Racism and casting

[kate_nepveu]

This makes me want to merge my anti-racism icon with my headdesk icon:

As for Dave Karnes, his role as one of two Marines to locate McLaughlin and Jimeno by searching the pile when the professional rescuers had backed off is based on reported accounts and fictionalization, since he didn't cooperate with the film's producers. . . .

Had the

Comments

[scifantasy]

OK, that's pretty dumb. But I can see how it would happen, and besides, the World Trade Center attacks have always been a source of weird racial/cultural effects. At the same time, it brought all New Yorkers, of all races, closer together; but it introduced tension about Arabic and Islamic groups; and on the gripping hand New York, that bastion of liberal thinking, tends to be opposed to the war on terror and racial profiling...it's complicated.

In December 2001, a statue was unveiled replicating the picture of three firefighters raising an American flag over the wreckage of the World Trade Center. In it, the sculptor changed three white guys to a white guy, a black guy, and a Latino: "Given that those who died were of all races and all ethnicities and that the statue was to be symbolic of those sacrifices, ultimately a decision was made to honor no one in particular, but everyone who made the supreme sacrifice."

There was controversy, not just from racists, but from people who saw this as a triumph of political correctness over reality. It's not as if having it be three white guys would have sparked a race riot because people would complain of "unrepresentation," but for some reason it was necessary to make the rememberance of an actual event more multiracial.

[kate_nepveu]

Maybe you read my post backward? In real life, which this movie purports to be portraying, this guy is BLACK. The movie changed it to white. This made it *less* multicultural not more.

Unless you read it backward, I don't see how the statue example is relevant.

[scifantasy]

No, I read you right, and I don't deny that it's really a stupid case. What I was saying was, the World Trade Center has a lot of weird racial repercussions.

[kate_nepveu]

Let's try this. You can "see how it would happen". How would that be?

[scifantasy]

The way I can sort of see it, they didn't spend a lot of time (didn't spend enough time? Maybe) thinking about races in casting, because as with the statue, they thought in terms of "all races suffered." They didn't know Karnes's race, and he didn't step forward, and they didn't research it--which, yes, was a pretty stupid move--so they cast someone they liked. He's a symbol in the movie--the entire movie is a bloody symbol--so what his actual race is was not the focus of discussion in planning it.

[scifantasy]

*cough* And by "cast someone they liked," I do not mean "someone white." I mean "someone they thought would do a good job in the role."

[kate_nepveu]

I am angry. Here's why:

1) I am angry at the film makers. I view this as a crystal-clear manifestation of racism, specifically the assumption that the default is white. This is particularly unforgiveable since they purport this movie to be a _truthful_ depiction of what happened, and had access to people who actually met and interviewed Karnes (the writer of the _Slate_ article), yet in their alleged pursuit of truth, never thought to check their default assumption that he was white.

2) I am angry at your statements. It is not accurate to say that Karnes is a symbol in the movie, or that the whole movie is a symbol, given the stated desires of those behind the movie to "chronicle what happened as truthfully as we could," as expressed in the linked article.

Based on this inaccurate and overly-generous assumption, your first comment spends twelve words on the example of racism that I posted about, where a racial minority is *excluded* from a work that purports to be the _truth_ of what happened, and nearly a hundred and fifty words on a different example, where racial minorities are *included* in a _symbol_ of what happened.

The two are not equivalent.

Do you understand why a comment linking the two seems to be dismissing the importance of the problem I posted about?

[scifantasy]

Do you understand why a comment linking the two seems to be dismissing the importance of the problem I posted about?

Actually, yes, and I apologize for angering you. I guess the surface facts--the changing of a race of characters--brought the instance to mind. I just remembered the whole problem of race going completely out of whack after the attacks, and my memory latched onto the statue example which, in retrospect, was a bad one.

I'm not going to delete the comments...I don't like to rewrite history and un-say things, but I was wrong, and I do apologize.

never thought to check their default assumption that he was white

You're right. This is the central issue of it, and while again I can see that they did that, and it was and is a problem.

[scifantasy]

while again I can see that they did that

This is a badly worded phrase, which I am a moron for reusing. What I mean is, I can understand what they did was not out of malice or overt racism, and it's not as if Oliver Stone and company are KKK members...but it's more subtle racism, and just as much (if not more) of a problem.

[kate_nepveu]

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

I've looked at a couple of reviews of the movie, and while a lot of them talk about it being meticulous *gnashes teeth*, all of them note the weird effect of the movie being so tightly focused on those specific events of that day, and very little discussion of the larger context. That's another reason I think it's really a shame that they cast a white actor to play a black rescuer; the presence of another non-white character would have helped hint at this larger context that you mentioned.

[scifantasy]

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

Good. I didn't mean to upset you. My own feelings about the events and the events around it are...horribly confused, and mixed up with my memories. Including several things which I look back on and kick myself for. So I wrote quite confusedly...and badly.

[kate_nepveu]

It sounded to me like the movie people could easily have *not known* his race

Sure. But in the absence of actual knowledge, they just relied on their default assumptions and made no effort to check it (or, possibly, they didn't even recognize that they were making an *assumption*)--which I deduce from the fact that they could have asked the _Slate_ writer who interviewed him and didn't.

Mind, if they hadn't had access to the _Slate_ writer, that wouldn't have excused them from trying to find out, given their stated goal of being truthful. I'm using the _Slate_ writer's knowledge as evidence of their lack of interest, nothing more.

[brett_dunbar]

1) I am angry at the film makers. I view this as a crystal-clear manifestation of racism, specifically the assumption that the default is white. This is particularly unforgivable since they purport this movie to be a _truthful_ depiction of what happened, and had access to people who actually met and interviewed Karnes (the writer of the _Slate_ article), yet in their alleged pursuit of truth, never thought to check their default assumption that he was white.

It is a little more understandable if you are aware that less than 3% of New York City's firefighters are black, a little over 3% are hispanic. So something over 90% are white. I suppose Stone was more concerned with the symbolism of the story rather than precise details. He just assumed that Karnes was typical of New York firefighters, and didn't think that race mattered much.

The parallel with the proposed statue is that in both cases the artist was more interested in the overall theme than the details of the precise incident being used to illustrate the theme. The statue used three models of different races to symbolise unity in the face of attack, rather than either the actual firefighters or three generic white models. The difference the statue would have made the changes deliberately to make a specific comment, Stone made changes due to carelessness.

[kate_nepveu]

Karnes isn't a firefighter. He's a Marine. It says so right in the bit I quoted.

And people keep saying that the movie was more concerned with symbolism, when that is *explicitly contradicted* by the filmmakers' own statements.

I feel that your comment is attempting to minimize the seriousness of the racism expressed here, and I am not convinced.

[brett_dunbar]

I think you are seeing racism where there isn't any. Laziness and complacency would seem to fit rather than racism, not checking every detail when making the film just checking those that seemed relevant. The filmmaker was concerned with conveying the important elements of that particular incident without fully checking some of the superficial details, like the eye colour, skin colour or hair colour of some of the participants.

Stone is an conspiracy theorist loon but doesn't seem from this to be a racist.