Racebending

Sharysa, I do understand what you're saying... if good Asian-American actors/actresses are being passed over for roles in these kinds of movies, yeah, that's extremely and utterly dickish. And also that there are fewer movies made that are 'appropriate' to cast minorities in, that's dickish as well. I like to act, and though I've not done it professionally (just on an amateur level), the fact that while there are a lot more actresses than actors and yet there are very, very few plays with a lot of good, meaty female roles annoys me no end. (Also the fact that there aren't a lot of roles for someone as short as I am, but, well, given the bell curve I kinda understand that one even if I don't like it).

But I do think that a lot of people with the attitude you're describing are more saying that, well, it's not a sin to do a remake and change the location and therefore the mix of actors available and appropriate to the new location, which is something a bit different. If, say, Johnny Depp is really the best actor for the job, being basically race-blind but keeping in mind what's appropriate to the story of the new movie... why not?

edited 17th Jan '12 2:22:23 PM by Loid

I'd like to say that I'm neutral so long as the actors are good, but I would like to see more roles for nonwhite actors. As audiences, our best solution is to find the few movies that do have nonwhite leads (like Red Tails) and go see them in theaters, so executives who think with their wallets will realize that yes, we are willing to watch movies about nonwhites.

(I think this is actually part of a larger misconception—that people won't want to watch something about people who're different than them. "Boys won't want to watch Friendship is Magic—it's about girls!" "Teens won't want to watch Tiger And Bunny—it's about a middle-aged man!")

Why does it matter what race the actors are? Is the character's race that important to the character?

It obviously matters, because the characters are re-written as non-minorities to pander to a wider audience.

Re-written, or simply recast? You really want to ban white actors from playing any sort of role that was originally an Asian? Even if it's localized in the US?

It may surprise you to learn that there are Asians in the United States.

Really, the fact of the matter is that we don't live in a racially equal world yet, and for that to change White actors will lose some of their privilege in exchange for minority actors gaining some. Framing that as "banning white actors from playing roles that were originally Asian" is kind of missing the point.

I've never understood this mentality, and see it as a big problem. While it is true in some cases, it ignores one of the major causes of entertainment, escapism. I may want to see what would happen if someone like me got put in some weird situation, but I'm much more likely to go see one that focuses on a Badass instead of someone like me.

Especially if it's localized in the US. We try to present to the world an image of diversity and multiculturalism, but Hollywood is still presenting the essence of America as white, middle-class, and picket-fenced. Allowing other races a stake in the mainstream entertainment business is not about banning white actors from their God given right to play Tetsuo and Martin Luther King, but about living up to the image of the US projected into the world.

I hate racebending (and the super-prevalence of white actors in general) because I can't help but feel like the work is telling me "neither you nor anyone else we're advertising to is actually capable of empathizing with this person unless they're white", it's really irritating.

Also, Deboss is right on the money, you earn a

edited 17th Jan '12 5:48:17 PM by stripesthezebra

Also I always feel like they are saying that only white people see movies. All white casting is the reason why black movies rarely become mainstream. I'm not saying that white people should never be allowed to play non-whites, but it should be the exception rather than the rule.

@ Erock

Ah, I don't think it counts as "banning white actors from playing" these roles. That seems to be framing the situation in a misleading manner. When the original script has them as Japanese individuals and you recast them into White-Americans, then the first question that is asked is why?

• Was the recast for the benefit of the script? No.
• Was the recast due to the unavailability of Japanese actors? Unlikely.
• Was the role open to people of any ethnicity, white or not? Unlikely.

It's hardly bashing white people when we're talking about a role that should be first considered by an actor who actually looks like the character (ie. at very least, asian if not Japanese) but that this is simply disregarded and white actors are used. This is basically as bad as The Last Airbender, where you had a show of only Asian cultures but then in the movie, only the protagonists are white and all the evil guys are non-white. (Ignoring how much that movie sucked balls, going to show they certainly didn't choose white actors because they acted "better")

The setting and story are more important than pretty much everything else. If your story takes place in feudal Asia and you have the budget to be choosy with your actors, it better have people that can believably pass as feudal Asians.

The Last Airbender just cracked me up with how badly it mangled that. It took a story where pretty much everyone was visibly ethnic except the bad guys, then made almost nobody visibly ethnic except the bad guys. It's like...did you even think about this??

The Last Airbender was worse than that. Everyone who takes a stand against the Fire Nation is white (the three protagonists, Gran-Gran, and the Northern Water Tribe), the antagonists are all Indian, and the East Asians and Inuits who fill out the rest of the world are either oppressed people who need to be rescued (most egregiously in the internment camp scene, where the people being rescued are in fact better-armed than their captors and have overwhelming numbers) or collaborators. This gets particularly silly when you notice that the speaking/non-speaking (and hero/victim) split in the Southern Water Tribe is white/Inuit—the three characters who have something to do besides look scared are the only white people in the village.

