Cross-Racial Casting

[Joey D]

I don't get why people care when they take fictional characters and change the actors. To my knowledge, the source material doesn't explicitly say the mermaid is white, only that she has skin as clear as a rose or something like that. She does need blue eyes though because that is what the source material says.

I do get annoyed when they take historical characters though and change their race or gender (I'm looking at you Hamilton). There are stories to be told that feature every race and culture, pick one if you wish to cast certain actors for those roles.

 

[Famine]

historical characters

Unless it's a documentary or biopic, who gives a flying crap?

Limiting people to roles that match their race/sexuality/gender/specific physical characteristics is basically just limiting minorities to minority roles because most of recent history is straight white guys - and somewhat skyturds on the very concept of "acting": pretending to be someone you aren't.

I reckon it doesn't work the other way; black people should be the ones telling black people's stories, gay people should be the ones telling gay people's stories (nobody objected to Sean "The Melting Meat Popsicle" Penn as Harvey Milk though), and women should be the ones telling women's stories, but straight white guys (and gals) have pretty much written all of Western history in the last two millennia and I think we can let the not-straight white guys have a couple of roles that aren't slave/prostitute/person being hanged.


And gatekeeping fiction can just sod off. She's got a tail and a fish fanny, who cares what the top half of her looks like? Black Bond, sure thing. Gay Gandalf, go for it. Lady Thor, crack on.

Although objecting to (white) Ed Skrein playing (Japanese) Ben Daimio, only to replace him with (Korean) Daniel Dae Kim is mental.

 

[Blitz24]

He might be able to “fix” the whole movie in 24 hours, but sounds like a slam dunk of a lawsuit if he tries to share it, esp. when his dumbass will make it easy to trace back to him.

Actually…. I wonder if him altering the movie is grounds for a lawsuit as well?

If he doesn't get banned from Twitter for potentially lying, Disney will probably go after him. I guess it took him 2 hours to realize he might get himself and his "friend" in deep trouble.

 

[Joey D]

Unless it's a documentary or biopic, who gives a flying crap?

Limiting people to roles that match their race/sexuality/gender/specific physical characteristics is basically just limiting minorities to minority roles because most of recent history is straight white guys - and somewhat skyturds on the very concept of "acting": pretending to be someone you aren't.

I reckon it doesn't work the other way; black people should be the ones telling black people's stories, gay people should be the ones telling gay people's stories (nobody objected to Sean "The Melting Meat Popsicle" Penn as Harvey Milk though), and women should be the ones telling women's stories, but straight white guys (and gals) have pretty much written all of Western history in the last two millennia and I think we can let the not-straight white guys have a couple of roles that aren't slave/prostitute/person being hanged.

I still don't like them changing a historical figure because that's not the way the real person was. I mean, think about it from the reverse perspective of Hamilton. How would a film depicting Nelson Mandela be viewed if they cast Arnold Vosloo in Mandela's role? It likely would be a disaster (as it should).

If they want to tell a story from a given time period with actors of a certain race/gender/etc they should tell a story that entails a historical figure from that certain race/gender/etc. For example, if they really wanted to tell a story about the Revolutionary War with lead black actors, there are stories out there. I mean, Crispus Attucks is considered to be one of the first people who died during the Boston Massacre, and he was black and Native American. Phillis Wheatley was an accomplished poet, and Peter Salem is widely recognized as a war hero, to name two more important black figures during that time period. Hell, the 1st Rhode Island Regiment was a mostly black unit during the war and that story should be told since I would wager most people have no idea.

I get that white dudes mostly wrote history for the past like 400 years, but there are still stories out there that can and should be told involving minorities. It's probably better to tell those stories too since they aren't well known and it would, at the very least, bring attention to a piece of history not written by a white dude.

 

[Famine]

I mean, think about it from the reverse perspective of Hamilton. How would a film depicting Nelson Mandela be viewed if they cast Arnold Vosloo in Mandela's role?

