By: Jonathan Seidel
Casting for the wrong roles—women, homosexuals, romans etc.
Cinema has a history of discrimination. While writers would diversify their plot lines directors would not diversify their cast. Having white men black characters as one example. Today the opposite is occurring plot lines are not diversifying while the cast is. An iconically white character is played by a black actor. In order to compensate for old racists the character is changed. This form of compensation for past sins not only muddles the apology but ruins the reputation of non racist writers.
Shakespeare famously hired men to play women. He needed someone to play the role but women were not allowed by law to entertain in theatre. This was also during Queen Elizabeth’s reign. The monarch, the most powerful woman in the country nay in Europe upheld this traditional norm in her feminist leanings. Shakespeare was not being sexist but following the rules. Was he sexist? Maybe but not because of his casting. Modern moralists look back and cancel Shakespeare for his premodern immorality. Yet unlike Nazism that forced its ideals on the public. This was mutually accepted by both men and women. In marxian terminology the oppressor and the oppressed.
Branch Ricky’s decision to draft Jackie Robinson is a step down from British norms. The US was imbued with constant racist propaganda. Blacks were inferior to whites and needed to be segregated. The norm was to not play together. While many were indifferent they watched as prejudice persisted in front of their eyes. An institutionalised obstruction emboldened by heroic enforcers. Rickey’s motives may have been selfishly capitalist in nature to win as Robinson was a prolific athlete. Yet his decision ultimately broke the colour barrier. Many were not happy even in the organisation. The norm was broken and it rubbed people the wrong way. The relational attitude was corrupted with an abnormality. A new face in a foreign land was disliked but overtime has gradually compensated itself. MLB maintains a slight majority but NFL and NBA are majority black. Though there may be underlying compensation, the basketball talent is predominately from black players as they dominate the league.
Professional sports was not a fan of integration and tried to resist change but in time talent spoke for itself. Beginning with Robinson in baseball, Brown in football among others demonstrated the ability for blacks to play alongside whites. Sports progresses along without reverting to the past. The game evolves with the players. There is always cross-generational discussion but there is little attempt to relive the past. The same cannot be said of film adaptation. Movies are all adapted every year with diverse actors. Looking back and shaming friends for no black actors what about the fresh prince where there were no white characters. A bit of a double standard. Nevertheless, it was necessarily racially motivated. Throwing these ideas out there with mere speculation tainted by ideological stipulation is wrong. It is the wrong way to perceive art and entertainment. Not everyone is a boogyman and not everyone is racist.
Attempts to rectify these wrongs with cirrus in iconic films and film adaptations. The recent all female remastered version of ghostbusters hit a snag with terrible reviews because it was more messaging than art. The audience saw through the facade and judged it by its ineptitude. Yet news outlets fuelled the flames by claiming sexism. It must be because the viewership is misogynistic. Though the harshest insults were heralded at comic book fans who were unhappy with the ideological pandering to alter character’s race for messaging purposes. Ironically, it was usually a redhead who was replaced with a black character (Wally West, Iris West, Mary Jane Watson). Fans love the green lantern John Stewart. They do not enjoy their favourite characters being dismantled and then being insulted for their criticism.
Altering art to compensate for exclusivity is not the answer. Iconic characters emerge and that is great. Whether what occurred in the past was correct or not is irrelevant. Do not remake old art, create new art. John Stewart is a perfect example. Modern Romeo and Juliet outtakes will have a woman to fill the proper role. Pandering only hurts the public’s image of cinema and the constant virtual signalling in a movie. No one wishes to watch a movie that is filled with narcissistic nepotism. When people do not enjoy the movie do not call them out in basic childish ad hominem. Miles Morales as Spiderman has gained a fanbase with reluctancy. As producers continue to create his own narrative away from Peter Parker the more comfortable people will become. It isn’t that he is black but that he is not his own person but a projection of ideologues.
Black superman is not a new concept. There are black supermen in the comic books but none of them are Cal-El. No one is asking for a white black panther. Take the black supermen from the comic and adapt them from the art not for a political statement. Scientifically, superman could be black from the sun, run a logically sound narrative. Iconic characters leave a special place in people’s hearts but that does not mean that new movies cannot be created. Hell people have a special place for a blue people called the Navi for god sake. Planting roots is not easy but it is possible. John Stewart, Black Panther Blade among others are respected and killed it at the box office. The important point is that much of the reboots whether in comic books or iconic films are pandering to audiences and enticing animosity to a well-intentioned ideal.
