• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

MANAA criticizes the ‘White-Washing’ of Asian-American Roles in "The Martian"

Status
Not open for further replies.

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/mart...e-washing-asian-american-roles-021405827.html

The Media Action Network For Asian-Americans has criticized director Ridley Scott over “white-washing” Asian-American roles in “The Martian.”

The watchdog group, in a statement issued Thursday, said the ethnicities of key characters in the movie are significantly less Asian than their characters in the 2014 novel by Andy Weir.

Scott’s reps did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This feel-good movie, which has attracted Oscar buzz, shouldn’t get any awards for casting,” said MANAA founding president Guy Aoki.

MANAA noted that Weir describes NASA’s director of Mars operations Dr. Venkat Kapoor as an Asian-Indian character who identifies religiously as being “a Hindu.” The group pointed out that in Scott’s film, his name is changed to Vincent Kapoor, and he’s played by British black actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, who says his father was “a Hindu” but that his mother was “Baptist.”

MANAA also noted that Mindy Park, described by Weir as Korean-American, is played in the movie by Mackenzie Davis, a white, blonde actress.

The group noted that both characters play crucial roles in NASA’s attempt to rescue astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) and work together on the rescue with the director of jet propulsion lab Bruce Ng (played in the film by Benedict Wong).

“Was Ridley Scott not comfortable having two sets of Asian Americans talking to each other?” said Aoki. “So few projects are written specifically with Asian American characters in them and he’s now changed them to a white woman and black man. This was a great opportunity to give meaty roles to talented Asian American actors — and boost their careers — which would’ve enabled our community to become a greater part of the rescue team.”

First Exodus, now this. What's your problem, Ridley?

X6rr6Lq.jpg
 
I'm sure the response will be

"But we included China. That's like over a billion people man".

Seriously though I was surprised to see one Asian dude made it into the movie with a somewhat significant role. The fact that they replaced two others comes as no surprise to me although it would have been nice to not see their race changed.
 

Mobius 1

Member
The Venkat Kapoor change did bother me.

I get his point with the Asian being casted as a white female but for Chi's character his religion is never brought up.

It does.

In the book, Mitch asks Venkat (I'm paraphrasing):
Mitch: - "Do you believe in God, Venkat?"
Venkat: - "Yes. Many gods. I'm Hindu."

In the movie, it went (also paraphrasing here):
Mitch: - "Do you pray, Vincent?"
Vincent: - "Yes. Half my family is christian, the other hindu. Something something many gods"
Mitch: - "We can use all the help we can get."

It was a conscious choice. Who made it... who knows.

They also toned down Annie's character a lot, she is a hellcat in the book and has no problem telling everybody at NASA's leadership to go fuck themselves.
 

Grenchel

Member
I would have thought they would have taken advantage of the Asian characters featured in the book since some Hollywood seems a bit more reliant on overseas sales, but I honestly have no idea how casting decisions are made on this scale.

How unfortunate. missed opportunity!
 

Bloodrage

Banned
Holy shit at the description of the black people in Exodus. Wtf?

The Martian already looked like it was going to be the same deal. One or two very famous black people, the rest white. Movies bore the shit out of me these days for that very reason. Hard to stay interested when every-fucking-body looks the same in every fucking movie.
 

Squire

Banned
The Martian's principle cast has s pretty solid mix of men, women, and minorities. Little hard to slam it for diversity when it's so obviously better than quite a few of its peers.

Their criticism is still valid though, I suppose. I understand about Park. This paragraph though?

MANAA noted that Weir describes NASA’s director of Mars operations Dr. Venkat Kapoor as an Asian-Indian character who identifies religiously as being “a Hindu.” The group pointed out that in Scott’s film, his name is changed to Vincent Kapoor, and he’s played by British black actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, who says his father was “a Hindu” but that his mother was “Baptist.”