I reckon it doesn't work the other way; black people should be the ones telling black people's stories

 

[Joey D]

@Famine, sorry I missed that. If it doesn't work one way, it shouldn't work the other way either.

 

[Blitz24]

@Famine, sorry I missed that. If it doesn't work one way, it shouldn't work the other way either.

The thing is, any story of a black man doing something remarkable is usually because he is a black man and had to overcome adversity and racism. Putting a white man in a story where a person faces racism as an obstacle... doesn't translate very well.

 

[Famine]

If it doesn't work one way, it shouldn't work the other way either.

Limiting people to roles that match their race/sexuality/gender/specific physical characteristics is basically just limiting minorities to minority roles

As a rough (and actual) example Anne Boleyn's story doesn't land differently if she's played by black actress. Her story isn't about her race, and neither is just about any other white historic figure. Alexander Hamilton's story is only very loosely associated with race with regards to his position on (against) slavery, but it's not about his whiteness to make it ridiculous to have a hispanic actor playing him.

Just about any black historic figure's story lands very differently if they are not played by a black actor, because their story almost always hinges on their race - due to how our ancestors (and theirs; you don't get the Transatlantic slave trade without black African slavers) treated them.

That's why it doesn't matter to cross-racial cast white roles (outside of satire) unless the role is about being white (Hitler would be a good example), but it very much does matter cross-racially cast non-white roles (outside of satire) unless the role is not about being non-white.

 

[Joey D]

The thing is, any story of a black man doing something remarkable is usually because he is a black man and had to overcome adversity and racism. Putting a white man in a story where a person faces racism as an obstacle... doesn't translate very well.

I still don't think that means writers should be putting blacks in the roles of historical people who were white (unless it's billed as some sort of alternate universe). We shouldn't be "washing" any real person that some form of media is being made about. If writers want to tell stories that show a certain race in a positive light, then find a story where that happens and pay homage to that person's accomplishments. With fictional characters? Do whatever, although writers should be prepared to hear from fans if they deviate from the source material.

===

@Famine I honestly don't see anything wrong with limiting minorities to play minority roles when it comes to non-fiction. I mean, speaking strictly from the US, minorities have played a huge role in the country, and it's been more than just slavery and civil rights. Like I said, even looking at the Revolutionary War angle, there are a number of blacks who made significant contributions to the founding of the country.

 

[UKMikey]

Make Othello White Again

 

[Famine]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with limiting minorities to play minority roles when it comes to non-fiction.

Why does it matter if the actress playing Anne Boleyn is black? How does it change or diminish her story if it's told by a black actress? Was her being white important to her? Did she face challenges due to being white that she overcame to become a headless ex-wife?

Or is her race not directly relevant to her story and therefore not directly relevant to the actress who plays her?

 

[Joey D]

Why does it matter if the actress playing Anne Boleyn is black? How does it change or diminish her story if it's told by a black actress? Was her being white important to her? Did she face challenges due to being white that she overcame to become a headless ex-wife?

Or is her race not directly relevant to her story and therefore not directly relevant to the actress who plays her?

It matters because it's not how the real person was and isn't accurate. If you're writing a piece of media about a real person, you should make it as factual as you can. There are going to be things that you need to fill in the blanks on but in terms of looks, we have a decent idea of how many historical people looked due to portraits. Things like personality, likes, and ethics might be less known though and probably can have liberties taken with them.

I honestly wouldn't watch a movie that depicted the Queen of England as black since it wouldn't be an accurate portrayal. There are a number of black figureheads throughout history and if a writer wanted to make something depicting a strong, black leader of a country or empire, then they should look back in history and choose a story. I mean, the easiest one would be one of the many black pharaohs of Egypt or some of the Moors. But there are also notables like Mansa Musa, Sonni Ali, or Osei Kofi Tutu. While there might be media about those figures, it's certainly not all that well known and even if it was, I don't see why more of those stories shouldn't be told.

 

[UKMikey]

They're just actors. I'm sure their audiences know they're not the real person and it's just one portrayal amongst many.

