Stereotyping in films versus plays
Placing actors in roles to foreign ethnicities raises speculation. Beyond the contemporary appropriation backlash, an actor’s job is to assume the identity of the character. If one is playing Caesar he needs to act like caesar. The misconception is to identify as caesar instead of representing him. Visually in film there is need to emulate the identity. This ends up reaching stereotypical levels of trying too hard. Associating a certain frame with a character.
The acclaimed Hamilton show did this part quite well. Lin Manuel Miranda is Puerto Rican a far cry from the historical figure. His successor Javier Munoz is also Puerto Rican. Despite the racial and ethnic differences they played the character to fruition. The play has shifted through characters over the past five years with no stopping. People love it. They love the music and orchestration failing to see issue with casting. Sometimes this is from ignorance. Morgan Freeman plays Red in Shawshank but reckon not many knew otherwise. There is an obvious political statement that many wish to avoid. In the case of Spiderman, casting black actors for MJ and Flash seemed less authentic given the wave of black characters reprising classically white characters.
Is there a difference in theatre? On the big screen there is an attempt to reinvent the event. Cinema is behind the audience so can try to make the scene historical. Theatre is about the acting than the appearance. Matt Damon though was deemed racist for his comments, argued that he did not care for the identity of the individual and only for their talent. Looking beyond a character for their performance. Theatre is in your face and is magnified by its talent. It is the actor’s abilities on stage that mesmerise the event’s excellence. Theatre is less about preconceived presentation and more about result presentation. How the actors portray the character. Hamilton did this incredibly. Yet it may be its musical centricity that removed it from a realistic drama. It wasn’t a documentary but a comedic trope. If this was Romeo and Juliet audiences may feel differently. Still there is something about the live audience that hinders this problem at least in the cinematic age.
Cinema is different. The photographed style attempts to captures accuracy. When people take photographs they they wish to see their reflection. Films are the same. They are supposed to be reflective. It is not solely authorial intent but the documentation of characters. There is an aspect of consideration to the obvious role. Just as people take dating advice from cinema so too they perceive reality through it. It is due to the photography affect. While documentaries are dedicated to factual gathering, fictional shows though imagined are reflective constructions. Whether be modern American or medieval Europe. Many people think the vikings were horrid plunderers because cinema articulates that story. The visual frame presented becomes truth. There is a greater trust to technological information than traditional messaging.
There is justifiable regret when beloved characters are switched on a dime for political points. The polarised world is obsessed with racial jargon. It is the first thing noticed in the hyper-racialised society. Yet ironically, it is the historical formulations that are the most problematic. Beyond race, placing a character in a role that does not befit him only internalises stereotypical attitudes. For all the inclusivity, there is little care for the accuracy. Writing a Roman script or adding a main French actor and casting a white or black American is anachronistic. Cinema places such an emphasis on appearance that the attempt to be Roman only pushes the actor’s to act more Roman. To make vikings seem more brutal than they actually were. Constructing false propaganda as history. Embellishing content with a false prophet to narrate the lesson.
While acknowledging the apparent compliance with Freeman's Red versus antagonism for Zendaya's MJ. Though there is a one-sided ratio. A white black panther would have more issue than a black batman. As the white superiority has a stronger historical record than the other way around and it would be perceived as diminishing black culture. From one side it's making room for black actors and black art. On the other hand if the alternative is done, black culture is repressed and expunged. Both are possible given the asymmetry. The historical landscape and power imbalance of race permits this reality. Yet the same cannot be said for other minorities. It is attempted but there is not as much blowback. Those other minorities while persecuted and abandoned in their past were not either by white America or as much as blacks, thus the justification does match. White people sought to suppress black people through slavery and Jim Crowe and now movies or now out of suppression can actually do something and flip characters.
Freeman's character highlights ironically either nobody read the book or nobody cared. It is also depends on how crucial race is to the character. The reason it wasn't such a big deal was probably because it was before all the hectic craziness. Secondly, it also may not be all too clear if Red was white. Even if so, as a side character, his role was more about messaging than appearance. The problem with superheroes is the are very well known and illustrations have covered magazines for half a century. It is an obvious attempt for political points. Still, there is strong merit to the point. Another case may be Riverdale. Veronica is played by a latino. The issue with the whole show was its storyline not its choice of casting by race. They may have ruined Archie Comics but that was not due to the latino aspect. For many that was fine in line. Given the casting is different than the comics, it is highly possible that the actress was the best for the cast without resorting to any political nature. That being said the show diverted from the comics yet still causing fans a heartache.
