WrenchNinja
Member
Why do I have to imagine anything when they could have just had an Indian dude?
I dont even know what youre point is with the jet propulsion lab guy. Because he's an asian guy that means there doesnt have to be any others?
-
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"
- Thread starter richiek
- Start date
- Status
I dont even know what youre point is with the jet propulsion lab guy. Because he's an asian guy that means there doesnt have to be any others?
I don't remember if it came up explicitly, but I was a little bit surprised when she turned up in the movie as a white woman.
MANAA MANAA (doo dooooo duh doo doo)
IdreamofHIME
Member
Note: i do not support the idea, im merely explaining the reasoning behind it.
Hollywood producers have the completely misguided idea that "adding too much miniority/diversity" makes it a "miniority movie", ie, they are under the impression that white people wont watch a movie with too much diversity.
Example: If your lead male is black, and your leading lady is also black, hollywood labels your movie as "a black people movie", think of the movie "Hitch", the male lead is Will Smith (because white people seemingly love Will Smith), originally the movie was gonna cast a black woman for the love interest, but the changed her to an hispanic actress because "otherwise it would be a black people movie", and to round things up they made the sidekick white.
Again, i do not support this mentality, but the reality is the "diversity cap" is used because Hollywood is afraid that "too much diversity" will make them lose the white audience, and an unfortunate side effect is they think "white people are the standard for universal appeal" this is why white washing is more common than other race bending casts.
It's also why on cartoons you get "tokens" of one miniority each rather than multiple characters of the same "miniority", their mentality is something like this "the planeteers from captain planet being diverse? that's something white people can get into! The proud family or el tigre where everyone is one specific miniority? nah that's for black people and mexicans!", which again that's not how reality works, but that's how execs think.
WrenchNinja
Member
i love how this is a get out of jail free card to cast a white chick
freeofgreed
Member
Hmm, never knew Park was a common last name outside of Korea/Koreans.
This is a nice variant of "there are also blonde hispanics".
I was thinking the same thing, so I opened up a PDF copy of the book and searched. I found 0 instances of "Korean" or "Korea" or any ethnicity for Mindy for that matter. And I can't find any mention of Rich Purnell's race either. I can't even find anything about their appearances. This is from a version of the book from before Andy Weir started charging for it so maybe he changed that. But I don't remember the book ever stating either of their races when I read a copy from my local library a couple months ago.
Smokey_Run
Member
I don't remember it either and I read the book a few months ago too.
torre_avenue
Banned
Can someone please explain to me why everyone is apathetic to this?
To anyone using the "Ejiofor is so talented no Indian actor could measure up" argument, that's mental gymnastics. Just because he's talented does not earn him the right to play a character of a different race. Hell, by that logic, any and all race-bending could be excused. "Emma Stone is so talented, no native Hawaiian or Asian actress could measure up." Laurence Olivier is so talented, no black actor could measure up to his portrayal of Othello." Then, the question should be asked "why is no Indian actor talented enough?" It sure as hell isn't the fact we're terrible actors. For all you know, the next acting great could be Indian but it wouldn't matter because Hollywood wouldn't let them get screen time. And if you want to go one step further and say Hollywood doesn't have a race issue, there's nothing I can do to rectify that.
To anyone using the "There are already 3-4 Asians in the movie, so why are you unhappy?" argument, there's isn't a quota system to opinion. Just because there are 3 to 4 Chinese/Korean/Japanese/whatever race looks Chinese enough actors in the movie doesn't mean an Indian person can't be outraged that the one Indian role wasn't cast by an Indian. I'm not going to be merely satisfied, feeling conciliatory that at least Hollywood was kind enough to the Asian population to put 3 or 4 Asian people in the movie.
And if anyone is saying "Well, at least the part was given to a minority", why should I feel calm knowing that one minority was marginalized but another was highlighted? Why is it okay that as long the role is given to a minority, everybody's cool? Are we not different people? Is it completely acceptable to dump all minorities into one big bucket? It's not, and it shouldn't be. I'm glad Ejiofor got the part, but why the hell can I not be disappointed or angry that an Indian person didn't get it? On the larger scale of things, its good that Hollywood is addressing its race issue, and I think it was great they cast Donald Glover for a role that could have easily gone to someone like Miles Teller. But, in this personal context as an Indian, its hard not to feel slighted.
