I can't believe people are still this stupid, and still need to be considered.
'Hitch' Battled Race Issue - Insane Ignorance!
- Thread starter cinematography
- Start date
I can't believe people are still this stupid, and still need to be considered.
cinematography said:
i hope that its the failure of the studios to judge contemporary society values, and really hope they have not got it right.
i feel your pain Cinematography.
I just hope that everyone else is reading this (about Hitch) thinks how stupid it is too and not an accurate reflection of their society.
Last edited:
*SIGGGHHHH*
I think Clive's 'Constantine' thread hit the nail on the head. Hollywood 'professionals' taking it to the max, literally : "ah, middle America, that would be...what, somewhere in ......
Marketing 'professional's' belief as to 'who' occupies middle American hog farm......"Well Hell, that would just HAVE to be a hillbilly, a mooncalf to be sure. Hmmm, now, what does an unsophisticated ma-roooooooon want to see on the silver screen ?"
I think Clive's 'Constantine' thread hit the nail on the head. Hollywood 'professionals' taking it to the max, literally : "ah, middle America, that would be...what, somewhere in ......
Marketing 'professional's' belief as to 'who' occupies middle American hog farm......"Well Hell, that would just HAVE to be a hillbilly, a mooncalf to be sure. Hmmm, now, what does an unsophisticated ma-roooooooon want to see on the silver screen ?"
I don't know, to be honest, I think if Vivica A. Fox was cast as the romantic lead, the film would be percieved to be a "black" film by some people and may be disregarded as "not for them." I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but when there's money on the line, Hollywood will most always play it safe -- especially with a movie like "Hitch," which doesn't pretend to be an artistic triumph and has high profits expected of it.
Its very apparent in the way they market and advertise these movies, they ads are so "in your face" or make the movie look exciting or scary or dangerous, when the ads are just misleading on the content. It really drives me crazy watching some of these ads - thinking OMG they did not just spend Millions of dollars to both Make and promote this movie. One movie in particular was the movie "snow Dogs" w/ cuba jr.
I saw the ads for SDs and my jaw dropped, I was just at my limit in the 90s of bad movies, I swore I would never see it. And one day curiosity got the best of me and I rented it or borrowed it from someone (i like dogs) and it was actually a pretty good movie and the dogs did not talk throughout the flick, only in one scene but youd never know it from the ads.
It bums me out that the ads for movies just go for action and violence when the movie may not even revolve around that or its completely different than the idea itself... IE ELECTION - w/broderick - I mean I am thinking light comedy by the ads and the stars in it are great, but the movie was definately dark and twisted, don t get me wrong i still liked it but I was not prepared for that at all. Think of all the people that maybe brought their kids or a date to that movie...
But this thing w/black and white actors/actresses ... who cares as long as they're good and funny, i could care less about color. I would see the movie cause I like will smith, but it wont drive me to see it in a theater. Steve Martin pulled it of with latifa in bringing down the house which was okay - neither here no there about it, but I think it made money.
I saw the ads for SDs and my jaw dropped, I was just at my limit in the 90s of bad movies, I swore I would never see it. And one day curiosity got the best of me and I rented it or borrowed it from someone (i like dogs) and it was actually a pretty good movie and the dogs did not talk throughout the flick, only in one scene but youd never know it from the ads.
It bums me out that the ads for movies just go for action and violence when the movie may not even revolve around that or its completely different than the idea itself... IE ELECTION - w/broderick - I mean I am thinking light comedy by the ads and the stars in it are great, but the movie was definately dark and twisted, don t get me wrong i still liked it but I was not prepared for that at all. Think of all the people that maybe brought their kids or a date to that movie...
But this thing w/black and white actors/actresses ... who cares as long as they're good and funny, i could care less about color. I would see the movie cause I like will smith, but it wont drive me to see it in a theater. Steve Martin pulled it of with latifa in bringing down the house which was okay - neither here no there about it, but I think it made money.
