which Rose shows her finance the paintings that she'd bought. They were all real works (Picasso's "Dames d'Avignon," etc.) and that threw me for the longest time because I took it as a sign that, since those were not really lost on the Titanic, Rose was a fool who bought fakes or copies. And that wasn't true at all.
Everyone wants to see themselves represented on screen, and it's vital that all groups are represented. For too long there has been an under-presentation of people of color, people with disabilities, women, queer people, trans people, etc. I know this. I despise this. But I strongly suspect that changing characters/plotlines of well-known pre-existing materials is not the best route to please audiences. Would be all be bothered by someone playing Atticus Finch as gay? Probably. Despite the fact that, quite obviously, Harper Lee had no issues with gay people, Atticus' sexuality was not an issue in the novel, so why would it be in a new movie version? So you want a gay Atticus? Re-write the story, set it differently, hope that you don't get sued by Lee's state, and do something entirely unique and creative based vaguely on To Kill a Mockingbird.
It's a fine line, but all creative people must walk it. In the end and to some degree, I probably privilege historical accuracy over universal representation, but ONLY when one is striving to stay within historical contexts or original source material. Thinking outside the box is key to me.
This can work - even with pre-existing material. Think about movies like Clueless and 10 Things I Hate About You and other films that are re-tellings of classic tales in different settings. The fact is, I often prefer that route to the idea of altering history/cultural viewpoints of the time.
The other way I feel that "blind casting" can work is if the work itself is really universal and if the actors cast share other defining qualities with the character. For example, opera is more about voice than appearance. I don't care if Aida is white or Mimi is Chinese as long as the woman can sing. Musicals are the same way. I once cast a half-Japanese girl as Nellie in South Pacific because she was totally Nellie (cute, perky, small, soprano, good actress, etc.) in every way other than race. And, of course, Gary Oldman was technically too old to play Sirius, but he possess that unique ability to play morally-ambivalent characters with great charisma. So in those cases, I don't mind. In fact, I find myself more bothered by people who have issues with such blind casting. I recall watching the 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing with a friend who was put-off by Denzel's race, asking why is he black and his half-brother white? "It's Shakespeare!" I replied. "It doesn't matter." Paul, my friend, strongly disagreed to the point that he could not even watch it.
That said, it's a fine line when you're talking about original source material with which people are very familiar. We all know all the bitching about HP casting and how characters didn't look EXACTLY like the way they were described in the book. I really never cared about that because I "got" what was being done cinematically. That said, if the source material is less well-examined (like how many people have actually read Les Miserables and not just watched a movie/seen the musical), one might have a little more leeway.
Sci-fi and fantasy are also great ways of getting around something. I'll admit that the first time I watched an episode of Merlin, I was a bit taken aback by the anachronisms and people of different races. (Gwen as half-black? Really? And she wasn't considered Moorish or anything?) But, in the end, the show is fantasy. The do spells and ride talking dragons and it is not meant to be historical in any way. So that's great. Seriously. Set something in the future/in space/in another reality and you have a lot more freedom with characters race/gender/sexuality.
On the other hand, after talking to Cody I realized that I literally never notice the lack of people of color in something like Moonrise Kingdom or Downton Abbey/ Why? Because I never thought that there would be people of color there in the first place - at least in the historical sense. Hell, in DA, the fact that a character is Irish makes her or him ethnic. And it really would have been at the time. But then he asked it I was bothered by that and I had to admit that, on some level, I wasn't.
Reply
In the end, for me it's primarily about story more than anything else - and about context and intention. If something is way out of line historically, I can be extremely bothered by it. For example, how very often women in historical films (especially those from previous decades) are meant to be attractive to audiences of the time. The make-up and hair just doesn't always ring true, etc. Or that moment in Titanic in which Rose shows her finance the paintings that she'd bought. They were all real works (Picasso's "Dames d'Avignon," etc.) and that threw me for the longest time because I took it as a sign that, since those were not really lost on the Titanic, Rose was a fool who bought fakes or copies. And that wasn't true at all.
Everyone wants to see themselves represented on screen, and it's vital that all groups are represented. For too long there has been an under-presentation of people of color, people with disabilities, women, queer people, trans people, etc. I know this. I despise this. But I strongly suspect that changing characters/plotlines of well-known pre-existing materials is not the best route to please audiences. Would be all be bothered by someone playing Atticus Finch as gay? Probably. Despite the fact that, quite obviously, Harper Lee had no issues with gay people, Atticus' sexuality was not an issue in the novel, so why would it be in a new movie version? So you want a gay Atticus? Re-write the story, set it differently, hope that you don't get sued by Lee's state, and do something entirely unique and creative based vaguely on To Kill a Mockingbird.
It's a fine line, but all creative people must walk it. In the end and to some degree, I probably privilege historical accuracy over universal representation, but ONLY when one is striving to stay within historical contexts or original source material. Thinking outside the box is key to me.
Reply
Leave a comment