To anyone using the "Ejiofor is so talented no Indian actor could measure up" argument, that's mental gymnastics. Just because he's talented does not earn him the right to play a character of a different race. Hell, by that logic, any and all race-bending could be excused. "Emma Stone is so talented, no native Hawaiian or Asian actress could measure up." Laurence Olivier is so talented, no black actor could measure up to his portrayal of Othello." Then, the question should be asked "why is no Indian actor talented enough?" It sure as hell isn't the fact we're terrible actors. For all you know, the next acting great could be Indian but it wouldn't matter because Hollywood wouldn't let them get screen time. And if you want to go one step further and say Hollywood doesn't have a race issue, there's nothing I can do to rectify that.
To anyone using the "There are already 3-4 Asians in the movie, so why are you unhappy?" argument, there's isn't a quota system to opinion. Just because there are 3 to 4 Chinese/Korean/Japanese/whatever race looks Chinese enough actors in the movie doesn't mean an Indian person can't be outraged that the one Indian role wasn't cast by an Indian. I'm not going to be merely satisfied, feeling conciliatory that at least Hollywood was kind enough to the Asian population to put 3 or 4 Asian people in the movie.
And if anyone is saying "Well, at least the part was given to a minority", why should I feel calm knowing that one minority was marginalized but another was highlighted? Why is it okay that as long the role is given to a minority, everybody's cool? Are we not different people? Is it completely acceptable to dump all minorities into one big bucket? It's not, and it shouldn't be. I'm glad Ejiofor got the part, but why the hell can I not be disappointed or angry that an Indian person didn't get it? On the larger scale of things, its good that Hollywood is addressing its race issue, and I think it was great they cast Donald Glover for a role that could have easily gone to someone like Miles Teller. But, in this personal context as an Indian, its hard not to feel slighted.
stufte
Member
I searched my kindle version and didn't find anything about her appearance. Same with Purnell.
Though Weir could have said something about their race in his blog or facebook...
Gus tha God
Banned
Are you white?
WrenchNinja
Member
either that or hopelessly misguided
freeofgreed
Member
Welcome to discussing diversity in media on neogaf
the whole "it should go to the best actor, and color shouldn't matter" is the same tired argument we see on every thread discussing this topic.
stufte
Member
found the origin of her (and purnell's) race:
https://domesoph.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/andy-weir-and-the-martian/
https://domesoph.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/andy-weir-and-the-martian/
WrenchNinja
Member
well i guess that's that, she was most definitely white washed.
Rice-Eater
Member
I don't think they ever explicitly say it in the book, but I never imagined Mindy Park to be a blonde white woman in my head.
OK I'll give them a pass on this. Why is Naomi Scott playing a character named "Ryoko"? Was this character Japanese or did she just happen to have a Japanese name? And I did look up Naomi Scott, she's half Indian half white. So she's not completely white but this isn't close enough for the "all look same" argument either. Was Kristen Kruek not available?
stufte
Member
To be fair, Weir didn't specifically say it in his book and didn't relate that to the film makers: https://youtu.be/2tfh6OUUYUw?t=1989
WrenchNinja
Member
why should i care whether the author is okay with the casting or not? the main character featured in Bringing Down the House was okay with the casting of 21, a film based on his own life.
This exactly. It never occurred to me that Mindy Park was Korean while reading the book; it wasn't until I read about this issue today that I found out that Park is a common Korean name.
I think there's plenty to be upset about regarding Asian-American representation in Hollywood, but this movie doesn't seem like a good example of the problem.
Also, Benedict Wong was awesome in it.
Well, I didn't imagine Rich Purnell to be Donald Glover (quirky black guy) in my head, which is why I brought it up next to Mindy Park. There's a bunch of characters I felt like could flip any way. Only Venkat Kapoor, Martinez, Vogel, and Bruce Ng I feel like had defined 'minority' attributes, along with the female characters. When I thought about it, I thought Rich Purnell could have easily been a white guy, and Mindy Park could be white or Asian.I don't think they ever explicitly say it in the book, but I never imagined Mindy Park to be a blonde white woman in my head.
torre_avenue
Banned
I'm sorry, what?
