Importance of white representation in fiction

[Birdjaguar]

Personal aesthetic preferences can be neither right nor wrong.

...Until they lead to bad actions, cruelty, or oppression.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sure, but this is your interpretation. That doesn't make the casting inherently correct. It just means you've found a reason that satisfies your own threshold of tolerance in an adaptation.

Actually, when the author describes a character a certain way, I appreciate when casting is at least close to that description. David Lynch got it right with Duke Leto and Lady Jessica in his movie. He got the Fremen right. He got Paul's hair color right, but Kyle MacLachlan didn't look like a small teenager. In this instance, I will admit that Timothee Chalomet's casting as Paul in the new movie was more accurate because he physically resembles Frank Herbert's description of Paul (at least in look; I'm not sure how tall he is). He looks young. And he's not blond, like the miniseries Atreides.

There are Harry Potter fans who are torn between loving Alan Rickman as Snape and complaining that the cast playing the Marauders are too old, as in they look older than 35. But since Alan Rickman was who was wanted to play Snape, they did the other Marauder casting for people in a compatible age range so there wouldn't be any obvious age discrepancies for people who were supposed to have been in the same year at Hogwarts when they attended. I love Gary Oldman's portrayal of Sirius Black, and tend to think of him when I read fanfic, even though the vast majority of fanfic stories follow the novel's description of Sirius. So I'll admit to a little bit of inconsistency in my views.

But not in Dune. Harry Potter doesn't depend on Sirius Black's hair/eye color, or whether Harry has green or blue eyes (as long as his eye color matches Lily's, it works). Dune, on the other hand, goes into reasons why characters are as he described them, and there's a whole bookful of articles in the Dune Encyclopedia that are Frank Herbert-approved to provide further explanations and details.

I think a lot of this ultimately comes down to preference, rather than "right" or "wrong". You seem to prefer adaptations to be as accurate as possible (like Akka, I believe).

We're going to see that happen less over time, as casting calls get more diverse simply as a reflection of society. It doesn't have to be anything political, or some kind of social commentary. Of course, it can be, and the difference in our opinions will be our tolerance for that, generally.

As long as this "reflection of society" doesn't veer off into the ridiculous, as Villeneuve's excuse for genderswapping Liet-Kynes is. There was no valid reason for it, and his excuses don't wash. For those of us who delved into the broader Duniverse and looked beyond the bare novels into what sort of place the Imperium itself is, this miscasting just breaks the fourth wall.

 

[aelf]

...Until they lead to bad actions, cruelty, or oppression.

Indeed. If someone's preference is for all white actors in a show that does not need it and the person is loud about it, then that should be called out.

 

[Sarin]

Indeed. If someone's preference is for all white actors in a show that does not need it and the person is loud about it, then that should be called out.

Same with preference for black actors in roles that don't need it or is even causes problems with the story.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Same with preference for black actors in roles that don't need it or is even causes problems with the story.

Why are black actors to be limited to only roles that require black actors?
Most roles in a contemporary setting work equally well regardless of race.

 

[Sarin]

Why are black actors to be limited to only roles that require black actors?
Most roles in a contemporary setting work equally well regardless of race.

Please don't try strawman argument, that's dishonest.

There are roles that require actors of suitable race and/or sex. Anne Boleyn, for example. Or, as was mentioned here, Fringilla from Witcher-in books, her semblance to another person played role in plot. Both roles show heavyhanded tokenism that's unfortunately endemic to modern entertainment industry.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Please don't try strawman argument, that's dishonest.

There are roles that require actors of suitable race and/or sex. Anne Boleyn, for example. Or, as was mentioned here, Fringilla from Witcher-in books, her semblance to another person played role in plot. Both roles show heavyhanded tokenism that's unfortunately endemic to modern entertainment industry.

You were the one objecting to black actors in roles that don't need them.

 

[Sarin]

You were the one objecting to black actors in roles that don't need them.

No. I object to black actors in roles which are unsuitable to them. Do you understand the difference?

 

[RobAnybody]

I personally can't see any difference in (for example) Frodo's character, because his defining characteristics were his relative youth, his proximity to Bilbo (who was seen as a hobbit who had gone a bit wrong, doing adventures and other stuff) and . . . from memory, his association to Gandalf and I think elves too?

