Importance of white representation in fiction

[Farm Boy]

I think those were the same exact two* words you've used on me the last two times I agreed with you on something. Do I need to fight with you before I'm socially acceptable, or do just want me to wait a couple more years this time?

*I suppose it's three words. Contractions being contractions.

 

[warpus]

@Valka D'Ur A lot of good points there! I don't have much time to respond right now unfortunately, but I'm intrigued by the novel you mentioned about the time travelling Pole. I'm definitely going to order that, thanks for mentioning it

Nope, that's kind of the point. People are so intent on having white actors for most if not all roles that you can't even hire non-white extras because "muh suspension of disbelief." View attachment 618017

That's the thing thing, these days casting in popular movies and TV series seems to be getting more diverse than even say 5 years ago. I see more actors of colour and women in roles in a lot of the shows that I've watched. But it's like everybody's ignoring east Asians in all of this, while focusing on everybody else. East Asian characters still seem to get the "token east asian" treatment and usually only seem to get hired for stereotypical roles. Which is strange because there is a decent % of people of east Asian ancestry in the U.S. They seem to get the "ah who cares about them, they won't speak up anyway" treatment. This has been changing too, but veeeeery slowly, it seems to be not really something people seem to care about, even though diverse representation in casting choices seems to be a big deal these days. It throws up red flags for me. The changes we are seeing with casting is what - lip service? That's what it feels like

 

[Yeekim]

You keep asserting that without any argument. I don't think closeness to the source matters at all for suspension of disbelief.

Hm... provided the source material is internally consistent and of good quality (and if is not, why even adapt this garbage?), would each deviation not increase the risk of breaking that consistency and immersion with it?
You said earlier that

A wizard doing wizard things requires the same amount of suspension of disbelief, no matter whether the character wears a blue hat (as in the source material) or a gray hat and no matter the skin color of the actor.

Maybe "suspension of disbelief" is a wrong term? Had Peter Jackson made Gandalf to look like, say, Mordenkainen (just Googled for random wizard pics), it would have bothered me hugely, even though that other guy looks very cool and entirely wizardly... and I really don't believe this is a minority opinion. It is technically not relevant to the story for Gandalf to be an old-looking white guy with blue hat and a long beard... but this is what makes him recognizable. Why stop him from being recognizable by removing his beard and changing the color of his hat, if it does not add anything to the story either? Lot of fans would be bothered. Others might shrug it off... but unless some love that change, its net impact is negative. And why would one love a change that does not add anything good to the story?

 

[Birdjaguar]

And why would one love a change that does not add anything good to the story?

To remove the oppressive nature of white actor domination and make room for non white actors. Globalization and the aging to maturity of millennials is rewriting the script of storytelling. The train has left the station. If you have missed it, then you can still enjoy the walk.

JD Rockefeller got rich off kerosene for lamps and then road the wave that moved the world to automobiles and gasoline.

 

[uppi]

Hm... provided the source material is internally consistent and of good quality (and if is not, why even adapt this garbage?), would each deviation not increase the risk of breaking that consistency and immersion with it?

You said earlier that


Maybe "suspension of disbelief" is a wrong term? Had Peter Jackson made Gandalf to look like, say, Mordenkainen (just Googled for random wizard pics), it would have bothered me hugely, even though that other guy looks very cool and entirely wizardly... and I really don't believe this is a minority opinion. It is technically not relevant to the story for Gandalf to be an old-looking white guy with blue hat and a long beard... but this is what makes him recognizable. Why stop him from being recognizable by removing his beard and changing the color of his hat, if it does not add anything to the story either? Lot of fans would be bothered. Others might shrug it off... but unless some love that change, its net impact is negative. And why would one love a change that does not add anything good to the story?

No source material is ever perfectly consistent and cannot be improved upon. So a deviation can actually have a positive impact. Gandalf is actually good example of it. Compare these two descriptions from he Fellowship of the ring:

"He wore a tall pointed blue hat, a long grey cloak, and a silver scarf. He had a long white beard and bushy eyebrows that stuck out beyond the brim of his hat."

"Gandalf was shorter in stature than the other two; but his long white hair, his sweeping silver beard, and his broad shoulders, made him look like some wise king of ancient legend. In his aged face under great snowy brows his eyes were set like coals that could suddenly burst into fire."