The one thing that's actually excusable is the "East Asians are always useless without the protagonists" part, since the scenes featuring the Kyoshi Warriors were cut so late in production that Suki was still featured in the promotional materials.

edited 17th Jan '12 6:14:55 PM by Ironeye

But if you move a movie to the US, should you be forced to use Asian-American characters? I'm sure a lot of Asian-American would have no attchment to Japan. And if it's from Japan, than race is probably a non-issue in the production, considering it's homogenous. If they are speaking English, why do they have to be Asian-Americans?

And when a French movie is remade, no says anything about having French actors.

In the case of animaton... look at the picture in the linked article. Does that look like a Japanese person? No. The race, it's not important in animation. So Hollywood wants to do a liv4 action movie? So they have to hire a Japanese actor who looks just as different (if not more) to the original character than Tom Cruise.

Remember the business on Thor? Ignoring the white supremacists, most people were fine with having a black man. So a Norse god (who I remember having fire red hair, might be wrong) can be played by a black man but a racilly ambiguous anime character has to be played by an Asian man? Yeah, I see the disconnect.

edited 17th Jan '12 7:42:16 PM by Erock

French is an ethnicity. American isn't (unless you're talking about Native Americans).

So? A lot of Asian-Americans won't feel any connection to a Japanese role.

And then you either have to get just Japanese people, or you invoke All Asians Look Alike. No one batted an eye when British Daniel Craig played a Swede.

Btw nice way of picking one point in a large argument and ignoring the rest.

edited 17th Jan '12 7:34:35 PM by Erock

How is this relevant? It's about staying faithful to the setting, not pleasing a particular audience.

You just contradicted yourself.

• Troy is a city in Anatolia. Thor is what you're thinking of.
• It's an adaptation of a comic book, not Norse mythology. I could list dozens of other things that are wrong with the character in the comic/movie that have nothing to do with his race.
• A Norse god is a god worshipped by the Norse, not a god who is ethnically Norse.

I hope I didn't leave anything out.

edited 17th Jan '12 8:30:58 PM by Gwirion

It's about staying faithful to the setting, not pleasing a particular audience

But is it staying in Tokyo? I'm confused. If it's New York, then it could be anyone they want.

It's an adaptation of a comic book, not Norse mythology. I could list dozens of other things that are wrong with Thor's characterization in the comic/movie that have nothing to do with his race.

I'll give you that, I haven't seen it. I'm just bring the example of an earlier thread.

A Norse god is a god worshipped by the Norse, not a god who is ethnically Norse

His race is just as ambiguous as Akira's in the religion (but it's not like earl pagans knew much about the outside world), but he was white in the comic (right?).

edited 17th Jan '12 7:45:55 PM by Erock

The setting is more than the geographic location of a city. Neo-Tokyo is distinctly different from New York city, and I hope to high heaven that they keep it that way. But the point is, "anyone they want" is too often, by default, white.

edited 17th Jan '12 7:45:43 PM by Gwirion

Ae they setting it in Neo-Tokyo? Or are they doing the better idea and converting it to Ne0-New York (that's an awful name, though)? Because that could actually make the adaption worth it.

If it' Neo-Tokyo, than that's sort of weird. It could be a foreigner who survived the war, but I agree, if they don't move the setting than it's retarded.

The concept of "racebending" requries context

But the point is, "anyone they want" is too often, by default, white

Well the majoriy of stars are white currently, so if they want a big name they're slection is unfortunately indiverse.

edited 17th Jan '12 7:49:54 PM by Erock

According to this article, it's going to be Neo-Manhattan. I give up. This is too silly to even consider.

And I have no idea who Garrett Hedlund is. The whole "big star" notion doesn't really work if the white actors they're casting are virtually unknown.

edited 17th Jan '12 7:51:54 PM by Gwirion

Okay, so they are resetting it. That excuses the race.

I don't know the work, so I don't know how important Japan really is, as opposed to what people say.

But Romeo + Juliet reset the Shakespeare play in a modern American city (a much more drastic change and it worked. If it's done well, it could be a good movie. Who cares if it's not "faithful", Akira is already a movie. It's not like book -> movie, they are adapting a foreign story to their own setting. Everyone does that.

edited 17th Jan '12 7:57:33 PM by Erock

Let's backtrack a little. It's not that Japan is so important to the setting of Akira that the movie will lose its purpose and soul without it, but that Hollywood had an opportunity to prominently feature minority actors and integrate them into the echelon of household names, and let it go for a few bucks. If American movies were teeming with non-white actors, it wouldn't warrant an eyebrow raise. But they are, and shitting on Akira's roots is just one of the myriad examples of Hollywood favoring whites.

edited 17th Jan '12 8:01:25 PM by Gwirion