"Black Widow Star Scarlett Johansson Laments Politically Correct Casting"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No she doesn’t. She laments limited casting in general: “You know, as an actor, I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job.”

She also said: “I feel like it’s a trend in my business and it needs to happen for various social reasons”

She also said, regarding her Rub & Tug drop out: “While I would have loved the opportunity to bring Dante’s story and transition to life, I understand why many feel he should be portrayed by a transgender person, and I am thankful that this casting debate, albeit controversial, has sparked a larger conversation about diversity and representation in film.”
 
As a big movie fan, it seems to me that you should make an effort to find actors who match the character’s gender, race, and age.

For example, I just finished watching “Far Pavilions” from 1984. Amy Irving played the Indian princess. Why? There were hundreds of talented Indian actresses available. And Omar Sharif played an Indian noble. Again, no Indian actors available? Really?

I get equally annoyed when I see black actors in movies about Medieval England or Vikings. Or when avant guarde directors start reversing roles and have males play Joan of Arc or women play Bob Dylan. It’s just distracting!!!

It seems to me if you are portraying an historical person, you need an actor who matches that person’s qualities as much as possible. If an Australian actor like Russell Crowe can pull off a perfect accent and play Roger Ailes, that’s fine. But Roger Ailes as a woman, or Roger Ailes as a Mexican, or Roger Ailes as Chinese, not so fine.

If there is some disability involved, deafness, wheel chairs, etc., there are actors around with those disabilities. They should at least be given a chance to audition for the part. With transgender people, I suspect there aren’t many around who can act to the level of Scarlett. But I would give them an audition. Gay people playing straight people and vice versa? If they can pull it off, fine.

In fictional shows, the characters should represent the actual population being portrayed. If 1/3 of the US army is Hispanic, and you’re making a war movie, about 1/3 of the actors should be Hispanic. Criminals shouldn’t be all white or all black or all Oriental. They should be proportional to the actual criminal population, as should the police. “Acting” can only get you so far. We cringe when we watch, for example, “Charlie Chan” movies from the 1930s with a white actor playing a Chinese detective, and we SHOULD cringe. Even in the 1930s there were perfectly capable Chinese actors around.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
As a big movie fan, it seems to me that you should make an effort to find actors who match the character’s gender, race, and age.

For example, I just finished watching “Far Pavilions” from 1984. Amy Irving played the Indian princess. Why? There were hundreds of talented Indian actresses available. And Omar Sharif played an Indian noble. Again, no Indian actors available? Really?

I get equally annoyed when I see black actors in movies about Medieval England or Vikings. Or when avant guarde directors start reversing roles and have males play Joan of Arc or women play Bob Dylan. It’s just distracting!!!

It seems to me if you are portraying an historical person, you need an actor who matches that person’s qualities as much as possible. If an Australian actor like Russell Crowe can pull off a perfect accent and play Roger Ailes, that’s fine. But Roger Ailes as a woman, or Roger Ailes as a Mexican, or Roger Ailes as Chinese, not so fine.

If there is some disability involved, deafness, wheel chairs, etc., there are actors around with those disabilities. They should at least be given a chance to audition for the part. With transgender people, I suspect there aren’t many around who can act to the level of Scarlett. But I would give them an audition. Gay people playing straight people and vice versa? If they can pull it off, fine.

In fictional shows, the characters should represent the actual population being portrayed. If 1/3 of the US army is Hispanic, and you’re making a war movie, about 1/3 of the actors should be Hispanic. Criminals shouldn’t be all white or all black or all Oriental. They should be proportional to the actual criminal population, as should the police. “Acting” can only get you so far. We cringe when we watch, for example, “Charlie Chan” movies from the 1930s with a white actor playing a Chinese detective, and we SHOULD cringe. Even in the 1930s there were perfectly capable Chinese actors around.
Click to expand...
Re the casting of black actors in movies about medieval England - believe it or not there WERE people of colour in Medieval Europe, including England. And they weren’t all servants or slaves either.

Remember Shakespeare made the protagonist of “Othello” not only black, but of reasonably high status, being both a Moorish prince and a general in the army. The play explores his marriage to a Caucasian woman and the problems their interracial marriage causes. He wouldn’t write such characters or such a plot if they literally didn’t exist or never happened.

I have to say though, I don’t like it when historical characters who we know for a fact were Caucasian are played by actors of other ethnicities, a la one or two of the roles in this year’s Mary Queen of Scots move. But otherwise, fair game.
 
LilyM said:
Remember Shakespeare made the protagonist of “Othello” not only black, but of reasonably high status, being both a Moorish prince and a general in the army. The play explores his marriage to a Caucasian woman and the problems their interracial marriage causes. He wouldn’t write such characters or such a plot if they literally didn’t exist or never happened.
Click to expand...
While I generally agree with what you state in your post, I would like to clarify something regarding the Moors.

They were not Nubian or what most American people would consider “black” today. They were similar to Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners to appearance. And while Northern Europeans did use the description “black” sometimes when referring to the Moors, it wasn’t uncommon to meet a blond or redhead Moor. Again, they more resembled Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern people instead of sub-Saharan Africans.

They were also Muslim and spoke Arabic, along with using Arabic writing. So the “racial issue” in Shakespeare’s time would have been less about skin color and more about totally different civilizations (aka Christian vs Muslim, Latin letters vs Arabic letters, etc)

Encyclopedia Britannica talks a little bit about them here

www.britannica.com

Moor | Definition, History, & Facts

Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Islamic Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in North Africa between the 11th...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

NOTE: I only mention this because a lot of people don’t know who the Moors are/were and where they came from

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Probably the studio ran some polls and found out people would not accept her playing a transgender and wanted a man or a transgender to play it. Producers don’t joke when it is a risk of them losing money.
Scarlett just needs to get over it. In some movies she’s great in others she is such a bore. She isn’t what I would call a talented actress just a decent actress. She has her moments and sometimes she doesn’t have any moments at all. When she played by voice a computer I found her voice was just too flat even for a computer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top