A classic rationale for a black superman is for the black community to be represented. The most powerful superhero is black. It is true that most of the popular heroes are white given they were more or less written by Jewish writers projecting a saviour against the Nazis ("S" symbol as hope against the swastika). The writers wrote from their perspective. These heroes are entrenched in the history of the comic book canon. Every kid knows what superman looks like. Throwing a black superman on the big screen may make adults happy but will it have the same affect on the child? While the intention is to feel comfortable and protected, the delta is not necessarily accomplished. To what degree do children actually internalise superman's complexion. No one wonders why superman isn't Jewish. For the child the purpose of the hero is not what he looks like but what he does. It is then beyond his complexion that then signals to the reader of the great prowess of said hero. Fighting for justice instead of apparent representation. It all hinges on do children get the memo or is such ideological bias over their heads. Even if they do understand there is still a problem of messaging and continuity
Gadamer argues that hermeneutics are an internal mechanism that builds upon the past to the future. Legal systems pledge to precedent. Here is a new case, what have past cases said about this situation. The old is not used to articulate the new. Comic books are cemented. Characters branded through magazines and film for the past half century. Switching the complexion of the character does a disservice to that character. It is not that shifting complexion changes the character's behaviour but perception. The new character may be called the hero but this version does not match with the historical records. This hero is dubbed without any linkage. The same story is modified but with a varied cultural centricity. To a degree, writers draw their characters differently and reboots have different characters (3 spidermen). Staying true to the character is necessarily by complexion given its by sight. Skin colour is seen in the embodiment of the character. A Lacanian ascertains the dimmed acceptance due to the absurd characterisation. He says he is superman but he does not look like superman. He is a hoax. The recognition of superman is undermined he is a caricature of the true superman. Black children themselves see a peculiar character playing the true heir and confused who this individual is.
The character was written a certain way and stamped as fact. This does not mean that a new character cannot take their place. Rewriting old characters with renewed ideas demurs that character's legacy. The effect targets complexion instead of values. The goal of superheroes is their ethical identity not their political positioning. The hero is a statement for societal necessity. Heroes protect. Do not undermine the character by focusing their work away to strange new image. Miles Morales as Spiderman was a good move. Some of the pushback is from conservatives chanting wokeism. Yet even if this true, the storyline is unique and promising. It respects the white Peter Parker and changes the mantle. Spiderman is what is under the hood but it is more than that. The costume changes the environment changes. It is an origin story for a new character. A successful rant for a plausible shift. With the ideological aspect it still exceeds expectations. It is a well written story following a Spiderman's role. Marking the good of the old while showing a new version for the new.
Fantasy has probably the most ironic setback given its axiomatic diversity. The fantasy realm includes creatures of every mythology in elves dwarfs and orc. Playing politics with this genre is self defeating but when executed turns people off. Identity politics ridicules the one absolutely diversified casting. It is almost out of sheer jealousy. A utopian recommendation that they have yet to achieve. Fantasy is the diversity of monster equality. Able to blend groups from all races. There may be some premodern aspects that may need updating but the casting and screening should revolve around the plot exploring the diversity instead of virtue signalling. Planting a specific vision to make a point. Just tell a compelling story with a diverse cast. It is not that difficult.
Comic books were designed as fictional messaging. They told stories narrativised to push a vision. Wonder Woman was to demonstrate female capability, Captain America was a pro-war allied forces phenomenon, x-men represented the civil rights persecuted minority, black widow reduced the communist stereotype. Comic books are fiction and they supply a value. This is not virtual signalling or woke. The newer movies make comments and characters breaking the fourth wall. Older movies let the art do the talking. The story itself inspired the idea. Black Widow was gradually accepted not by Spiderman saying anything but by teaming up and her loyalty to protecting people from harm. X-men is a perfect example of narrating the struggle of isolation and prejudice without virtue signalling.
It is quite interesting if these film changes were done twenty years ago. Would there have been backlash? Is the current toxic climate the rationale for the pushback? A good argument against my claim would place superman not only as an alien but also his entire role is to fight for truth, justice and the American way. Making a black superman would actually reinforce these ideas. It is not about race but about values. The same goes for batman and Spiderman. The problem is that such is not the case in this climate. The overwhelming reasoning is for some ideological affirmation. It is for the sake of pandering and concentrating on race even more. It is the inverse of the ideal goal, it does not embolden those values but instead focuses directly on the character's race. A may be this political climate but it also just may be the spontaneous alteration amidst a half century of a specific depiction.