Watching the movie of Jesus Christ Superstar back in the days when hardly any black actors were seen on TV I remember my dad musing aloud why the only major role given to a black person was that of Judas Iscariot.

 

[Exorcet]

It matters because it's not how the real person was and isn't accurate. If you're writing a piece of media about a real person, you should make it as factual as you can.

Unless you're trying to represent something as factual as possible, maximum accuracy isn't necessary. Fiction is a spectrum and I don't think there is anything wrong with changing details just because you can.

To borrow your Queen example, I'm not big on changing the race of a historical figure to promote a specific race, but I also don't want to put limits on what artists do with their work, and I don't think every race change would just boil down to being a shallow attempt at adding representation to media.

 

[Famine]

It matters because it's not how the real person was and isn't accurate.

And why does that matter?

If it's not a documentary or a biopic, it's simply not important to have someone of matching physical characteristics playing the role. I mean, where do you even draw the line on "it's not how the real person was and isn't accurate" anyway? Is being white enough to be Anne Boleyn, or do you need appropriate facial structure too? Do we go with prosthetics to make the actress look just right or is it okay if she's white? Why is being a black Anne Boleyn wrong but being a green-eyed Anne Boleyn - or short-nosed, or blonde, or a D-cup - not wrong?


We don't need to perpetuate and protect historic racism. That's all you achieve by insisting a real person cannot be played by someone of a different race where race isn't at all important to the story (aside from them being there in the first place due to historic racism). It's mad.

 

[Joey D]

They're just actors. I'm sure their audiences know they're not the real person and it's just one portrayal amongst many.

Watching the movie of Jesus Christ Superstar back in the days when hardly any black actors were seen on TV I remember my dad musing aloud why the only major role given to a black person was that of Judas Iscariot.

I think you underestimate some people who watch movies. Jesus is a perfect example of this. Look at how many Americans (and likely Europeans) think Jesus looked like this:

I mean, in no way did a man from the Middle East look like someone from Sweden. He likely had olive coloured skin and dark hair, just like a majority of the people who lived and still live in that region.

And why does that matter?

If it's not a documentary or a biopic, it's simply not important to have someone of matching physical characteristics playing the role. I mean, where do you even draw the line on "it's not how the real person was and isn't accurate" anyway? Is being white enough to be Anne Boleyn, or do you need appropriate facial structure too? Do we go with prosthetics to make the actress look just right or is it okay if she's white? Why is being a black Anne Boleyn wrong but being a green-eyed Anne Boleyn - or short-nosed, or blonde, or - not wrong?


We don't need to perpetuate and protect historic racism. That's all you achieve by insisting a real person cannot be played by someone of a different race where race isn't at all important to the story (aside from them being there in the first place due to historic racism). It's mad.

Most of the time when a historical character is portrayed, it is a biopic on some level. Using my example of Hamilton, it's a biography about the man's life, and it was specifically written to cast non-white actors in those roles. It does the exact opposite of whitewashing something and I'm not OK with either being done.

As for how true-to-life actors should look? Honestly, writers should go on whatever descriptions are available and attempt to cast someone who looks the part. And yes, makeup and prosthetics should be used to make the character looks as close as they can to their real-life counterpart, or at least as close as they can to the source material that we get the person's description from. Media companies change the appearance of actors all the time to make them look more true to life.

I don't think it's protecting historic racism either. It's showing how it was. With how much stuff is being censored and changed in schools, people should be shown how things were, both good and bad. This is also why it's important to depict "minority" history. The western world is largely not taught that and has no idea what it entails. I mean, if I asked people if a black man could've been the wealthiest person ever to live, they'd likely say no, but Mansa Musa could very well have been. It's a story worth telling, especially when it comes to how Mansa Musa made all his wealth too.

At the end of the day, I'm just not a fan of changing how real people are portrayed. If you want to create a work of fiction, then create a work of fiction or make it an "alternate reality". Hamilton could've easily been a musical about an alternate reality where non-whites founded America and it would've been fine.