You know I don't know what's worse about this, the fact that they thought it or the fact that it may be true.
Actually, the bottom line is that they're saying "racists constitute an audience we're prepared to make movies for." Personally I find that distasteful. I was going to see that film but now I don't think I will.
Actually, the bottom line is that they're saying "racists constitute an audience we're prepared to make movies for." Personally I find that distasteful. I was going to see that film but now I don't think I will.
T Shipley said:
i think this is a definite problem if that is true. i feel this opens us up to a wider debate than just Hitch or even Cuba Gooding Jnr, but onto if films should reflect on the prejudices of their potential audiences?
if a 'black' film with a black couple in it may be percieved as some as 'not for them' that opens up serious problems. someone (i think it was actually T Shipley) started another thread where they mentioned what makes for good drama (challenging us).
i think films should aim to do that, and if that means having an all black couple than so be it.
Clive hit the metaphysical nail right on its tip:
'racists constitute an audience' - i think that is the bottom line.
Should we not be trying to challenge this audience and try to change that side of their lives, instead of promoting their already held views (eg - bad drama)?
its all about how you see the social role of films.
Last edited:
To me, it goes without saying that a work should reflect the vision of it's creator, that is what makes it first, and foremost, a piece of art. If you're intention is to make the work ALSO a 'product', then you do consider your audience. I don't believe that means you pander to their prejudices, but, perhaps a gentle enticement to social change/evolution. No one has ever changed a person's mind by beating them into it(figuratively or literally). It always seems to have been a sort of charismatic persuasion.
Interesting point about opening up a wider debate. I think an even deeper question arises. Should prejudicial works of art, even if they discover/present revolutionary formal innovations, occupy reverent space in the heirarchy of ART? I am thinking of the seminal example of D.W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation' . Does the 'universal' discoveries of 'Birth' (it's contribution to art) take precedence over any 'local' suffering it may have caused (it's possible contribution to the resurgance of the KKK)?
Hollywood has always been a mixed bag when it comes to race and social issues. In one aspect, they push for social justice -- films like "Intolerance," "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," "Cry Freedom." On the other hand, they've reinforced and spread stereotypes -- The Jazz Singer, Birth of A Nation, Blackplotation films, etc...
Hollywood really has a split personality -- producers either want to save the world or make money. When they want to make money, they make decisions like casting a Latino woman as Will Smith's romantic lead. When they want to save the world, they make Hotel Rwanda.
I don't really see the casting in "Hitch" as racist or anything close. I think they were trying to give it a broader appeal.
If only the talent of the actor matters, are we also to disregard looks? Film is a visual medium, and decisions are made on casting that are purely physical all the time. Race does factor in.
The fact of the matter is I'm white -- and the only films in recent memory that I've seen that had predominently casts are "Eve's Bayou" and "Boomerang" -- before that "Hollywood Shuffle" and "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka" and Spike Lee films (though, he has at least one or two major characters that aren't black in a lot of his films).
DId I not see Barbershop/Waiting to Exhale/Any Movie with Morris Chestnut because of the all black cast? I don't know. I think the producers of 'Hitch," which isn't supposed to save the world, are going to err on the side of having the widest possible audience.
Hollywood really has a split personality -- producers either want to save the world or make money. When they want to make money, they make decisions like casting a Latino woman as Will Smith's romantic lead. When they want to save the world, they make Hotel Rwanda.
I don't really see the casting in "Hitch" as racist or anything close. I think they were trying to give it a broader appeal.
If only the talent of the actor matters, are we also to disregard looks? Film is a visual medium, and decisions are made on casting that are purely physical all the time. Race does factor in.
The fact of the matter is I'm white -- and the only films in recent memory that I've seen that had predominently casts are "Eve's Bayou" and "Boomerang" -- before that "Hollywood Shuffle" and "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka" and Spike Lee films (though, he has at least one or two major characters that aren't black in a lot of his films).
