Scarlett Johannson Quits Movie

[MU82]

In his three big TV series, the very talented Michael C. Hall has played a gay man who is a funeral director (Six Feet Under), a serial killer who happens to be a police blood-spatter expert (Dexter) and a British doctor (Safe, currently on Netflix).

He is not gay, is not a funeral director, is not a serial killer (that we know about), is not a blood-spatter expert, is not British and is not a doctor.

For some strange reason, the only one of those that bothers me one iota is his horrible British accent on Safe. It makes it difficult for me to watch the show, which is fine because it's mediocre anyway.

I am in no way trying to equate an American playing a Brit with a straight actor playing an LBGT character or a white actor wearing blackface. Just conversing.

[Lennys Tap]

Are nuns, newlyweds, or superheroes underrepresented in Hollywood and trying to break in?

She is trying to appropriate another culture for her own ends, and her tone deaf statement only reinforces that she doesn't care about the community she's representing, only the acclaim she gets from it.

I thought every group other than white men was underrepresented in Hollywood - isn't that a common complaint?

As for "appropriating another culture for her own ends" - OMG. I thought the goal was to get people's (straight, gay, trans, white, black, yellow, red, rich, poor, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, even Amish) stories told. AND make a profit. If there are investors willing to pony up for this project with an unknown trans actor replacing Johansson, great. But if your goal is to mainstream your culture getting the picture made is the first priority.

[Pakuni]

I thought every group other than white men was underrepresented in Hollywood - isn't that a common complaint?

It's fact.
A USC study of the top 100 films of 2016 found that 68.6 percent of the speaking roles went to men and only 34 percent had a woman in a lead or co-lead role. About 71 percent of the speaking roles went to white people, 14 percent to black people, 6 percent Asian and 3 percent Hispanic.
Make of it what you will, by it is true that every group other than white men is underrepresented.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-and-minorities-still-underrepresented-in-film-2017-7

[mu03eng]

As for "appropriating another culture for her own ends" - OMG. I thought the goal was to get people's (straight, gay, trans, white, black, yellow, red, rich, poor, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, even Amish) stories told. AND make a profit. If there are investors willing to pony up for this project with an unknown trans actor replacing Johansson, great. But if your goal is to mainstream your culture getting the picture made is the first priority.

This is where I struggle in this debate. If the trans community is underrepresented in both society and the acting profession, doesn't a ScarJo centered project about a trans person move in the direction of improving at least one of those things? Actors take on Oscar-bait roles all the time but this is the first I've heard of a larger obligation to the community involved then do the story justice and don't be an ass.

It'd be one thing if she was playing the role of a trans person who was a major advocate for trans-rights but she's not she would have been playing the role of somebody who's story included that they were trans. Did Sean Penn have a greater obligation to the gay community as the result of starring in the Harvey Milk movie? Does Colin Firth owe greater obligation to people who have speech impediments because he was the lead in The King's Speech? Does Jeremy Renner owe more to combat veterans because he was in The Hurt Locker. I'd argue it's a good idea and good thing to do, but its certainly not a requirement in my mind that an actor owes anything to a community its representing than telling the story well and doing no direct harm to that community.

[Jockey]

I thought every group other than white men was underrepresented in Hollywood - isn't that a common complaint?

As for "appropriating another culture for her own ends" - OMG. I thought the goal was to get people's (straight, gay, trans, white, black, yellow, red, rich, poor, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, even Amish) stories told. AND make a profit. If there are investors willing to pony up for this project with an unknown trans actor replacing Johansson, great. But if your goal is to mainstream your culture getting the picture made is the first priority.

Get your affairs in order, Lenny. I agree with your post.

[Lennys Tap]

It's fact.
A USC study of the top 100 films of 2016 found that 68.6 percent of the speaking roles went to men and only 34 percent had a woman in a lead or co-lead role. About 71 percent of the speaking roles went to white people, 14 percent to black people, 6 percent Asian and 3 percent Hispanic.
Make of it what you will, by it is true that every group other than white men is underrepresented.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-and-minorities-still-underrepresented-in-film-2017-7

I don't think that's what your link says. According to the study you cite, whites are overrepresented, blacks are slightly overrepresented, Asians fairly represented and Hispanics grossly underrepresented.

[Lennys Tap]

Get your affairs in order, Lenny. I agree with your post.

Truth be told I frequently agree with the gist of your arguments, Brandi.

[WarriorDad]

It's fact.
A USC study of the top 100 films of 2016 found that 68.6 percent of the speaking roles went to men and only 34 percent had a woman in a lead or co-lead role. About 71 percent of the speaking roles went to white people, 14 percent to black people, 6 percent Asian and 3 percent Hispanic.
Make of it what you will, by it is true that every group other than white men is underrepresented.