 

[UKMikey]

I think you underestimate some people who watch movies. Jesus is a perfect example of this. Look at how many Americans (and likely Europeans) think Jesus looked like this:

View attachment 1192544

I mean, in no way did a man from the Middle East look like someone from Sweden. He likely had olive coloured skin and dark hair, just like a majority of the people who lived and still live in that region.

I would call that overestimating, not underestimating and I don't think whitewashed movies are chiefly to blame but rather an education system which seemingly does little to equip viewers to distinguish fictionalised elements from historical fact.

 

[Famine]

Most of the time when a historical character is portrayed, it is a biopic on some level.

Really? Most stuff I've seen place real people in real places but construct a story around it inspired by those events.

Hamilton, while tacking relatively closely to history, is not entirely accurate either (in fact the major accusations against it centre on "founders chic" - bigging up the Founding Fathers beyond their real character and actions.

I don't think it's protecting historic racism either.

It definitely is. Anne Boleyn's race isn't relevant to her story, but if she wasn't white she wouldn't have had that story. Because historic racism.

Saying she cannot be played by an actress of a different race - because it's not "accurate" - is protecting and perpetuating the racism that allowed her to have that life; you're telling a black actress that she can't (pretend to) be Anne Boleyn, regardless of her ability, because Anne Boleyn wasn't black, even though not being black was not relevant to any part of the story except the bits before most stories about Anne Boleyn.

She didn't have big tits or blonde hair either, but nobody objects when a big-titted blonde plays her. For... some reason. I'm not sure how tolerating any number of physical differences from the real person, despite inaccuracy, except skin colour isn't racism.

Media companies change the appearance of actors all the time to make them look more true to life.

Ahhh, whiteface. That'll solve it...

😬

 

[UKMikey]

It's kinda hard to find actresses with six fingers and a third nipple these days (j/k).

 

[Danoff]

I think you underestimate some people who watch movies. Jesus is a perfect example of this. Look at how many Americans (and likely Europeans) think Jesus looked like this:

View attachment 1192544

I mean, in no way did a man from the Middle East look like someone from Sweden. He likely had olive coloured skin and dark hair, just like a majority of the people who lived and still live in that region.

Are you saying that a white guy from Sweden can't play Jesus? I'm pretty sure that the people who are riled up about the little mermaid (a completely made-up and easily re-imagined character) having dark skin would be just as riled up by saying that white guys can't portray Jesus.

 

[Pupik]

Spin-off thread?

 

[Joey D]

It definitely is. Anne Boleyn's race isn't relevant to her story, but if she wasn't white she wouldn't have had that story. Because historic racism.

Saying she cannot be played by an actress of a different race - because it's not "accurate" - is protecting and perpetuating the racism that allowed her to have that life; you're telling a black actress that she can't (pretend to) be Anne Boleyn, regardless of her ability, because Anne Boleyn wasn't black, even though not being black was not relevant to any part of the story except the bits before most stories about Anne Boleyn.

She didn't have big tits or blonde hair either, but nobody objects when a big-titted blonde plays her. For... some reason. I'm not sure how tolerating any number of physical differences from the real person, despite inaccuracy, except skin colour isn't racism.

Showing how things actually were can and does foster discussions. If all you see is whites portraying kings and queens, you might ask yourself, were there black kings and queens? Or you might wonder why whites were the predominant leaders in Europe and research it to find that it's not exactly the case when you look at Iberia. If we're going to show history, I think we need to show it how it truly was. Changing something based on historical context is no different than all those Republicans running around the US trying to get schools to quit teaching systematic racism in my opinion.

I get that some liberties need to be taken to fill in the gaps, but outright changing the race of a historical figure is changing how things were in my mind. It also seems to suggest that there aren't any stories to tell from other cultures, which we know isn't true. So instead of trying to shoehorn minority actors into characters based on white historical figures, let's tell the stories of those minorities' cultures. I mean, I can't honestly think of a film that depicts a king in Africa and doing a Google search yields one and that's Sango (it also shows Black Panther for some reason). I'd be all about watching a film about one of the many African empires since I know very little about any of them.

