Cultural Appropriation

[Martinis at 8]

Missed the past few decades have we?

If only this were still absolute.

Nope, I think it still holds pretty well true.

M8

 

[Jack Scorpion]

In the perfect world, writers would write about what they know and actors would act in roles closest to themselves. Often, this is the case, but in Hollywood, it just don't work that way. Roles and writing assignments don't always go to the best person for the job. That's just hopw the Biz works. And that's where issues like this arise.

 

[Viola]

And herein lies the huge problem with placing more importance on the group an individual is (apparently) part of instead of on the individual themself.

In the case of movies or books or any other story, what matters is the story and its validity (if not, being fiction, actual truth), not the author.

Note: I'm not telling anybody they can't write whatever they want. I just stand by my right to go "man, what an enormous pile of poo-poo THAT was."

I'm not sure what your point is on separating the author from the author's background?

-Viola

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the perfect world, writers would write about what they know and actors would act in roles closest to themselves. Often, this is the case, but in Hollywood, it just don't work that way. Roles and writing assignments don't always go to the best person for the job. That's just hopw the Biz works. And that's where issues like this arise.

I don't know -- seems to me one of the great challenges of acting is successfully performing roles *unlike* yourself. If an actor from a small town in the Midwest were doomed to spending his life playing northing but guys from small towns in the Midwest, it wouldn't be much of an incentive to go into acting, would it?

Similarly with writing -- if you limit yourself exclusively to the scope of your personal experience, you aren't going to have much of a career. It's the ability to imagine beyond such limitations that really makes a writer a writer, or so it seems to me. After all, Shakespeare was never a hunchbacked king, a melancholy Dane, a brooding Moor, or a teenage girl in love, but he managed to tell some pretty good stories about them.

 

[carebear]

Note: I'm not telling anybody they can't write whatever they want. I just stand by my right to go "man, what an enormous pile of poo-poo THAT was."

I'm not sure what your point is on separating the author from the author's background?

-Viola

The whole idea of "cultural appropriation" itself bothers me.

The idea that "so-and-so isn't an {insert group}, so obviously so-and-so shouldn't (or worse somehow inherently can't) write about {insert group} accurately."

What matters is the author's personal experience and/or research and how what they write holds up on its own terms.

There are a lot of world cultures that lack(ed) a written tradition, if it weren't for folks from another culture writing about them we'd have no knowledge of them whatsoever.

 

[Lincsong]

But, shouldn't a role go to whomever can best act in that role? It's one thing to overlook an obviously talented actor of a certain culture for a specific role, but, if the caliber of actor is not to be found in that culture, what is to be done? Not produce the film or play?

Unless the film is a documentary, does it really matter who plays the roles, as long as the film is well written, acted and produced? Isn't part of being an actor a certain degree of "escapism" where you can throw yourself into a melancholy world of make beleive???[huh] I would hate to think that Anthony Quinn's career would have been relegated solely to playing Latin characters.

 

[Viola]

But, shouldn't a role go to whomever can best act in that role? It's one thing to overlook an obviously talented actor of a certain culture for a specific role, but, if the caliber of actor is not to be found in that culture, what is to be done? Not produce the film or play?

Unless the film is a documentary, does it really matter who plays the roles, as long as the film is well written, acted and produced? Isn't part of being an actor a certain degree of "escapism" where you can throw yourself into a melancholy world of make beleive???[huh] I would hate to think that Anthony Quinn's career would have been relegated solely to playing Latin characters.

Personally I doubt there are many real cases of not being able to find an actor of the right or similar background.

I would say it does matter. It affects the believability and depth of the story.

White guys playing Indians by virtue of long dark hair is jarring and silly looking. Memoirs of a Geisha with no Japanese actresses to be seen was odd.

-Viola

 

[Jack Scorpion]

I don't know -- seems to me one of the great challenges of acting is successfully performing roles *unlike* yourself. If an actor from a small town in the Midwest were doomed to spending his life playing northing but guys from small towns in the Midwest, it wouldn't be much of an incentive to go into acting, would it?

Similarly with writing -- if you limit yourself exclusively to the scope of your personal experience, you aren't going to have much of a career. It's the ability to imagine beyond such limitations that really makes a writer a writer, or so it seems to me. After all, Shakespeare was never a hunchbacked king, a melancholy Dane, a brooding Moor, or a teenage girl in love, but he managed to tell some pretty good stories about them.

In the point of view of the actor or writer, you are probably right. But I as the viewer prefer to see the best and most accurate portrayal of a story.