While I agree with this, I think the point some people are raising, including myself, is that if you want to cast Frodo as black, or Asian, or Indian, or whatever, you need to cast the whole Shire as that race. What you can't do, & still maintain story integrity, is to have a remote area like The Shire where travel more than a few dozen miles away is nearly unheard of & different races (be they mythical or like our world) are an unusual spectacle to be remarked upon by the inhabitants, is to have that area be an entirely integrated, fully diverse melting pot.

Hobbits in The Shire are all played by Pacific Islanders or Hispanics is OK*. Hobbits in the Shire are a modern mix of races like you would see in a Los Angeles (for example) is not OK*, because it breaks the structure of the world as it has been built.

* "OK" in this case means the story structure remains consistent; I'm not trying to make any more judgment than that

 

[Birdjaguar]

...Until they lead to bad actions, cruelty, or oppression.

Indeed. If someone's preference is for all white actors in a show that does not need it and the person is loud about it, then that should be called out.

That is not what I said.

Both roles show heavyhanded tokenism that's unfortunately endemic to modern entertainment industry.

It is a sign of a culture in transition.

 

[AmazonQueen]

No. I object to black actors in roles which are unsuitable to them. Do you understand the difference?

That wasn't all you said. To quote you again, Same with preference for black actors in roles that don't need it

 

[Sarin]

It is a sign of a culture in transition.

Transition to what exactly?

That wasn't what you said. To quote you again, Same with preference for black actors in roles that don't need it

That's way out of context. Look at the post on which I was reacting.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Transition to what exactly?

That is what is interesting about transitions; you often cannot predict what future they hold. In this case I think we are moving into a period where hyper individuality will some kind of norm. The simplicity of three races and two genders will fade into one race and a multitude of individual categories by which one can classify oneself.

 

[Gorbles]

As long as this "reflection of society" doesn't veer off into the ridiculous, as Villeneuve's excuse for genderswapping Liet-Kynes is. There was no valid reason for it, and his excuses don't wash. For those of us who delved into the broader Duniverse and looked beyond the bare novels into what sort of place the Imperium itself is, this miscasting just breaks the fourth wall.

I have no opinion on said genderswapping, sorry (I'm only tangentially familiar with Dune), but I would still insist this comes down to a personal threshold of the suspension of disbelief.

For example, I'm not going to win any competitions for my knowledge, but I'm very into the works of Tolkien. I have been since I was a young child. But I'm also relatively relaxed on the leeway I'd grant to an adaptation. This doesn't mean I'm right, or someone else is wrong. Like emzie said, it's a very individual metric.

While I agree with this, I think the point some people are raising, including myself, is that if you want to cast Frodo as black, or Asian, or Indian, or whatever, you need to cast the whole Shire as that race. What you can't do, & still maintain story integrity, is to have a remote area like The Shire where travel more than a few dozen miles away is nearly unheard of & different races (be they mythical or like our world) are an unusual spectacle to be remarked upon by the inhabitants, is to have that area be an entirely integrated, fully diverse melting pot.

My question in this specific scenario would be: why does the whole Shire need to be? The first Dwarf Lords were hewn from stone by . . . I want to say Aule. I don't have the Silmarillion or the umlaut to hand, nor the energy to Google (I'm about to crash for the evening, hah). Hobbit ancestry is even more vague than that. We're talking mere skin tone here, not necessarily the entire culture of a specific real-world demographic.

I've already pointed out that black folk existed in Europe historically. They could be found across random parts of England for centuries (mainly due to Roman occupation I believe). There's no reason to say the whole Shire has to be black even if we're working from the assumption that it has to mirror some kind of historical England. Of course, sure, make the Shire and all related hobbits have black skin. Go for it. The original question was to do with the Fellowship. Nobody said anything about making the Shire itself diverse.

But even more than that: why do we need to apply modern human conceptions of race and genetics to a setting that has very little, if any of it, in the setting? Isn't this another example of us trying to put our own bits into the setting, unbidden?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Actually, when the author describes a character a certain way, I appreciate when casting is at least close to that description.

This makes perfect sense to me. Of course that is your personal preference, which is going to be shared to some degree, by some people, and not shared, in differing degrees, by others.

While I agree with this, I think the point some people are raising, including myself, is that if you want to cast Frodo as black, or Asian, or Indian, or whatever, you need to cast the whole Shire as that race. What you can't do, & still maintain story integrity, is to have a remote area like The Shire where travel more than a few dozen miles away is nearly unheard of & different races (be they mythical or like our world) are an unusual spectacle to be remarked upon by the inhabitants, is to have that area be an entirely integrated, fully diverse melting pot.