 

[Famine]

Showing how things actually were...

If we're going to show history, I think we need to show it how it truly was.

You mean... documenting them?

Changing something based on historical context is no different than all those Republicans running around the US trying to get schools to quit teaching systematic racism in my opinion.

Why?

Having a black actress play Anne Boleyn in a drama about Anne Boleyn's romancing of, marriage to, and beheading at the behest of Henry VIII - to which her race wasn't relevant - isn't the same as having a black actress play Anne Boleyn in a documentary about Anne Boleyn.

No-one's pretending, claiming, or rewriting history to state that Anne Boleyn was black - any more than they're pretending she was blonde (but white), big-breasted (but white), three foot two (but white), 38 years old (but white), when blonde, large-breasted, 38-year old little people play her in a drama.

Why is "black" the hangup for historical accuracy here?


One of my favourite historical drama series is The Borgias*. Jeremy Irons isn't a fat, olive-skinned Spanish man, François Arnaud is Quebecois and not from Aragon, Holliday Grainger is a 23-year old, moon-faced, pasty blonde** and not a 12-year old Mediterranean ginger, the Russian Jew/Romani heritage of Steven Berkoff isn't what I'd call accurate to a 15th Century Florentine monk, and the less said about Sean Harris's physical resemblence to Valencian condottiero Michelotto the better. Also Derek Jacobi played a person who never existed.

Even though the events portrayed are... roughly in line with events of the time, I'm pretty sure not a single character said a single line that could be accurately attributed to the real people they were pretending to be - not least because they were all speaking English - and several were well-known fabrications (I mean, they had to shoehorn Caterina Sforza's line in, and with famously not-Italian-but-very-Sunderland Gina McKee the expletive was perfect).

Bearing all that in mind, nobody should give two short ****s if Machiavelli was played by Riz Ahmed (who would have been bloody brilliant in it; maybe a smidge young) or Chiwetel Ejiofor (ooof, another superb choice). But of course he was a white guy so white the actor's literally called "Bleach".

Again, why is "black" the hangup for historical accuracy here?

So instead of trying to shoehorn minority actors into characters based on white historical figures, let's tell the stories of those minorities' cultures.

Or you can do the latter while also allowing minority actors to get other jobs in drama as well, rather than limiting them to fiction, minor roles in Western dramas featuring real characters, or "a film about one of the many African empires" (which, given the nearest many black actors have got to Africa is their great-grandparents, is a tad condescending).


Again, why can a big-titted blonde play the character of someone who was a flat-chested brunette in real life, but a black woman can't play the character of someone who was a white woman in real life, in a drama? Why can we excuse every single physical characteristic except race when it comes to acting as a someone who was once alive in the real world?

Well, race and disability.


*And let's open that Assassin's Creed can of worms - more dramatisations using real events and real people as inspiration for entertainment on a historical matrix.
**Well, she was in that, because makeup; she's bloody stunning in reality

 

[Joey D]

You mean... documenting them?

Why?

Having a black actress play Anne Boleyn in a drama about Anne Boleyn's romancing of, marriage to, and beheading at the behest of Henry VIII - to which her race wasn't relevant - isn't the same as having a black actress play Anne Boleyn in a documentary about Anne Boleyn.

No-one's pretending, claiming, or rewriting history to state that Anne Boleyn was black - any more than they're pretending she was blonde (but white), big-breasted (but white), three foot two (but white), 38 years old (but white), when blonde, large-breasted, 38-year old little people play her in a drama.

Why is "black" the hangup for historical accuracy here?

It doesn't have to be black. Replace black with any other race, gender, or characteristic.

And I disagree. I see it as rewriting history when you change something fundamental about a historical character. That person never was a certain way, and there aren't any sources claiming they were a certain way, so why make something up or willingly change a known quantity? If you want to make the Queen of England black, then create a character who's the Queen of England and black, then put them into a series or movie. American media does it all the time with the president, and they constantly make up a fictional president for TV shows and movies.