It reads like the person was making a point and then realized it was a little flimsy. I can't say I'm disappointed they cast Ejiofor. He's a minority and a fantastic actor. If you're invested in diversity, that's still a win.

Don't bring any of this up to Matt Damon though!
 

C4Lukins

Junior Member
It is truly disgusting to whitewash the amazing contributions of minorities concerning one of the great historical landmarks of us landing on Mars. Not to mention that one of the original folks on the mission, African American Kevin Hart was replaced by white ginger Jessica Chastain in the film version of this true story.
 

see5harp

Member
If I were rich I'd make Tyler Perry budget movies starring Asians.

It would be super weird to see two Asian people in the same scene together. I'm not sure Asian people could handle the intense pride. It would be like seeing Yao Ming and Wang Zhizhi on the court at the same time.
 
But Chiwitel Ejifor is not white.

Well we have no other term to use then "white wash". But I think I see his point. They went out of their way to avoid casting a Asian person while maintaining the name. Park? That's easy as hell, plenty of white people with "Park" as their surname. The Author should have used Yang or Cho instead for the extra Asian-ness to make it harder on Hollywood. Kapoor? Make him half something else, and the person playing him will be 100 percent the half that isn't Indian.

Sorry if this comes off bitter but I've been complaining about this since Jet Li not kissing Aaliyah in Romeo Must Die.
 

Rocky85

Banned
I hate it theres no asian representation in movies. But when the argument turns to 'well.. there should be more asians' then now youre just being ridiculous.
 

Cyberius

Member
I can't find any articles backing me up on this, but my understanding was they initially cast an indian actor for Kapoor, but he had to drop out three or so weeks before principal filming began. Ejiofor was the best actor they felt they could get on short notice.
 

Squire

Banned
I hate it theres no asian representation in movies. But when the argument turns to 'well.. there should be more asians' then now youre just being ridiculous.

The argument is that there was literally a couple of Asians that aren't Asian in the film. And only them. Just two.
 

Werd

Member
They did offer the Kapoor role to Irrfan Khan, who turned it down. Obviously there is more than one Indian actor on earth, but the cast was relatively diverse... and generally excellent.

Exodus was much more deserving of outrage though.
 
How is this only just coming to the spotlight now? He was cast as an Indian scientist one year ago, and no one gave a shit. I've tried bringing up the point in other Martian threads, but nobody seems to care. Race-bending is only recognized if its a white-person playing another race, apparently. This is unbelievably tone-deaf by Ridley Scott to just avoid casting an Indian person for the role of a man with a name that is Indian as fuck. What, was Irrfan Khan just not available and you ran out of ideas? What about one of the many Indian actors that was on Outsourced? Or the Indian guy on the Big Bang Theory? Unless Chiwetel was your backup's backup, you shouldn't be able to explain this away.

And the comments in this thread reflect the same apathy that Hollywood does about race.

I suppose we should be happy he gave the role to one of the 4 black actors getting good work.

No, because he passed over the many South Asian actors and gave an Anglo-African the role of an Indian scientist.

I get his point with the Asian being casted as a white female but for Chi's character his religion is never brought up.

I think you're overlooking the main point, which is that the character was Indian. It wouldn't matter even if the man was doing pujas or saying Hai Ram instead of My God. It is not right that the one, as well as the other Asian character, were race-bended just to get one more name in that ensemble montage. The most egregious thing is, they kept the name. They could have just changed the name to Victor Cooper.

It reads like the person was making a point and then realized it was a little flimsy. I can't say I'm disappointed they cast Ejiofor. He's a minority and a fantastic actor. If you're invested in diversity, that's still a win.

You can't just bunch up all the Asian & black roles into one big tub called minority roles. Just because Ridley Scott gave the role to Chiwetel doesn't mean that in doing so, he denied one minority's sole representation in the film.