They cast a half-Indian lady for the role of a woman presumably of Japanese descent?
Casting was on fire that day, weren't they?
MHWilliams
Member
You'll never know if Asian-American actors and actresses don't get equally meaty roles to work with.
That's simple, it's outside their personal sphere, so they don't particularly care. Human attention is limited, so it's best to worry about things that either directly affect you or may tangentially effect you.
The Media Action Network For Asian-Americans is concerned with Asian-American representation in Hollywood. Some Asian-American may care as well. Other minorities, having felt the same issue may also care. As you move outside that region, it'll get harder to get people to care.
Aggressive apathy is a real thing.
On the surface, the choice to cast Ejiofor is fine. Within the film's own context, it's perfectly good choice. It only becomes a problem when you expand the scope of your viewpoint beyond this single film and many are unwilling to do that, potentially because to do so would require seeing other patterns they may have ignored.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Unless there's evidence this was Scott's choice, I'd say odds are this was a studio fuckery more than anything else.
I don't think it's a reason you should feel ok about the race-bending, but I think this is probably why people are somewhat apathetic. Changing a minority role to a white person is easy enough to understand as harmful. Changing an Indian role to a black person is going to come off as more mixed--sure, Indian people are underrepresented in movies, but so are black people. So instead of taking a role from an underrepresented minority and giving it to a white person, it's taking a role from an underrepresented minority and giving it to another underrepresented minority. There's not so much of a spark there to get people into it.
This must of course be judged within the context of the larger issue of diversity in Hollywood in mind, but it shouldn't be at the exclusion of everything else or lead to assuming the motivations of individuals. I know it's tempting to want to point out examples of the problem and call attention to it, but the risk is overstepping when other potential contributing factors unrelated to the actual problem are ignored. The existence of a large, overarching issue shouldn't make us feel justified in automatically assuming the worst of any particular individuals (or individual event).
I've argued in the past that the existence of these kinds of widespread issues should, on the contrary, motivate us to examine cases like this more closely. Understanding the difference between a casting process that seems to have taken place here, where original plans were scrapped for various reasons with very short notice, and others where certain historical characters, or those who otherwise draw much of their identity from their ethnicity, race or religion, are not cast with that in mind at all from the beginning, is key to knowing what to do about the problem. Casting a wide, indiscriminate net doesn't benefit anyone and can really only cause harm to a just cause, both in effecting the perception of the problem by those misidentified as perpetuating it and distracting from the ultimate purpose of identifying methods of addressing the problem.
In other words, I think the problem is best dealt with when criticism is leveled thoughtfully and not reflexively, and that criticism leads to careful analysis. There are far too many examples of movies where it's clear, based on specific details of the process, that ingrained biases and other systemic diversity issues played a part in casting. It's simply not the case that the only evidence for this occurring is when a character who was one race in the literary representation ends up a different race in the movie, yet many see that fact as sufficient to label it as representing the larger issue. I think this case is a good example of that.
| Praxis |
Banned
All I was saying was in this particular case, it could have been played by anyone. It does matter if the character's race was actually important. It would be different if it was a western and all of the native Americans where played by white people. Please stop putting words in my mouth. It would have been better that they chose an actor of accurate ethnicity to play the role, because I'm all for keeping as close to the source material as possible, but to be honest anybody could have played that role. He's pretty one note in the book.
Sorry, that was a mistake. I was supposed to quote juicyfruitas.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I've only heard stories, from other people, but if what they say is true about hollywood.. oh boy.
I've heard that sexual abuse is rampant in hollywood. pretty actresses who wants to make it. It's basically standard for many to have to give blowjobs to producers to get a tryout for a part. It's not some rare occurence. The sony leaks are a representation of how hollywood is. These powerful people shape a lot of the beauty and mainstream popularity. they have a tremendous amount of influence about what will be attractive. along with fashion and music. But hollywood... I think many people take for granted how massive their influence is.