 

[Lincsong]

I tend to favor the portrayal of the story, how well written is the screenplay and really do all the actors on screen or stage have the chemistry to interact with one another. It's more, keeping me interested in the scenes than who is in the scenes. This is where the casting director's role is very important. Can I picture these people in a common situation????

Going into a comedy, I expect that there is going to be satire and stereotypes, but going into a drama, I want a little more realism.

 

[reetpleat]

In the perfect world, writers would write about what they know and actors would act in roles closest to themselves. Often, this is the case, but in Hollywood, it just don't work that way. Roles and writing assignments don't always go to the best person for the job. That's just hopw the Biz works. And that's where issues like this arise.

True. And when that is just due to money, there is not much more to be said. But when it is due to money but also related to racism, we all need to take a closer look. Why are there so few respected ethnic actors? Because hollywood does not cast them. Why don't they cast them, because people do not pay to go see them. Why don't people pay to go se them? Because some are racist, but most just gravitate towards people of their own culture race and nationality. BUt why? I think because we need to open up out eyes and appreciate other cultures, and peoples more. I guess going to se a movie of a different culture might be a start.

Or maybe the filmmakers are selling the public short. Who knows?

It is complicated.

 

[reetpleat]

I don't know -- seems to me one of the great challenges of acting is successfully performing roles *unlike* yourself. If an actor from a small town in the Midwest were doomed to spending his life playing northing but guys from small towns in the Midwest, it wouldn't be much of an incentive to go into acting, would it?

Similarly with writing -- if you limit yourself exclusively to the scope of your personal experience, you aren't going to have much of a career. It's the ability to imagine beyond such limitations that really makes a writer a writer, or so it seems to me. After all, Shakespeare was never a hunchbacked king, a melancholy Dane, a brooding Moor, or a teenage girl in love, but he managed to tell some pretty good stories about them.

I will agree. I applaud actors or writers who stretch themselves. My only complaint is how it tends to shut out the actors or writers of that culture. While a writer writing of a different cluture might be way off, condescending etc, he or she may not be. they might get it right on and good for them. I have no real complaint with the doing. Just with the response or market for it.

 

[reetpleat]

The whole idea of "cultural appropriation" itself bothers me.

The idea that "so-and-so isn't an {insert group}, so obviously so-and-so shouldn't (or worse somehow inherently can't) write about {insert group} accurately."

What matters is the author's personal experience and/or research and how what they write holds up on its own terms.

There are a lot of world cultures that lack(ed) a written tradition, if it weren't for folks from another culture writing about them we'd have no knowledge of them whatsoever.

I think the comnplaint about cultural appropriation is not usually just about another culture writing about a culture. It is how someone can take a musical sound, style of writing, or other element, and make the money tht should be going to the original owners of that sound, look etc. As in the fifties when producers went out and found white singers to sing black music because they could sell more records, while ignoring the people who created the sound. You could say it is just about money and the market, but the people who created the songs, sound style etc ends up getting no recognition for it while often lesser works get the recognition and profit.


And in this case, I honestly don't think that a person writing or acting about a different culture is likely to do it as well as someone from that couture. They have a right to try, and in a world free of bis and racism and culturla bias, it would be an open market =place and I would have no problem. But the world we live in is not free form those biases.

 

[reetpleat]

But, shouldn't a role go to whomever can best act in that role? It's one thing to overlook an obviously talented actor of a certain culture for a specific role, but, if the caliber of actor is not to be found in that culture, what is to be done? Not produce the film or play?

Unless the film is a documentary, does it really matter who plays the roles, as long as the film is well written, acted and produced? Isn't part of being an actor a certain degree of "escapism" where you can throw yourself into a melancholy world of make beleive???[huh] I would hate to think that Anthony Quinn's career would have been relegated solely to playing Latin characters.

Well, I just don't buy that they can't find a black or latin or whatever actor who could do the role as well. Again, in a perfect world all ctors would have right to be considered and the best actore would indeed win. But part of the criteria would naturally be how much they resembled that role, as in appearance.

As far as ethnic actors playing White roles, I don't really care. If they look the part, or the role can be suitable for any ethnicity, I think that is fine. Any actor growing up has naturally grown up in white culture in much of the world. Not only that, but I am not going to be too concerned bout a white actor being denied a role.

 

[dr greg]

good old tony

Anthony Quinn, one actor with the most different racial roles I can think of, greek, mexican, romanian, and most far out..Eskimo, or Inuit as they prefer to be called, the 1960 film Savage Innocents featured both he and a Japanese actress as an inuit couple because at the time "there were no suitable ethnic actors for the role" which was pretty much the argument for Geisha as I recall. Strange then that the remarkable Inuit language film Atanarjuat was made featuring untrained actors from that culture, and was a brilliant film.
The argument that modern technology made it possible doesn't stack up for me, because according to the makers, a lot of the cultural referents were lost or destoyed by modern influences, and were difficult to recreate, and all that happened in the time since the Quinn film was made.
I'm not saying Savage Innocents is crap, I'm sure they meant well, but it is more a product of attitudes than reality.

 

[carebear]

Eskimo, or Inuit as they prefer to be called

Call a Yupik Eskimo an Inuit and see what kind of reception you get.

This is sort of what I mean. Where do we draw the line on "best-suited"?

They had a Scot play the Irishman in Braveheart, that is a similar but not identical culture. Shouldn't the role, given the historical and semi-factual setting, have gone to an actual Irishman? And what if he was an Irishman from Mayo but the character was from Kerry?

Where do we arbitrarily draw the line of "this is alright, this however is not"?

 

[Roger]

Anthony Quinn, one actor with the most different racial roles I can think of, greek, mexican, romanian, and most far out..Eskimo, or Inuit as they prefer to be called, the 1960 film Savage Innocents featured both he and a Japanese actress as an inuit couple because at the time "there were no suitable ethnic actors for the role" which was pretty much the argument for Geisha as I recall. Strange then that the remarkable Inuit language film Atanarjuat was made featuring untrained actors from that culture, and was a brilliant film.
The argument that modern technology made it possible doesn't stack up for me, because according to the makers, a lot of the cultural referents were lost or destoyed by modern influences, and were difficult to recreate, and all that happened in the time since the Quinn film was made.
I'm not saying Savage Innocents is crap, I'm sure they meant well, but it is more a product of attitudes than reality.

But, wasn't Anthony Quinn,........ Mexican????? He certainly didn't look like any "Quinn" I've ever met.

 

[dr greg]

Where indeed

I thought that Inuit was a general word for what we call eskimos, a term they in fact don't like, seeing it as a colonial generalisation. Living on the other side of the world I'm not an expert in such things, I'm relying on a lecture I once attended on the creation of Nunavut.
A Chinese girl once told me all Gweilos look the same to them, so I spose it's the same all over.
I still think Anthony Quinn didn't look remotely like what he was supposed to be in the film.

 

[Feng_Li]

I'm torn on this one...part of me says it's fine so long as no major disrespect is intended. We suspend disbelief when we watch movies, so it's not too much to ask the audience to believe that all the Italians in the Western aren't, or that the Mexican actors in the WWII flick are Japanese (if they can tell the difference).

Sometimes, however, it's glaringly obvious that the person who wrote the piece doesn't show the slightest understanding of the culture he's writing about. In Windtalkers (which I cannot recommend) there's a portion of the plot in which the White soldiers think that the Navajo soldier looks Japanese. This is accurate enough, but when the the Navajo soldier comes to the realization that he really does look Japanese, and they hatch a plot to pass him off as one, and it works because the Japanese too think he looks Japanese, we have entered the realm of the patently ridiculous and, to my mind, offensive.

 

[reetpleat]

Call a Yupik Eskimo an Inuit and see what kind of reception you get.

This is sort of what I mean. Where do we draw the line on "best-suited"?

They had a Scot play the Irishman in Braveheart, that is a similar but not identical culture. Shouldn't the role, given the historical and semi-factual setting, have gone to an actual Irishman? And what if he was an Irishman from Mayo but the character was from Kerry?

Where do we arbitrarily draw the line of "this is alright, this however is not"?

This is kind of a slippery slope argument. Just because we don't know where to draw the line, let's chuck the whole idea and just go back to blackface for african american roles.

 

[carebear]

This is kind of a slippery slope argument. Just because we don't know where to draw the line, let's chuck the whole idea and just go back to blackface for african american roles.

No, I'm not saying that. I would however get rid of the presumption that it is somehow "better" to always have an "authentic" actor play a character. As long as the story works is what matters, not whether a Cuban is playing a Mexican.



dr. greg,

The Inuit live up along the Arctic Circle coasts, Russia, Alaska, Canada Greenland, etc. The Yupik are a distinct group that live further south on the Bering Sea.

They, the Inuit, Athabascans, and Aleuts gleefully killed each other for thousands of years, they still don't necessarily get along beyond what is necessary for politics. You definitely don't want to mistakenly misidentify someone to their face.