I know you stated that it likely doesn't hold true on the opposite (unless I misunderstood), so given this line of logic, why couldn't Arnold Vosloo play Nelson Mandela in a drama series about South Africa? I mean, besides the fact that it's really culturally insensitive and would not sit well with people who thought apartheid was awful (for the record, I would not support Vosloo playing this part). If it doesn't work one way, it shouldn't work the other way.

Or you can do the latter while also allowing minority actors to get other jobs in drama as well, rather than limiting them to fiction, minor roles in Western dramas featuring real characters, or "a film about one of the many African empires" (which, given the nearest many black actors have got to Africa is their great-grandparents, is a tad condescending).

You brought up Ann Boleyn, who was the Queen of England in the 16th century, and we were talking about black actors. It seemed fitting to find something comparable around the same time frame, which is why I brought up media about African empires. It can be anything, though. There are numerous people throughout history that have stories worth telling from all races and cultures. But as I've said, if we're going to ignore race completely when it comes to casting actors, things are going to get messy, and I don't believe for a second that social media would look kindly on a white actor playing the role of a minority. There's already, supposedly, an uproar about the new Snow White movie and not having people with achondroplasia play the dwarfs. I'm not sure how widespread that is though, outside a few things that popped up on Twitter.

Again, why can a big-titted blonde play the character of someone who was a flat-chested brunette in real life, but a black woman can't play the character of someone who was a white woman in real life, in a drama? Why can we excuse every single physical characteristic except race when it comes to acting as a someone who was once alive in the real world?

A big-titted blonde shouldn't play the character of someone who was flat-chested and a brunette if it's based on a historical figure. I don't think we should excuse physical characteristics when attempting to represent a specific person. I think we can take more liberties when it comes to fictional works, although I'm not personally a fan of changing the source material when an accurate description of something is given. If you want to create your own story with your own characters, then do it.

 

[Famine]

I know you stated that it likely doesn't hold true on the opposite (unless I misunderstood), so given this line of logic, why couldn't Arnold Vosloo play Nelson Mandela in a drama series about South Africa?

Race is an integral part of that story, as already covered...

I reckon it doesn't work the other way; black people should be the ones telling black people's stories

Just about any black historic figure's story lands very differently if they are not played by a black actor, because their story almost always hinges on their race - due to how our ancestors (and theirs; you don't get the Transatlantic slave trade without black African slavers) treated them.

That's why it doesn't matter to cross-racial cast white roles (outside of satire) unless the role is about being white (Hitler would be a good example), but it very much does matter cross-racially cast non-white roles (outside of satire) unless the role is not about being non-white.

We don't need to perpetuate and protect historic racism. That's all you achieve by insisting a real person cannot be played by someone of a different race where race isn't at all important to the story (aside from them being there in the first place due to historic racism).

Race important to character's story = do not re-cast character to different race actor
Race not important to character's story = do whatever.

A big-titted blonde shouldn't play the character of someone who was flat-chested and a brunette if it's based on a historical figure. I don't think we should excuse physical characteristics when attempting to represent a specific person.

Ah, we're now at the people pretending to be other (real) people should only pretend to be (real) people who look like them stage.

At that point it's impossible for anyone to play any role of any person who ever lived in any drama - aside from prostheses, but even then the further back you go, the less accurate the depictions of that person get... It doesn't seem ideal to sack off every single historical drama because nobody is a doppelganger for the real people. I imagine lots of people in the USA would be cross at the loss of The Crown.


Where do you stand on Eddie Redmayne playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything*? He played both the entirely healthy Hawking in adulthood and then the famously not-particularly-healthy Hawking as he descended into his MND, and all points between. Should they have found a different actor with an appropriate disability to portray the Hawking with a disability, or was it okay to retain the same actor but pretending to have the disability for continuity?