I've heard that sexual abuse is rampant in hollywood. pretty actresses who wants to make it. It's basically standard for many to have to give blowjobs to producers to get a tryout for a part. It's not some rare occurence. The sony leaks are a representation of how hollywood is. These powerful people shape a lot of the beauty and mainstream popularity. they have a tremendous amount of influence about what will be attractive. along with fashion and music. But hollywood... I think many people take for granted how massive their influence is.
torre_avenue
Banned
Could you explain this? On the contrary, at a surface-level view of things, it's not fine to cast an Anglo-African for the role of an Indian. Even if you strip away all the context and the larger race discussion, at the end of the day, an actor has been hired to play the role of a character who has a different race than he does. That's the definition of race-bending.
On your larger points, I do agree. This sort of aggressive apathy towards anything that doesn't concern us is our fundamental flaw. Just as an anecdote that relates to this, my parents voted Republican in 2012. I asked, "Why?" They wanted him to cut their taxes. And then I told them about all the other terrible stances the Republican party had taken on climate change, women's reproductive rights, etc. And they seemed genuinely surprised that they had voted for someone like that. My parents looked at the part that concerned them and ignored everything else. And that flaw isn't limited to just my parents. Republicans who ignore climate change and deny it exists won't acknowledge it exist till their state gets wrecked by droughts, or rain, or reclaimed coast. The mass public who don't really have an opinion on gun rights won't actively campaign for gun law change till their life gets changed by an errant shot. As a society, our collective short-sightedness in exchange for our personal gain is what has gotten us in such a position. Mass shootings every day, oil companies concealing global warming evidence for 70 years, propping up anti-communist dictators, and so on and so on. I know it doesn't pertain to the topic at hand, so sorry for being all philosophical and what not.
MHWilliams
Member
In any adaptation, you will have changes from the source material. A character is taller or fatter than described in the books. Events are changed from how they happened in the manga. Whole new plots or characters are created for cinematic efficiency.
See the Marvel Cinematic Universe, where the characters are in the spirit of the Marvel Comics counterparts but are nowhere near 1-to-1 adaptations. I can give you a dozen reasons this guy:
isn't this guy:
What others are saying is "If you can change all that stuff, why is race any different?" On the surface, that's a valid question, especially if that race doesn't inform how the character acts in the work in question. I don't personally have an issue with changing the race of a character in an adaptation.
In this case, the larger context is the problem: There are few roles for Asian-American actors in Hollywood, so the loss of major roles is keenly felt. This is also why you could switch a white character to a minority or a male role to a female role and hear less criticism. The wider context is the important one.
torre_avenue
Banned
I see what you're saying. I hope I don't come off as believing Ridley Scott is a hardcore racist or the casting director willfully overlooked Indian actors and chose Chiwetel. I acknowledge that the studio must have seen Irrfan decline the role and saw a rising star like Ejiofor, and jumped at the opportunity to have another Academy Award nominee in their film. That's just business at the end of the day, and you can't fault a businessman/woman for being good at his/her job.
But, at the same time, it stands to reason that even if Ejiofor wasn't in the movie, the movie would still have grossed its large amount. That's just speculation of course, but if that were the case, what was stopping the casting director or Scott or the studio even from saying "Let's hire Kal Penn for the role, save a couple million, and spend it on marketing."? That's also a rather sound option. My belief is, there are any number of talented Indian or Indian-American actors. Why would no one reach out to them, assuming that they went straight from Irrfan to Ejiofor? Its possible that all of the famous Indian actos (all two of them) would have turned it down. Why not Suraj Sharma? Why not one of the Bollywood stars that were raised in America? Why not a potential unknown? Business-wise, the move from Irrfan to Ejiofor is a step-up, in terms of prestige and acting. But why did no one along the lines think this wasn't the right thing to do? That's a question for another time, I think.