Though to some degree the race-swapping is not the biggest deal as long as it done in earnest to the original character. Movies are a depiction of reality. They a documentary unintentionally. People internalise relationship advice from movies. The realistic day in day out life of these characters is something to nitpick. The characters are representations. Thereby the historical constructions such as Vikings does a graver disservice than race swapping since at least the ploy can be noticed. Whether one agrees or disagrees the change is recognised. The historical formulations do not have that. Placing a character out of era is a deceptive lie. It is an attempt to gain political points a-historically. Solely focusing on the characters is necessary to fully immerse in that world. Either people will believe the lie of the apparent historical diversity or will abandon the show after seeing this farce. The viewer has expectations. Those are exploited when the director undermines them with small pieces of deception. The adaptation mirrors accuracy, using documents and monographs to arrange the story in an accessible way. Bringing the story to life. Such misfiring for some call out is a dire embellishment.
Historical adaptations are the most vulnerable since most people have not read history nor the seminal documents themselves. They rely on the film to portray the past. What is the point of learning when learning is corrupted by politics. Reading a textbook creates an illustration in the mind but fails to garner the same visual effect that film does. Film will embellish stories but in which way. Going off script here and there happens. Viewers know they are not getting the full truth but at least something is on point. There is some metric of enjoyment. The problem is that the film is taken with great acceptance. Vikings are gory murderers. When in reality they were farmers. A few attacked Christian villages. The extreme accusation is daunted with film expectations. The story needs to be receptive to people. They enjoy action and gore. It will a pleasant watch even if an untrue one. Yet the viewer should know, this is not a documentary and cinema is generally incorrect but the visualisation captures the viewer's emotions and stirs them to concede. The power of an image in motion funnels an untruth to be the truth.
It is this messaging that causes a stir of horror in the true history of our ancestry. Caught up in political nonsense but even more so seeking a better story. The director decides which pieces to add and which to void. The perception of elder folk are internalised as seen on the big screen. Just as relationship advice must be true this even more so. Cinema is for viewership and interest so there are more bombs and more unnecessary relationships for a deeper plot line that is never mentioned in any of the original material. These slight derivations or even absolute constructions undermine the integrity of these people. The Cleopatra scandal does fall under race-swapping but it is more about her legacy than her race. She is painted as this black superwomen. Yet her history and her actions themselves are not represented in this way. HBO's Rome was able to swindle audiences with a deceptive character but the obvious race-swapping caught audiences' eyes ever before they hit the big screen. Given the heightened political landscape and race centricity, if only an iota is misplaced this can cause a disaster of belief.
There is a bias given the race-swapping. While many may claim it is a one sided coin it was the Egyptians who were very angry, a people away from the American social upheaval. Nonetheless, it may be even more problematic that Fimmel played Ragnar despite him being Australian. Then again his complexion does meet viking ancestry. Was this the correct choice may be not. It also may undermine the historical accuracy. Fimmel is not the problem insofar as he fits the paradigm and authentically relates to the people themselves. This a bigger issue than race swapping. The latter has too much concentration when historical events are embellished wholeheartedly for views. The viewer takes in the film with joy. Unlike the play on stage filled music and orchestration, the live action takes away from the realistic persona. Ironically, it is the opposite. The fiction is more likely to seem more authentic. Cinema plays a recording of the past while a play immerses in an experience.
Stereotypes are inevitably assorted when the director presents an honest measure of society. By casting a white actor for a Roman role or American actor for a French actor. It is the inability to portray the individual correctly. Then the intended presentation is muddled and the stereotype ensues. There is no honest portrayal because the director is basing his knowledge as an outsider. He cannot identify and thus provides an inaccurate description. It is not about inclusivity or talent, it is about integrity. Does this make sense? Would a Roman do that? Do the French sound like that? In theatre the same problems emerge but the visual does not internalise the accurate proposal too deeply. It is a different model with a different goal. More concerned with talent than appearance.
No comments:
Post a Comment