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-women-and-minorities-still-underrepresented-in-film-2017-7

77% of Americans (including White Hispanics) are Caucasian.  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217

Looks mostly inline with the makeup of the country.  For gender, that isn't the case.  Though my suspicions are action movies drive many movies and viewers probably expect males to play those speaking roles more often. ???

[WarriorDad]

Swing and a miss

Feels like a stand up triple

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/off-color-casting-in-hollywood/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Feels like a stand up triple

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/off-color-casting-in-hollywood/

What point are you trying to make here? The article linked to is listing your example of Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as a time that, and I quote "Hollywood got it wrong." Didn't you use Rooney as an example of how actors can successfully portray identities other than their own?

[WarriorDad]

What point are you trying to make here? The article linked to is listing your example of Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as a time that, and I quote "Hollywood got it wrong." Didn't you use Rooney as an example of how actors can successfully portray identities other than their own?

My examples were illustrative actors playing parts that didn't identify with them.  Red with Freeman.  Tonto with Depp.  Others.  Some were blatantly wrong and unacceptable today, even back then raised eyebrows.  Others we don't seem to care much about, but care about the performance.  I was on a plane last year watching Matt Damon in an awful Chinese monster movie, and he seemed as miscast as Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai. 

[Benny B]

Maybe, but I look back to this comment from Lennys:

If something is good, if it has a compelling story, is well-acted and produced, a film, even one that isn't expected to succeed, can make money and draw in an audience. 10 years ago, there's no way Black Panther gets made. There's probably no way Get Out gets made. How much changed because of Moonlight's success? How many doors that might have been closed or only open a crack will get more opportunity because of that.

Part of the reason there isn't a demand is because Hollywood squashes those voices because the same people that have been in charge for decades decide what does and doesn't get made? The demand doesn't exist in large part because the gatekeepers don't allow the demand to exist. And the whole "liberal Hollywood" crap is BS. Yes, there are some liberal individuals, even wealthy liberals that have large platforms, but the people that control the real money and call the shots of what gets made and what doesn't caters to their perception of the audience. If you look at the films we see getting made year after year, at the films allowed to win awards year after year, it's pretty obvious the stories they allow to be made are primarily white, male, and cisgendered.

I agree with Lennys that just because you don't identify with a story, that doesn't mean people won't go out of their way to find it. If the story is well done, if the portrayal is authentic and believable, and if it is created in a compelling way, there will be an audience.

And if Black Panther were made 10 years from now, might it be regarded as good, but not Oscar-worthy?

I really liked Black Panther.  One of the top 3 MCU movies, easy... but no other MCU movie has garnered anywhere close to the Oscar talk (aside from technical achievements or special effects) as Black Panther.  In fact, there’s an outright bias against superhero movies within the Academy.  So what made Black Panther stand out?

In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”

[Galway Eagle]

My examples were illustrative actors playing parts that didn't identify with them.  Red with Freeman.  Tonto with Depp.  Others.  Some were blatantly wrong and unacceptable today, even back then raised eyebrows.  Others we don't seem to care much about, but care about the performance.  I was on a plane last year watching Matt Damon in an awful Chinese monster movie, and he seemed as miscast as Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai.

The movie was the wall and it was absolutely horrible. Though the last samurai has its moments as tough as it was

[CTWarrior]

And if Black Panther were made 10 years from now, might it be regarded as good, but not Oscar-worthy?

I really liked Black Panther.  One of the top 3 MCU movies, easy... but no other MCU movie has garnered anywhere close to the Oscar talk (aside from technical achievements or special effects) as Black Panther.  In fact, there’s an outright bias against superhero movies within the Academy.  So what made Black Panther stand out?

In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”

That movie was visually wonderful, but to me the story was run of the mill and easily the most predictable of any of the MCU movies.  You knew basically what was going to happen in every scene after the first 30 minutes or so.  Other than Michael B Jordan, didn't think the performances were anything special, either.  I was surprised at the acclaim it got, but I think your assessment has merit.  Wonder Woman also got over the top accolades, maybe for similar reasons (a woman was in the lead) but I thought that was genuinely very well done and easily the best of the post Christian Bale DC movies, which I admit is not saying a whole lot.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

My examples were illustrative actors playing parts that didn't identify with them.  Red with Freeman.  Tonto with Depp.  Others.  Some were blatantly wrong and unacceptable today, even back then raised eyebrows.  Others we don't seem to care much about, but care about the performance.  I was on a plane last year watching Matt Damon in an awful Chinese monster movie, and he seemed as miscast as Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai.

Gotcha. So you are saying actors playing identities other than their own can be problematic, it just depends on the situation. I thought you were using Rooney as a good example not a bad one.