Now was his beard white or silver? Exactly following the source, would mean to change his beard color from one scene to the next without any reason, which would be strange to the viewer. So a deviation can actually improve immersion and consistency.

And lets have a look at all the other deviations the movie made from the book:
- hat: not really blue but gray
- hair: not white but gray
- eyes: not black but blue
- eye-brows: not extending beyond the brim of the hat (which actually implies that the hat shape must be quite different, otherwise you would get huge eyebrows)

Do all these changes have a negative impact as your statement would suggest?

And notice that there is no mention of him being white. So casting a black actor with dark eyes would actually be a closer match to the description. It is probably just your own bias that demands Gandalf to be white.

 

[Sommerswerd]

before I'm socially acceptable

You're socially acceptable to me.

I think that contractions count as one word... so that's 5 words not 6. Does the emoji count as a word?

 

[Robo-Star]

Now was his beard white or silver?

white
11. Grey, as from old age; having silvery hair; hoary.

 

[McKeu]

To remove the oppressive nature of white actor domination and make room for non white actors. Globalization and the aging to maturity of millennials is rewriting the script of storytelling. The train has left the station. If you have missed it, then you can still enjoy the walk.

JD Rockefeller got rich off kerosene for lamps and then road the wave that moved the world to automobiles and gasoline.

I got to be brutally honest: You give me a movie about 17th century British royalty with 50% of them black, I will feel just as offended as if you remake 30 years a slave with whites as cotton pickers.
Not everything inclusive is good. Especially if it distorts the actual history that has happened.
I would rather have my kid ask questions about skin color, etc., after watching 30 years a slave, than have her not be moved about it, cause half the slaves were whites.
That's like replacing the swastika in second world war movies with the Union Jack, because the Union Jack is less offensive (depending on who you ask, though. I bet the Indians have their own opinion about that).
Or why not remake the Stalingrad movie with half of the actors on both sides being black? Historical accuracy apparently has no relevance anyway.

And I am pretty sure a black Gandalf or Legolas would not have sit right with 90% of yous.
Reminds of the movie adaption of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy were a dominantly as pale and redhaired described character in the book was played by a black man. Would it have worked without the book... maybe. Did it work while knowing the character was a cheesy redhaired char from Beteigeuze (something that was repeatedly made clear in the books)? No.

 

[Gorbles]

I got to be brutally honest: You give me a movie about 17th century British royalty with 50% of them black, I will feel just as offended as if you remake 30 years a slave with whites as cotton pickers.
Not everything inclusive is good. Especially if it distorts the actual history that has happened.
I would rather have my kid ask questions about skin color, etc., after watching 30 years a slave, than have her not be moved about it, cause half the slaves were whites.
That's like replacing the swastika in second world war movies with the Union Jack, because the Union Jack is less offensive (depending on who you ask, though. I bet the Indians have their own opinion about that).
Or why not remake the Stalingrad movie with half of the actors on both sides being black? Historical accuracy apparently has no relevance anyway.

And I am pretty sure a black Gandalf or Legolas would not have sit right with 90% of yous.
Reminds of the movie adaption of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy were a dominantly as pale and redhaired described character in the book was played by a black man. Would it have worked without the book... maybe. Did it work while knowing the character was a cheesy redhaired char from Beteigeuze (something that was repeatedly made clear in the books)? No.

The difference is generally, per setting, if the actual colour of someone's skin is relevant to the plot. For a film regarding slavery? It's pretty explicit. For a film about 17th century British royalty? It could be, but as shows like Bridgerton show us, it doesn't have to be either. Depends on what the plot is focusing on, and what it brings to the fore.

The freaking Lord of the Rings? Outside of people who get value out of it for its (rather loose, imo) European roots, I don't see why it matters in the slightest. Is Gandalf the character changed in any evident way by dint of the colour of his skin? I don't think so.

 

[McKeu]

The difference is generally, per setting, if the actual colour of someone's skin is relevant to the plot. For a film regarding slavery? It's pretty explicit. For a film about 17th century British royalty? It could be, but as shows like Bridgerton show us, it doesn't have to be either. Depends on what the plot is focusing on, and what it brings to the fore.

The freaking Lord of the Rings? Outside of people who get value out of it for its (rather loose, imo) European roots, I don't see why it matters in the slightest. Is Gandalf the character changed in any evident way by dint of the colour of his skin? I don't think so.

If it doesn't matter... then why not leave characters the way the authors intended (and described) them to be?

I mean, if you are unhappy about representations of ethnicities in the past (where that was quite normal), why not write your own bestseller? No need to complain then.

 

[Tee Kay]

I got to be brutally honest: You give me a movie about 17th century British royalty with 50% of them black, I will feel just as offended as if you remake 30 years a slave with whites as cotton pickers.
Not everything inclusive is good. Especially if it distorts the actual history that has happened.

If you think any movie accurately depict the actual history that has happened then I happen to have the original London Bridge in my garage for a low low price...

That said, I agree to a point. If it's a historical drama that is supposed to be immersive as a historical drama and Queen Mary of Scots is played by a black Nigerian actor, uh, yeah I don't think that's a good casting decision.

That's an extreme case though (and I do think some people do push this kind of "diversity" into historical dramas where it shouldn't be and it ruins the broader inclusivity argument). In most other cases, the race of the actor should not matter. Gandalf was not a historical figure, neither was Spiderman, nor James Bond. Non-white actors play white-as-written characters from Shakespeare's or Les Miserables all the time. Those kinds of adaptations shouldn't be immersion-breaking, and if you find that they do, then possibly the issue may be on you, not the casting choice.

 

[Tee Kay]

If it doesn't matter... then why not leave characters the way the authors intended (and described) them to be?

Because works of fiction get adapted and remixed all the time regardless of the authors' wishes. Are you against retelling or adaptations of author's works at all? The film experience of Lord of the Rings is quite different from reading the book (and further to that, the experience of reading the book varies from person to person)

 

[McKeu]

Because works of fiction get adapted and remixed all the time regardless of the authors' wishes. Are you against retelling or adaptations of author's works at all? The film experience of Lord of the Rings is quite different from reading the book (and further to that, the experience of reading the book varies from person to person)

I wouldn't be so stuck with trying to change things that have already happened or described. You want change? Then make it, but try to be original, except for taking something that is already established and making two personnel changes.
That will not work in anyone's favor.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...)
That said, I agree to a point. If it's a historical drama that is supposed to be immersive as a historical drama and Queen Mary of Scots is played by a black Nigerian actor, uh, yeah I don't think that's a good casting decision.

It would be a great episode of Blackadder though, a black homosexual bloke would be even better

 

[Gorbles]

If it doesn't matter... then why not leave characters the way the authors intended (and described) them to be?

If it doesn't matter, then why object to characters being changed in this manner? Goes both ways

 

[McKeu]

If it doesn't matter, then why object to characters being changed in this manner? Goes both ways

Because the character was already created by someone (the author) who had his own idea?
You take away all the interpretation about life, epoche, etc. from the author's view, which, in my days at school, was quite an important aspect to understanding the whole thing.

 

[Tee Kay]

Because the character was already created by someone (the author) who had his own idea?
You take away all the interpretation about life, epoche, etc. from the author's view, which, in my days at school, was quite an important aspect to understanding the whole thing.

You do realise that this is not how the vast majority of society normally treats works of fiction right? We live in a world where works get adapted, remixed, reimagined, rewritten all the time, usually without the original author's input. Often in the original creative process it's not one guy but an entire team, who themselves don't own their creations collectively but a corporation does. A day after a work is released you already have 1000 published works of fanfiction and a terabyte of art, safe for work or otherwise, none of which has the author's input or approval.

It seems weird that for some people, all of the above is fine and just the way things are, but when a character's race is changed, all of a sudden it's "artistic integrity", like we ever cared about that as a society.

Yeah, you write essays in high school analysing the work and what the author intended, etc. So what? Your interpretation is probably inaccurate to what the author actually intended anyway. Once the work in out in public, the author does not have the right to tell us the correct way to think about or interpret or remix what they've created. That is freedom.

 

[Gorbles]

Because the character was already created by someone (the author) who had his own idea?
You take away all the interpretation about life, epoche, etc. from the author's view, which, in my days at school, was quite an important aspect to understanding the whole thing.