Edit: So apparently, he did offer the role to Irrfan, but Irrfan turned it down. The point still stands, why not any other of the Indian actors in Hollywood and go for Chiwetel? It wasn't as if one less major name was going to hurt this movie.
 
it was a head scratcher about making Park Caucasian, but overall I would not think of "The Martian" as a white washed film. There was diversity. Personally, I really liked that the pilot was latino. Michael Pena has been killing it this year with this and Ant-man.
 
I haven't seen the Martian, nor have I read the book, and I view Scott as an uneven director, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but why can't articles or thread titles be "The Martian criticized...." instead of hyper-words like "slammed" or "eviscerated" or "destroyed". When phrased this way, what's the response supposed to be other than over the top and defensive or aggressive?

Lots of Hollywood films change things for better or worse from the source materials, and if this is something to be criticized, then it should. But, I just don't like the certain word choices that follow these types of stores.

Edit: I just realized that this is tone policing, but it's a pet peeve of mine and I think the Daily Show did something on it when The Huffington Post, the clickbait mecca of news, would routinely say that "Jon Stewart curb stomps...." or something of the same hyperbole. Ridley Scott has had this problem in the past, but inflating the language to get a click and incite an emotion just bothers me. Sorry for the side track.
 

Mobius 1

Member
How is this only just coming to the spotlight now? He was cast as an Indian scientist one year ago, and no one gave a shit. I've tried bringing up the point in other Martian threads, but nobody seems to care. Race-bending is only recognized if its a white-person playing another race, apparently. This is unbelievably tone-deaf by Ridley Scott to just avoid casting an Indian person for the role of a man with a name that is Indian as fuck. What, was Irrfan Khan just not available and you ran out of ideas? What about one of the many Indian actors that was on Outsourced? Or the Indian guy on the Big Bang Theory? Unless Chiwetel was your backup's backup, you shouldn't be able to explain this away.

What he/she is saying.

You people are missing the point by saying "but the actor was black duh".
 
Wait a minute, Naomi Scott plays a character names "Ryoko"? There may be more going on here. Still happy about Michael Pena, but...i
 
If they changed the race altogether i think it would have been a better decision. Trying to kinda make him Indian just felt wrong.

I might be the minority here but if the reason they didn't cast an Indian actor was because they felt no Indian Actor could portray the character correctly then i'm ok that they didn't cast an Indian actor.

From a producers/directors viewpoint, Do you choose a correct race actor that is a bad/wrong actor for the part? Or do you choose the wrong race actor that is great/correct actor for the part? Which is the better decision?
 

KHarvey16

Member
It seems completely unimportant to me who plays a character when ethnicity and/or race play no role in the characterization.
 
I'm Indian myself and I was perfectly OK with Chiwetel as an half Indian/Hindu guy. Heck, I thought he was fantastic in the movie.
 
Never read the book so I don't know how it's portrayed there - but in the movie there's a lot of pro-China moments. Maybe the casting was tweaked a bit to balance the China side plot?
 
If they changed the race altogether i think it would have been a better decision. Trying to kinda make him Indian just felt wrong.

I might be the minority here but if the reason they didn't cast an Indian actor was because they felt no Indian Actor could portray the character correctly then i'm ok that they didn't cast an Indian actor.

From a producers/directors Do you choose a correct race actor that is a bad/wrong actor for the part? Or do you choose the wrong race actor that is great/correct actor for the part? Which is the better decision?

That's why I'm ticked off about this movie. They could have just changed his name and been done with it, but they just kept it.

And from the producer's / directors POV, this must have been a catch-22. You either change his name & get accused by fans saying that the book is going to be destroyed or you keep his name and let the minority of Asian-American viewers get outraged that you cast an Anglo-African for the role of an Indian. They must have just weighed their options and decided that they would rather risk pissing off a small amount of Asians instead of a large amount of book readers.
 
Knew this was going to happen when I read the book. Asian Americans (of both eastern and southern Asia) get totally discarded by Hollywood but are excelling in STEM fields like those of which are represented in the book. Then the book gets a movie and all of a sudden they disappear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom