Society/Culture Actors who take on a character with a different skin colour or gender preference.

Is cultural appropriation a bad thing or should it be encouraged?

  • Wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We need more of it

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • Its wrong if you are white, straight, able bodied but right for everyone else?

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 15, 2007
50,334
46,506
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
In the past month weve seen various white actors come out and say they were wrong to take on parts of black cartoon characters. They dont have the experience of being black to take on the role they claim ... of a cartoon character. We have also seen lesbians attack straight people and even bisexual people from acting as lesbians. Ruby rose not gay enough to play a gay super hero is pretty hilarious. Non disabled people attacked for taking on disabled roles. Apparently you cant act as if you have a disability or certain sexual preference. This seems ridiculous to me but at least its consistent.


Oh wait I forgot.

In the past week Ive also watched the new david copperfield movie and the stage production of hamilton (im still only half way through that last one). In these two shows various white historical/fictional characters are now played by people from different races. George washington is no longer white along with every other white historical character that was on the side of the americans. The lead character from David copperfield is now Indian along with various others even though its still set in Victorian London. In fact it seems all the good guys in hamilton are non white and only the bad guys are white played in buffoonish style.

Im really struggling here to see this as not completely inconsistent.

So which of these approach is utterly wrong? Cultural appropriation is either wrong or completely right?

Skin colour/sexual preference/disability etc dont matter when choosing an acting role. Or it completely does matter. People can act as if they are a pirate, doctor or music genius despite no experience or talent but they cant act as if they prefer to have sex with a different gender.

And if Im somehow missing something and they are both compatible can someone please explain it?
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
And if I'm somehow missing something and they are both compatible can someone please explain it?

The issue is that for a long time minority stories have been told by people in the majority.

This was simply a reflection of the broader racism within society which afforded far greater opportunities to white people, to men, to straight people, to cis people, to able bodied people. It certainly wasn't because minorities were not capable of telling their own stories, that they weren't capable of acting their parts, voicing their voices.

Of course a white person can voice a non-white character. Of course a straight person can act as a gay person. A cis person can act as a trans person. An able bodied person can't act as if they had a disability. They have done this, many have done this very well.

But when these minority stories are being told but the minorities themselves are excluded from participation you have to ask why that is? If it is a result of endemic discrimination within the industry, maybe that requires a concerted effort to change, to be more inclusive and representative of the community being represented?

In a way this like a form of affirmative action. A somewhat blunt tool that ideally wouldn't be needed, but given the circumstances we find ourselves in, where some industries lag behind society in terms of being open and encouraging of diversity and equality of access, sometimes it is a blunt tool that is necessary to speed up cultural change.

I don't think majority actors can't take on minority roles, but while minorities continue to be underrepresented then I think it is understandable why casting non-minorities in those is suggested to be problematic.
 
There was a time when women weren't allowed to be on stage and men played those rolls.

I don't think there is anything like that now, there certainly isn't an attitude that certain people aren't capable of doing a great job in the roles. The issue is simple though.

The actors are draw cards. They get people in to watch the movie. Dwayne Johnson makes money, you pay him millions because it makes sure your movie is a hit. You buy his brand and it is attached to your film.

Currently the most popular actors aren't in ability restriction demographics because that limits their exposure, which means they are type cast in certain roles that won't be common, they don't have much demand for disabled action heroes etc. So much of popularity is familiarity.

I don't really care is George Washington isn't white in a film that isn't purporting to be historical.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

May 1, 2016
28,336
55,252
AFL Club
Carlton
I think cultural appropriation - when done properly - is awesome.

The idea being, if you know what you're actually doing - ie, you've studied Japanese cooking, and you know relatively how to make authentic japanese flavours - you can then create fusion products which combine the best aspects of what you're appropriating with your own culture. It's how we got sushi, and while I hate sushi I can understand the appeal.

There are multitudes of people being inspired by and learning about other cultures as a side effect of surface level interactions with those other cultures. Being in touch with different schools of thought is pivotal to having an open mind.

So, while I don't disagree with RobbieK above, I think that cultural appropriation is not the devil American culture makes it out to be. Taking an idea and improving on it is how we get progress.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
There was a time when women weren't allowed to be on stage and men played those rolls.

I don't think there is anything like that now, there certainly isn't an attitude that certain people aren't capable of doing a great job in the roles. The issue is simple though.

The actors are draw cards. They get people in to watch the movie. Dwayne Johnson makes money, you pay him millions because it makes sure your movie is a hit. You buy his brand and it is attached to your film.