torre_avenue
Banned
Ah, I got you. Well, the way I see it is, if we were in a post-racial society, they'd be right. Race is a subjective trait that can be defined however it wishes. Unfortunately, we aren't so its not as easy to mess around with race when it comes to characters. And with Thor, you have a huge amount of leeway with him and her as a character. And yet, most depictions of Thor are incredibly similar: well-built Caucasian man who speaks like Shakespeare. There's a preconceived notion as to who Thor is that is based on old Viking myths, so he is thought as white. But, with something like Giant-Man or Ms. Marvel, you have a leeway with their characters and their traits because its just a codename. They could be anybody. There is no preconcieved notion of that character (aside from hardcore comic fans) that is unbreakable. With a name like Venkat Kapoor, you have none of that. There is no Venkat Kapoor in the world who isn't Indian. You can't take it like a codename. A name is the most fundamental item a person owns. It's, in some ways, what define us, what tell us of our heritage. Venkat Kapoor is a name that is fundamentally Indian. That has a storied history associated in its creation as a name. When you take a name like that and you convert into a code-name, an identity assumable by anyone, you, in a way, marginalize its value and its meaning. You take away the uniquely Indian aspects of it to make it so. Thor, in a way, faces the same problem. It has aspects to the name deeply rooted in Viking culture, so characters that use it have to honor the history behind it. Granted, Marvel movies have made it so that Thor is a code-name than a name, but still. That's a very long-winded way of saying that while the lack of Asian actors in Hollywood gives a more critical view of this situation, the character's name here gives a preconcieved notion that the person playing him should be Indian. It isn't an all-purpose name like Jane, or Tom, or Harold, or whatnot. Its a name that has a unique culture associated to it that gives it value, and wasn't given its due.
In short, the name Venkat Kapoor means an Indian person should have played him but no one did. The larger context adds the questions of "Why no Indian actors in Hollywood? Why is no one else angry? Why are minorities considered interchangable in their representation? Why are people assuming I should automatically okay just because 3 Chinese actors in the film?"
Prototype Viktor
Member
With a name like that, it's white enough
MHWilliams
Member
The problem you're having is this focus on the unchangeable traits of a character. Thor is largely whatever Marvel want him (or her) to be. Currently Thor is this:
The character in the film is "Vincent Kapoor" though. Different guy, fulfilling the same role.
Again, don't focus on the "this character can't change". They can, because they're a fictional construct. The problem is that a major film role for an Asian-American actor was lost, not that Venkat Kapoor is somehow inviolate as a character. The issue with "white-washing" is roles for minority actors can be rare, so each chance is important.
torre_avenue
Banned
Oh really? I thought they had kept the name as Venkat Kapoor. In this case, its better. Granted Kapoor is still an Indian last name and I still would have liked to see an Indian play him, at least the filmmakers changed his name to reflect the lack of an Indian actor for the role. I was still under the impression the final cut of the film had Venkat Kapoor as his name still, so I'm glad to see someone down the line had some consideration of the situation. And considering that he doesn't do an over-the-top Indian accent for the role, it might even be a step in the right direction. I still wish someone of Indian origin had taken the role, but at least Hollywood isn't as ignorant and tone deaf as I thought.
Now I just feel stupid for not double-checking if they had changed the name.
It was a good movie. So much hate in this thread. I agree with you regarding the characters mentioned.
MHWilliams
Member
No reason to feel stupid. It's all good.
GTS300Coupe
Banned
Movie was pretty diverse. People are really upset over this?
Admiral Woofington
Member
Outside of the Mars crew (who still had a hispanic) the movie was diverse as fuck.
We had people of every race and color playing crucial roles. People of non-white races were arguably the most important characters in the film in everything on earth.
They have every right to be insulted but I just don't feel this is the movie to do so. The white girl in mission control basically
.
I'm personally insulted that Sean Bean was in the movie
We had people of every race and color playing crucial roles. People of non-white races were arguably the most important characters in the film in everything on earth.
They have every right to be insulted but I just don't feel this is the movie to do so. The white girl in mission control basically
just checked on images of Matt Damon to see his day to day activities
I'm personally insulted that Sean Bean was in the movie
and didn't die
MHWilliams
Member
Some Asian-Americans had criticism. This shocks you? You liked it so everyone must fall in line?
Perhaps there are things others liked that you had issues with?
"Park" is definitely assumed Korean. Something like 10% of Koreans have the name Park. It's up there with Kim and Lee.
That's a bad analogy. There *are* lots of blonde Hispanics. Spainards are Hispanic. "Hispanic" is a real complicated concept. US Census treats it in such a weird way, too.
That's a bad analogy. There *are* lots of blonde Hispanics. Spainards are Hispanic. "Hispanic" is a real complicated concept. US Census treats it in such a weird way, too.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Yeah, that's some really bad whitewashing when the T-shirt comes out black-
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked