Define “best.” Best as in most qualified? The person with the most credits? That’s not a great measurement.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
On the merits of Yellowface: why casting the “best” actor for the role is actually just a selection of bias in a racist system
Define “best.” Best as in most qualified? The person with the most credits? That’s not a great measurement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the upcoming movie "Pan," and I expressed my concerns about the fact that Tiger Lily, a native american character, had been rewritten, and the actress Rooney Mara had been cast in the part. I found the choice reductive and racist, but my friend yelled at me for being too PC, and claimed that they simply cast the best person for the part. This attitude feels sadly indicative of what this article was talking about. There is no such thing as a best person for a part. We cast, as the article said, based on bias. It is very comfortable to think of white as being neutral, if you are white. This idea keeps getting perpetuated because the casting people are white, the movie makers are white, and every person involved sees their stories as universal because to them, white is universal. Rooney Mara is a very talented actress, and I am sure that every single white person who gets a part over a person of color is a very talented actor. But talented actors are everywhere, and saying that someone is the best for a part doesn't hold a lot of weight when you realize how limited the selection was. If an entire movie that takes place in a fantasy land is cast with white actors, it is not because they chose the best. It is because they chose what was most comfortable. Let's not whitewash movies. White people are not universal, and by casting white people to play people of other races, you are not expanding the movies worldview, you are reducing it.
At first I was reluctant to read this article. Often times I’m frustrated by articles on the topic of race in theater. It’s been established that there is a gap in acceptance when it comes to “colored” artists. It’s been said time and time again that the difference between black and white actors is opportunity. While this is true I feel like the difference between colored-face and a multicultural show is intent. The same way writers write with intension director should cast with intention. If the director cast a show all white in 1740’s Japan on a show that is meant to exhibit let’s say the highlights of Japanese culture, then yes the show is in yellow face. But if the best they have is an all-white or mixed cast, that’s no reason to not put on the show. At the end of the day like everything else, it all depends on the state of mind.
The power of bias in theatre is so strong -- you can't get away from the way you perceive and choose people based on your experiences. To be honest, I think all of us would rather choose our friends or people we know to be on our projects rather than hiring a total stranger and trust that they do the job. Meritocracy is a slippery slope, and though we try to make ourselves more diversified, more inclusive, more stratified, we still can't seem to achieve the level of variation that we strive for. What does piss me off, however, is how people can simply be culturally ignorant and choose to block out the fact that things like yellow and black face are not okay and racially insensitive. If you're going to do a production of the Mikado and make it about the reflection of the English on the Japanese, then maybe you can make a deliberate point of the English's racial insensitivity through the language Gilbert and Sullivan wrote with. But if you're going to take the 'easy' way out and just do yellow face, then that's just plain stupid and lazy. It's not easy to try to be meritocratic and actually give a damn about diversity, but if theatre is supposed to reach multiple people outside the harmony of white, upper middle class folk, then wouldn't it be smart to include a few more pertinent races and ethnicities in the mix?
I do strongly believe that race and equality in entertainment does need to be talked about. We see many instances on both sides and a lot of it has to do with money and pop culture. I would hope that we as a society try to make it equal and fair to everyone trying to succeed. in terms of this article I don't articulate the "best" actor for the roll as the person that acts better, or has been in more movies etc. I base the best actor as the person who is able to best contribute to the story. If race is attributed to that story than you must pick the "best person for that part with race and age in mind. In 12 years a slave the story is about a free black man being forced into slavery right before the civil war. This story REQUIRES a black man to play the part because that is the story we are trying to tell. If the story was about a person(man or woman) after the civil war being forced into slavery the director and producer are able to choose who they want to cast based on the story they want to tell. thier casting will affect the message they portray and change the story entirely, whether they are asian, white, or black. I think the same thing applies with all races and I don't feel a person should get a part because they are entitled to it based on race ONLY if the story is open to interpretation. If a person's means, such as lack of actors of a certain race, prevent you from telling the story well than you shouldn't be telling that story. If we looked at race in entertainment as a means of story telling and not equality then I think it would be more productive.
Post a Comment