Currently the most popular actors aren't in ability restriction demographics because that limits their exposure, which means they are type cast in certain roles that won't be common, they don't have much demand for disabled action heroes etc. So much of popularity is familiarity.

I don't really care is George Washington isn't white in a film that isn't purporting to be historical.

No doubt actors are being selected because they are the bigger box office draws, more well known, etc.

The issue is, if you keep using the most popular actors, and those actors reflect a history that is largely white, male, straight, able-bodied, etc., how do you ever see that change? If there is an imbalanced structure in place and you simply continue to perpetuate it, do you ever expect the imbalance to be rectified?
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
I think cultural appropriation - when done properly - is awesome.

The idea being, if you know what you're actually doing - ie, you've studied Japanese cooking, and you know relatively how to make authentic japanese flavours - you can then create fusion products which combine the best aspects of what you're appropriating with your own culture. It's how we got sushi, and while I hate sushi I can understand the appeal.

There are multitudes of people being inspired by and learning about other cultures as a side effect of surface level interactions with those other cultures. Being in touch with different schools of thought is pivotal to having an open mind.

So, while I don't disagree with RobbieK above, I think that cultural appropriation is not the devil American culture makes it out to be. Taking an idea and improving on it is how we get progress.
I agree, not all cultural appropriation is problematic.
 
No doubt actors are being selected because they are the bigger box office draws, more well known, etc.

The issue is, if you keep using the most popular actors, and those actors reflect a history that is largely white, male, straight, able-bodied, etc., how do you ever see that change? If there is an imbalanced structure in place and you simply continue to perpetuate it, do you ever expect the imbalance to be rectified?

I don't think we need an actors sexuality to match the character, actors play the role. I also don't think there is any issue with getting people who don't have white skin in movies. The top ten in 2019 was 40% not white men. The issue is the top paid women are all white, if you consider Sophia Vergara white for the purpose of this comparison.

White women are desired and marketable. Even in more traditional black movies the women are much lighter tone than the men.

There's something to be talked about there.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
I don't think we need an actors sexuality to match the character, actors play the role. I also don't think there is any issue with getting people who don't have white skin in movies. The top ten in 2019 was 40% not white men. The issue is the top paid women are all white, if you consider Sophia Vergara white for the purpose of this comparison.

White women are desired and marketable. Even in more traditional black movies the women are much lighter tone than the men.

There's something to be talked about there.
I agree, I don't think an actor's sexuality has to match the character. And yes, we have been seeing some change recently in terms of greater diversity in minority representation.

In the situations where we aren't seeing so much change, though, it is reasonable for a concerted effort to be made to address that, yeah?
 
I agree, I don't think an actor's sexuality has to match the character. And yes, we have been seeing some change recently in terms of greater diversity in minority representation.

In the situations where we aren't seeing so much change, though, it is reasonable for a concerted effort to be made to address that, yeah?
I think we should expect them to make the decisions that make them the most money while signalling as much good stuff as they can.

Did Disney exclude John Boyega from their Chinese/Asian cinema posters? That's the sort of thing I'd expect.

The media reflects the culture, it doesn't actually drive it as much as it would like to.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,334
46,506
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
No doubt actors are being selected because they are the bigger box office draws, more well known, etc.

The issue is, if you keep using the most popular actors, and those actors reflect a history that is largely white, male, straight, able-bodied, etc., how do you ever see that change? If there is an imbalanced structure in place and you simply continue to perpetuate it, do you ever expect the imbalance to be rectified?
A far greater proportion of hollywood actors and entertainers would be gay compared to the overall population and this would of been the case for many decades. So its not lack of representation in regards to homosexuality. The opposite in fact. You could say gay stories werent told, atleast not in certain genres, but that wouldnt explain why you need gay actors to act in those roles. Wouldnt straight actors playing gay characters be even more inclusive? As it tells everyone these stories can be embraced by everyone. There seems no justification for the discrimination. Affirmative action deosnt apply here because they are already over represented.

Have you see asian cinema? Indian cinema? Its not white. The only reason hollywood is white is because most americans are white. This is changing and hollywood has been changing with it. Hollywood might be slightly slower then The overall population but its not because of racism that requires affirmative action. Most of hollywood is left leaning. Its because most actors who make it in hollywood do so through family connections which are tied to the aging hollywood liberal elite. Acting isnt a very challenging skill. Most people who decide to train as an actor can become great actors. So it comes down to connections for many and it just happens that most of the old hollywood elite are white because um thats the way america used to be. Its correlated but not causal.