Hobbits in The Shire are all played by Pacific Islanders or Hispanics is OK*. Hobbits in the Shire are a modern mix of races like you would see in a Los Angeles (for example) is not OK*, because it breaks the structure of the world as it has been built.

I get what you are saying and it makes sense, but I want to pushback a little on this concept. The first thing that jumped into my mind when I read this was squirrels. What I mean is, that squirrels come in a variety of colours, from brown to reddish-orange to jet black, in addition to the common familiar gray that we are all most familiar with, and they all live in the same areas, sometimes.

I think that 20 years ago, I would have agreed with your point without question, but a non-insignificant of the shows/movies that are coming out nowadays are very casual about the race/ethnicity of the characters and generally its fine. I keep encountering movies/shows where the characters are just characters and their race/ethnicity is essentially irrelevant and it doesn't cause any problems with immersion at least not to me. So I'm starting to think that some of this irritation/discomfort with characters not being a certain race/ethnicity is a lot more personal to individual viewers than a reflection of anything objective. I'm still thinking about it. In any case I think this is a really interesting topic for discussion.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I have no opinion on said genderswapping, sorry (I'm only tangentially familiar with Dune), but I would still insist this comes down to a personal threshold of the suspension of disbelief.

So you're dismissing my views about something you admit to being "only tangentially familiar with").

O-kay...

Could everyone please notice that I haven't been offering views about LOTR adaptations, because I am only vaguely familiar with the source material, mostly in the sense of "I know it exists, I know many people consider them to be classics in the fantasy genre, but I'm unfamiliar with 99.9% of it because I haven't read it and am not likely to read it"? I certainly haven't been dismissing anyone's views about the specifics of it and what they think does and does not work for adaptations.

The same courtesy would be appreciated with regard to Dune. It's been nearly 40 years since I first read those books, and I spent several years steeped in Dune lore and discussion on several Dune-centric forums where the novels, the Lynch movie, and the miniseries were discussed extensively. I think I know what I'm talking about.

EDIT:

The first think that jumped into my mind when I read this was squirrels. What I mean is, that squirrels come in a variety of colours, from brown to reddish-orange to jet black, in addition to the common familiar gray that we are all most familiar with.

Fine, and to take your metaphor literally... if I were to use squirrels in a story and used a type of squirrel not native to the region where my story takes place, someone very familiar with squirrel habitats would be justified in saying, "You made a mistake."

Kinda like what makes me have the reaction when I see depictions of Christmas art or stories that show penguins and polar bears cohabiting. Their natural habitats are literally at opposite ends of the planet, since most Christmas-themed penguins are Emperors, who are an Antarctic species.

 

[Gorbles]

So you're dismissing my views about something you admit to being "only tangentially familiar with").

I absolutely appreciate your opinion. I'm not sure how you got to the notion that I'm dismissing it just because I'm saying it's your own personal preference.

 

[RobAnybody]

I get what you are saying and it makes sense, but I want to pushback a little on this concept. The first thing that jumped into my mind when I read this was squirrels. ...

I cut your quote for brevity, but I get what you're saying. But! I feel like you can't really compare squirrels to humans, or hobbits. It's just not a good analogy, if only due to lifespans & completely different pressures of natural selection. Squirrels live, at most, 20 years, tops (had to Google that myself). Also, you're getting into evolutionary pressures about how natural selection might favor certain random mutations over others over a *super long*, almost unfathomable to us, period of time. Just a bad analogy, IMO, no offense.

I think that 20 years ago, I would have agreed with your point without question, but a non-insignificant of the shows/movies that are coming out nowadays are very casual about the race/ethnicity of the characters and generally its fine.

I've said earlier in the thread, if people want to add diversity to an existing story, that's all well & good, but... it's clearly an "outside the story" reason, i.e. to satisfy modern sensibilities. As opposed to an in-story reason.

EDIT: I don't mean to say that's bad, by any means, just acknowledging it.

 

[aelf]

That is not what I said.

It isn't? So perpetuating the dominance of one race for "aesthetic preference" doesn't cause harm?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It isn't? So perpetuating the dominance of one race for "aesthetic preference" doesn't cause harm?

Okay, fine. I've just figured out how to appease you. Let's ban all white people from TV, movies, stage, comics, graphic novels, and as computer game characters, regardless of the source material.

Will that make you happy?