I do want to clarify something though. You keep bringing up Morgan Freeman playing Red as an example. That is a very different example than Depp as Tonto or even Johannson in Rub and Tug. Freeman was not a black man attempting to portray a white character. Freeman was a black man portraying a black character. The director made the decision to change Red's character from white to black. Now that can create its own set of issues as well, but that is not outwardly racist as Rooney, Depp, or Wayne.

Rub and Tug is a tougher case. Some would categorize it in the Rooney/Depp/Wayne category, others would categorize it in Brits playing Americans category. Personally, I think a cisgendered actor can play a trans character. But I'm also not upset that the trans community protested. In the end, isn't this the free market at play? Potential customers didn't like a product, voiced their opinion, and now the product has to change.

[brewcity77]

And if Black Panther were made 10 years from now, might it be regarded as good, but not Oscar-worthy?

I really liked Black Panther.  One of the top 3 MCU movies, easy... but no other MCU movie has garnered anywhere close to the Oscar talk (aside from technical achievements or special effects) as Black Panther.  In fact, there’s an outright bias against superhero movies within the Academy.  So what made Black Panther stand out?

In other words, one can’t help but to wonder if a lot of the accolades for this seem more to do with social commentary, the Academy atoning for its white guilt and/or recent history of exclusion, or worst case, along the lines of “hey, you should get an award for doing a great job on your movie despite being a black guy.”

Agreed on Black Panther being top-3, and I hope in 10 years that is the case. But rather than white guilt, I think it's just as much a case of who has made up the Academy (which will see a shift for the next awards).

You're statement isn't accurate regarding just superhero movies but action blockbusters in general. Mad Max: Fury Road got a nod, but before that, you had Gladiator and the LOTR movies at the turn of the century and then back to 1981 (Raiders of the Lost Ark) and 1977 (Star Wars) for even a nomination. The only wins were Gladiator and LOTR: ROTK (which was the worst of the three).

The only Academy nominations for the MCU have been technical. Visual effects, makeup, and sound are the only nominated categories. While it's about time for movies like Black Panther that provide representation, films like The Dark Knight, Iron Man (just the first), Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy deserved better than they got.

[Galway Eagle]

Where does Mel Gibson, an Irish-Australian actor, playing William Wallace, a Scottish person at a time they were a marginalized group, fit into this equation?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Where does Mel Gibson, an Irish-Australian actor, playing William Wallace, a Scottish person at a time they were a marginalized group, fit into this equation?

Honestly, it doesn't.

[mu03eng]

Honestly, it doesn't.

Why because it was a person from 800 years ago? Listen we can't pick and choose which cultural appropriation is bad and which is ok. A person's identity is their identity culturally.

[Pakuni]

77% of Americans (including White Hispanics) are Caucasian.  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217

Looks mostly inline with the makeup of the country.  For gender, that isn't the case.  Though my suspicions are action movies drive many movies and viewers probably expect males to play those speaking roles more often. ???

Yes, because that conveniently lumps Hispanics with whites, which the film survey does not. When you separate them, white Americans make up 60 percent of the population.

[Galway Eagle]

Honestly, it doesn't.

What Eng said. It's either all or nothing. And if we're going to say "well it was hundreds of years ago they aren't marginalized anymore the way they were at that point in history" we have to then ask at what point of  acceptance does it become ok for marginalized culture to be played by someone who isn't a part of said culture

[Pakuni]

What Eng said. It's either all or nothing. And if we're going to say "well it was hundreds of years ago they aren't marginalized anymore the way they were at that point in history" we have to then ask at what point of  acceptance does it become ok for marginalized culture to be played by someone who isn't a part of said culture

You're cool with a white guy slapping on blackface and portraying an African-American?
Pretty much the same thing as Daniel Day-Lewis portraying Gerry Conlon.
I mean, it's either all or nothing.

[GGGG]

Why because it was a person from 800 years ago? Listen we can't pick and choose which cultural appropriation is bad and which is ok. A person's identity is their identity culturally.

No because he was playing someone from the same race and similar (if not same) ethnic group.

That being said, I find the whole idea of "cultural appropriation" be rather odd anyway. 

[Pakuni]

No because he was playing someone from the same race and similar (if not same) ethnic group.

That being said, I find the whole idea of "cultural appropriation" be rather odd anyway.

Most alleged cultural appropriation is utter nonsense.

[warriorchick]

Most alleged cultural appropriation is utter nonsense.

Yep.  Just saw a headline yesterday where folks were giving Kim Kardashian crap for wearing corn rows.  She has an African-American husband and multiracial children.

Perhaps I should scold those women who approach me on the beach in the Caribbean to ask if they can braid my hair. How dare they offer to share their culture with me?  Who cares if they need money to feed their kids?