Oddly enough one of the groups most excluded from hollywood is conservatives. There arent that many religious, old fashioned values stories coming out of hollywood and its been that way for decades. This is a good thing as conservatives moral views are mostly moronic. Should we have affirmative action so that hollywood studios are forced to tell more conservative stories to better represent the american population? Ofcourse not. Representation of stories shouldnt be the goal.
 
Last edited:

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
A far greater proportion of hollywood actors and entertainers would be gay compared to the overall population and this would of been the case for many decades. So its not lack of representation in regards to homosexuality. The opposite in fact. You could say gay stories werent told, atleast not in certain genres, but that wouldnt explain why you need gay actors to act in those roles. Wouldnt straight actors playing gay characters be even more inclusive? As it tells everyone these stories can be embraced by everyone. There seems no justification for the discrimination. Affirmative action deosnt apply here because they are already over represented.

I already agreed with this.

Have you see asian cinema? Indian cinema? Its not white. The only reason hollywood is white is because most americans are white. This is changing and hollywood has been changing with it. Hollywood might be slightly slower then The overall population but its not because of racism that requires affirmative actiom. Its because most actors who make it in hollywood do so through family connections which are tied to the aging hollywood liberal elite. Acting isnt a very challenging skill. Most people who decide to train as an actor can become great actors. So it comes down to connections for many and it just happens that most of the old hollywood elite are white because um thats the way america used to be. Its correlated but not causal.

I'm not going to touch your "acting is easy" thing.

So, you acknowledge a pervasive structural limitation which has been slowing down the entertainment industry responding to the increasing diversity of the society it represents and reflects, but don't think we should actively do anything to challenge it?

You think a bunch of old white people controlling the industry in a way that leads to an overrepresentation of white people over people from other backgrounds has nothing to do with racism? Really?

Oddly enough one of the groups most excluded from hollywood is conservatives. There arent that many religious, old fashioned values stories coming out of hollywood and its been that way for decades. This is a good thing as conservatives moral views are mostly moronic. Should we have affirmative action so that hollywood studios are forced to tell more conservative stories to better represent the american population? Ofcourse not.

There are heaps of old fashioned values stories coming out of Hollywood. The fact conservative voices don't require affirmative action doesn't mean that other groups don't too.
 
Oct 23, 2014
38,592
44,469
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
I think it's fine as long as white actors aren't hogging all the roles that Asian or African or other actors could be getting. Likewise I don't care if Idris Elba plays James Bond who was originally a white character as long as they're not just virtue signalling.
 
I think it's fine as long as white actors aren't hogging all the roles that Asian or African or other actors could be getting. Likewise I don't care if Idris Elba plays James Bond who was originally a white character as long as they're not just virtue signalling.

The work thing is still an issue. Aloha was about a half Hawaiian half Chinese woman, who was played by Emma Stone (who is whiter than wonderbread)

The other issue however is when these roles stereotype the race they are imitating. I love breakfast at Tiffany's, but Mickey Rooneys depiction of a Japanese man in that film was disgusting
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
6,416
7,985
AFL Club
Sydney
Acting is all about pretending to be someone that you aren't and making it believable. Whether or not the actor is really Gay, Trans, Lesbian, Autistic, Zombie or Vampire goes against what acting is all about.
 

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
6,416
7,985
AFL Club
Sydney
No doubt actors are being selected because they are the bigger box office draws, more well known, etc.

The issue is, if you keep using the most popular actors, and those actors reflect a history that is largely white, male, straight, able-bodied, etc., how do you ever see that change? If there is an imbalanced structure in place and you simply continue to perpetuate it, do you ever expect the imbalance to be rectified?

Movie and series are a commercial product so as long as there is a return/profit made/to be made the product will continue to veer towards the most likely to achieve a handsome return.
Hasn't there been plenty of gay and Lesbian actors throughout movie/tv history, just that many of their public personas were straight? Maybe acting is moving towards having whoever plays a role has to identify with that character in reality?
 
Seeds is right. Why stop at skin colour?
Sex (sorry, gender, because we have to distinguish or we are evil bigots)
Sexual orientation
Mental illness
Mental disability
Physical disability
Deaf
Blind
Etc.