The greatest irony is the race swapping for redheaded characters. Maybe it is because they are too white. Redheads are a huge minority in the world and are being ousted for political pandering. An even smaller minority is teased out. Yet I do believe somethings are also more complex. The Teen Titans show Starfire was black. The issue would exist if she was white as well. The controversy stems from the character's alien genetics making her skin orange. Gemora played by a black woman in the MCU is accepted since the green alien skin is projected correctly. Mystique played by a white actress in both adaptations is painted blue to signify the character's depiction. The case was more about being true to the material. This not a claim against change, it is a honest representation of the character. The character means something when they are projected on the screen. An alternative portrayal is internalised as a falsehood. Starfire is not Starfire. She is a black Starfire (white Starfire would be the same problem).
Backlash on race-swapping may be a temporary agitator. In a decade it may not a big deal. Alternatively, the point of race-swapping is ideological. It is not replace for values but replace for complexion. Ironically, there are numerous seminal black characters that have not hit the big screen yet. Static Shock is a perfect example of a show that embedded political messaging. Static's friend Richie's father is quite racist and Static has to come to terms with it. This is pre-ideological era. Not only is a unique black character portrayed but even the messaging is explored without intense rebuttal. This in of itself recognises that the current climate is affirmatively too toxic and difficult to actually make this change. Though personally, this seems more affective given that the character is his own. He is not a race-swap or even a race-apprentice. Static is in his own world as is Luke Cage and Black Lightning. It is these stories that stand tall as isolated in their own right. The stories are internalised because the characters aren't reconned but original. An honesty and a protection of excellence to the reader. No argument just hopefully good story-telling.
Lastly, there is an element that is unfortunate but potentially inevitable. Most classic heroes are white. Written by white writers. Their images entrenched in storylines. The most memorable heroes to date are the redistributed ones with the most fame who happen to be white. Yet black panther did receive incredible notoriety. The Blade franchise was phenomenal. Can Miles Morales make it as well? At least for the former they are original storylines while the latter is a break off. Can Morales escape Peter's shadow? The entire essence of the storyline is to make him his own man. Changes in costume and plot attempt to write him as a different hero. The addition of other Spidermen in the multi-verse sought to legitimise his claim. Yet he is still Spiderman. A role notoriously associated with Peter Parker. Though his mission is to be his own man as long as he wears the suit, he remains a legacy of Parker. Sam Wilson who receives Captain America's shield was applauded as the quintessential apprentice. People were happy with no racial controversy. The question remains is Wilson a placeholder? A great biblical example is Isaac. He takes his father's name as well as his values. The narratives intentionally illustrate Isaac's mimicking of his father's ways to denote his continuation and yet also limit to personhood unlike Jacob who took his own path.
Creating new storylines for the same type of character is a quasi-attempt to race-swap without actually doing so. It predates the present culture as well as following continuity. A character needs to hang up the mantle at some point. Who does he pass it onto? John Stewart is a well regarded hero and yet he is overshadowed by Hal Jordan. I do think that Stewart's usage in the early DC television was accepted even if it was a diversity addition because the character was original in himself. He was part of a legacy of earth lanterns. Yet at times Stewart overshadowed as a replacement for Jordan and if Jordan keeps returning then Stewart is simply a replacement this would work for Gardener as well (who is white). The fact that Robin becomes Nightwing and not batman is more impactful than Terry McGinnis becoming batman in batman beyond. An amazing show but not a long-lasting legacy even if people are waiting on a film adaptation. Some apprentices fade into oblivion others live on but the constant message is that these apprentices are a foil for that character to return. The original heroes never day permanently and thus their presence will always outweigh the apprentice unless the apprentice is somehow written better.
Thus the best case scenario is to either adapt classical black or hispanic characters (Static Shock and Blue Beetle) or to create new characters. There may be some blowback from new characters that this a pandering attempt but comic book lovers want good writing. They are not white exclusivists. I bet many would have been truly annoyed had Shang Chi been played by a white man. What people want is to see their idol or potential idol on the screen. For some good writing and action that portrays the hero's journey sufficiently. The current climate despises the hiring motivations while the possibility for classical and new characters to emerge for minority communities. Do not use old heroes to create a new paradigm. Leave the story and begin a new one. A connective valve but a unique enterprise.