*Again, a drama based on - with varying accuracy - real events, not a documentary

 

[Joey D]

Race important to character's story = do not re-cast character to different race actor
Race not important to character's story = do whatever.

Race wouldn't have to be a part of the story with Mandela, but for argument's sake, I'll use a different example. Say they made a sequel to Happy Gilmore, and they cast a white guy to play Tiger Woods on the PGA tour. Race would have nothing to do with the story since the story would be about golf and center around Happy Gilmore, but a famously black golfer would be portrayed by a white guy who was both a good actor and good golfer. Would that sit OK? I don't think it would for me because it would be so inaccurate and since there are white golfers on the PGA tour, it would seem better to pick one of them to have portrayed.

Ah, we're now at the people pretending to be other (real) people should only pretend to be (real) people who look like them stage.

At that point it's impossible for anyone to play any role of any person who ever lived in any drama - aside from prostheses, but even then the further back you go, the less accurate the depictions of that person get... It doesn't seem ideal to sack off every single historical drama because nobody is a doppelganger for the real people. I imagine lots of people in the USA would be cross at the loss of The Crown.

They don't have to be 100% accurate, but they should be as close to the source material we have. If a historical figure was described as a tall white female with blonde hair, they probably shouldn't cast a short black man with dark hair for the role. There are thousands of actors of all shapes, sizes, races, cultures, and so on. Media makers can find someone who fits the bill decently well and then get closer with hair and make-up.

And I'm fine with people wanting to watch media where the portrayal is inaccurate and I'm fine with studios even doing it since it's their money on the line. I just choose not to watch those movies or series because I don't agree with the decisions. With fiction, it's a little easier, although I did have a problem with the casting in The Witcher since it was so different than the source material (the same goes for the games too). I still watched the series and played the games, though.

Where do you stand on Eddie Redmayne playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything*? He played both the entirely healthy Hawking in adulthood and then the famously not-particularly-healthy Hawking as he descended into his MND, and all points between. Should they have found a different actor with an appropriate disability to portray the Hawking with a disability, or was it okay to retain the same actor but pretending to have the disability for continuity?

I'm actually not sure. I haven't seen the film either, so I can't really comment on Redmayne's performance, how the writing was, or how the whole topic was addressed. But I do think that's a good question though and one that I don't have an immediate answer for. I wouldn't say he shouldn't be allowed to play the role though, it just might not be something I watch or that I agree with. While I don't like it when things are drastically changed when it comes to media, I also don't think they should be outlawed or anything. Media is, after all, freedom of expression.

 

[MIE1992]

Unless it's a documentary or biopic, who gives a flying crap?

Took the words right outta my mouth.

 

[Liquid]

Spoiler: Username Swear

 

[Sprite]

Ahhh, whiteface. That'll solve it...

😬

 

[MIE1992]

Spoiler: Username Swear

I mean, even if that weren't true, I think a black Ariel makes a lot of sense. Where are there tropical seas? The Caribbean. Who lives in the Caribbean? People with darker skin. I mean, just listen to Sebastian's accent in the '89 original. He's totally Jamaican. Darker-skinned people and tropical seas just make sense to me, just like how I feel you can't make a movie involving Pittsburgh, NYC, or Chicago without black people. It's an integral part of the culture/history, y'know? And on the note of NYC, I'd also make sure to include Jewish-Americans and Italian-Americans. They're just as integral to NYC's culture, as are the Chinese-Americans. (And I'd definitely include Japanese-Americans for a film set anywhere in California, as well as Boston.)

It just bothers me so much that the first male sex symbol in Hollywood was a Japanese-American by the name of Sessue Hayakawa, and we haven't had much like that since. And similarly, it bothers me that Jewish-Americans who work in film (and they are a lot, both in front of and behind the camera) seem to almost feel ashamed to portray their culture in their works, especially as a Jew myself. Imagine how much Judeophobia could be combated if at least some of the many Jews in Hollywood helped to dispel misconceptions about American Jews, the complicated relationship they have with Israel, and Jews as a whole.