If it is wrong to play someone of a different colour, then all of the above should also be off limits.

there has been a push against hiring people without disabilities to play people with disabilities so some time. there used to be issues with the number of actors available, but this has grown in recent years.

one area this cant be done (yet) is where the character only gets the disability part of the way into the film.

sexual orientation is becoming more an issue to recently. batgirl was being cast as a gay woman, and there was backlash with Ruby Rose being ask (as she identifies as gender fluid)
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,190
8,185
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
It stems from underrepresentation, and the cost of this is false, unknowingly hurtful stereotypes get transmitted through hollywood (there have been various documentaries over the years on the traditionally thin and even harmful depiction of black, LGBT, etc. people in film history). Actors should be afforded the ability to demonstrate their sheer talent, but hopefully gone are the days when an actor could win an Oscar playing gay or a different race in a loud fashion to an ill-educated voter base unable to tell how authentic or not the portrayal and acting choices are.

Of course, if minorities take it too far then it might become a double-edged sword of typecasting. I'd hate to be a trans actor and only get trans parts. The broader macro aim is to get black/woman/LGBT/disabled/etc. parts to a point of equality where they aren't necessarily always written with those attributes and can be fairly interchangeable. Where an Asian male lead is normal and unremarkable. We've seen an example of that in recent years with Peter Dinklage getting the occasional role which has nothing to do with being diminutive, but just his talent to play the part. Films can obviously be shot in a way to get around people's ailments (Tom Cruise's height insecurity, Harold Lloyd's severe hand injury, lighting for older actors/actresses, etc.).

Of course, social media means there will be some annoying skirmishes about casting and yesteryear parts from time to time. Much of it is unfair, or goes too far, but a lot of it also has a point and indicates the rising expectations of inclusion. This isn't just onscreen acting, but also extends to all fields of the industry. After all, you can cast your female parts with black and trans actresses and still easily manage to fail the Bechdel test. Behind the lens is just as important, if not moreso.
 
Last edited:
Aug 21, 2016
15,562
24,464
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham
Acting is basically pretending to be another person. If it's a real person being portrayed some similarity in physical appearance is helpful, such as Gary Oldman in the Darkest Hour, and possibly accent skills. The sexuality of the subject and actor is completely irrelevant.

Fictional roles could be any sex or ethnicity. It sometimes increases interest if you mix that up. I think it has gone a bit OTT in action movies recently with skinny female actors playing characters who go around beating up muscled up guys.

A requirement for actors having to be representative of the physical and sociological attributes of the characters they might play is unrealistic, and frankly disturbing.
 
Actors jobs are to pretend to be someone they are not

Not sure why they can only pretend to be who they are normally, kind of defeats the purpose of acting doesn't it?
 
It stems from underrepresentation, and the cost of this is false, unknowingly hurtful stereotypes get transmitted through hollywood (there have been various documentaries over the years on the traditionally thin and even harmful depiction of black, LGBT, etc. people in film history). Actors should be afforded the ability to demonstrate their sheer talent, but hopefully gone are the days when an actor could win an Oscar playing gay or a different race in a loud fashion to an ill-educated voter base unable to tell how authentic or not the portrayal and acting choices are.

Of course, if minorities take it too far then it might become a double-edged sword of typecasting. I'd hate to be a trans actor and only get trans parts. The broader macro aim is to get black/woman/LGBT/disabled/etc. parts to a point of equality where they aren't necessarily always written with those attributes and can be fairly interchangeable. Where an Asian male lead is normal and unremarkable. We've seen an example of that in recent years with Peter Dinklage getting the occasional role which has nothing to do with being diminutive, but just his talent to play the part. Films can obviously be shot in a way to get around people's ailments (Tom Cruise's height insecurity, Harold Lloyd's severe hand injury, lighting for older actors/actresses, etc.).

Of course, social media means there will be some annoying skirmishes about casting and yesteryear parts from time to time. Much of it is unfair, or goes too far, but a lot of it also has a point and indicates the rising expectations of inclusion. This isn't just onscreen acting, but also extends to all fields of the industry. After all, you can cast your female parts with black and trans actresses and still easily manage to fail the Bechdel test. Behind the lens is just as important, if not moreso.
There's a doco on Netflix called Disclosure which talks about the experiences of trans people in Hollywood and a lot of the trans women said they got typecast as prostitute/murder victim and rarely played a character that had a positive outcome.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
Actors jobs are to pretend to be someone they are not

Not sure why they can only pretend to be who they are normally, kind of defeats the purpose of acting doesn't it?

Again, the issue is not that actors are unable to or should not act characters that are different to them.

The issue is that the entertainment industry has a history of exclusion of minorities, of limited or negatively caricatured representations of minorities, and people want that to change.
 
Back