Tolkien's life, insofar as it literally isn't taught in schools (and I'm British, and went to an English school, and learned English all the way through school and college), is not affected by one or more of his characters having differently-coloured skin. The time he lived in is covered extensively (we cover both World Wars, repeatedly throughout secondary education here in the UK), and that isn't impacted in the slightest either.

You're the one that said it doesn't matter, so why are you now insisting that it does?

My point was that Gandalf's character isn't changed by making him black. You're the one claiming "it wouldn't sit right with 90% of us". Why wouldn't it? Or is this a you problem, and not necessarily a problem for 90% of us?

 

[Snowygerry]

(...)
My point was that Gandalf's character isn't changed by making him black.

Well he was Gandalf The White wasn't he ?

The Black was likely some wizard on another job, this is quickly becoming like Reservoir Dogs

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I got to be brutally honest: You give me a movie about 17th century British royalty with 50% of them black, I will feel just as offended as if you remake 30 years a slave with whites as cotton pickers.
Not everything inclusive is good. Especially if it distorts the actual history that has happened.
I would rather have my kid ask questions about skin color, etc., after watching 30 years a slave, than have her not be moved about it, cause half the slaves were whites.
That's like replacing the swastika in second world war movies with the Union Jack, because the Union Jack is less offensive (depending on who you ask, though. I bet the Indians have their own opinion about that).
Or why not remake the Stalingrad movie with half of the actors on both sides being black? Historical accuracy apparently has no relevance anyway.

And I am pretty sure a black Gandalf or Legolas would not have sit right with 90% of yous.
Reminds of the movie adaption of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy were a dominantly as pale and redhaired described character in the book was played by a black man. Would it have worked without the book... maybe. Did it work while knowing the character was a cheesy redhaired char from Beteigeuze (something that was repeatedly made clear in the books)? No.

Are you referring to Zaphod Beeblebrox, the character with two heads? He was played by a dark-haired man in the TV series.

That said, I agree to a point. If it's a historical drama that is supposed to be immersive as a historical drama and Queen Mary of Scots is played by a black Nigerian actor, uh, yeah I don't think that's a good casting decision.

The most ridiculous show I ever saw about Mary, Queen of Scots is the TV series Reign. The only thing that show got right is that Mary Stuart really existed, the French royal family really existed, and Elizabeth I really existed. The rest of the show is utter crap, and the only reason I watched as long as I did was because Megan Follows played the French Queen. That show is hailed as the WORST EVER for anachronistic costuming, and should also be known as the worst for period dancing (they weren't doing authentic Tudor-era dances, and whatever they were doing wasn't in time to the music).

A day after a work is released you already have 1000 published works of fanfiction and a terabyte of art, safe for work or otherwise, none of which has the author's input or approval.

The difference with fanfic is that it can't legally be published. I've written fanfic for years, and am not legally allowed to make so much as a penny from it, at least not without the approval of the copyright holders. The early Pocket Book Star Trek novels were sometimes revised fanfiction novels - Sonni Cooper's Black Fire is one of those. I have both the professional novel and the fanfic version. There's another well-known example: Shirley Maiewski's short story "Mind-Sifter." That story exists in multiple versions, from the author's original that was published in a fanzine, the version that's online, the version that was professionally published in the first anthology of Star Trek short stories in the '70s, and finally as a fan film produced by James Cawley's Phase II/New Voyages fan film company. The fan film and professional short story both needed the approval of the legal copyright holders, as all professionally-published tie-in material does, and because CBS cracked down on fan films a few years ago after the guy who collected $$$$$$ from crowdfunding to make a fan film about the Battle of Axanar basically embezzled the money for other purposes and tried to market a line of coffee using the Axanar label/logo ("Axanar" is already legally owned by CBS and the Roddenberry estate).

Yeah, you write essays in high school analysing the work and what the author intended, etc. So what? Your interpretation is probably inaccurate to what the author actually intended anyway. Once the work in out in public, the author does not have the right to tell us the correct way to think about or interpret or remix what they've created. That is freedom.

Some of them do, if they've secured certain levels of approval in the contracts signed when their work is adapted. Why do you think that no non-UK actors appear in the Harry Potter movies?