DId I not see Barbershop/Waiting to Exhale/Any Movie with Morris Chestnut because of the all black cast? I don't know. I think the producers of 'Hitch," which isn't supposed to save the world, are going to err on the side of having the widest possible audience.
Personally I do not want to see Hitch because a) I know that Kevin James is featured in the trailer more than he is in the movie, and b) Will Smith stopped being funny to me circa MIB II. It has nothing to do with race, it has all to do with unfunniness.
I like clowns.
Poke
bird said:
I like clowns.
Poke
How can pre-determining the race of an actor, prior to casting, give a film broader appeal? Unless they are appealing to people who make buying choices based on the colour of the actors (ie. racists)
The truth is, that based on that marketing decision any black actress or any white actress who auditioned for that part was ruled out on the basis of her colour. There isn't any way of seeing that decision as anything but racist.
There's an incredible play by an English writer called Trevor Griffiths called the Comedians. It was turned into a TV play in the 1970's and was one of Jonathan Price's first major roles. It's all about the relationship between entertainment and racism. It's also one of the best plays ever written. In it a group of stand up comedians are preparing to do their first show for an agent. They've been taught by a comedian who is very anti-racism, but the agent hates political comics and is looking for comedians who give the people what they want (ie. jokes about blacks and asians). The question each comedian has to decide is will they change their act to get work or will they stick with their original material. Some of them stick with their acts and some of them sell out.
This situation is exactly the same, they've been asked to make the same decision and they've sold out for the cash, shame on them.
(If you are ever in Bradford, Engalnd, at the BFI museum of the moving image, they have a viewing copy in their library, I strongly urge anyone who has the chance to watch it. It's one of the few pieces that makes me weep every time I see it).
Clive, for it to be racism, one has to be of the opinion that one race is inherently superior to the other. That's not the case in the casting of "Hitch" (and least i don't think is it).
My point is, there are many people in America who will see an ad, see the two leads as black and write it off as a movie targeted to black people and not "for them."
There was that movie that came out a few years ago about the events of the wedding of a black guy -- it was pretty much an all black cast. I had no interest in seeing it, and to be honest, because it had a large black cast probably had a lot to do with it. Now, this is not to say I don't see movies with all black casts, but this film seemed to focus on the black zeigiest.
I personally think the producers of Hitch didn't want white people to see Will Smith and Vivica A. Fox onscreen and think it's a film about black people dating. They wanted them to see Will Smith on screen and think it's a movie about dating.
I'm not saying any of this is right -- in a perfect world, we'd all be color-blind. But the fact is that race does play a factor in whether people see certain films, and since this is not an art house pic trying to promote some social message, but a date flick, producers played it safe and went with a casting that they thought would bring in the most revenue.
My point is, there are many people in America who will see an ad, see the two leads as black and write it off as a movie targeted to black people and not "for them."
There was that movie that came out a few years ago about the events of the wedding of a black guy -- it was pretty much an all black cast. I had no interest in seeing it, and to be honest, because it had a large black cast probably had a lot to do with it. Now, this is not to say I don't see movies with all black casts, but this film seemed to focus on the black zeigiest.
I personally think the producers of Hitch didn't want white people to see Will Smith and Vivica A. Fox onscreen and think it's a film about black people dating. They wanted them to see Will Smith on screen and think it's a movie about dating.
I'm not saying any of this is right -- in a perfect world, we'd all be color-blind. But the fact is that race does play a factor in whether people see certain films, and since this is not an art house pic trying to promote some social message, but a date flick, producers played it safe and went with a casting that they thought would bring in the most revenue.
I guess we're going to have to accept that we disagree about what constitutes racism.
Just as a point of reference, here's one group's formal definition:
Definitions of Racism
That said, personally I find the idea that films that aren't arthouse are exempt from any sense of social responsilbilty sad. It implies that anything is excusable as long as there is a profit in it.
And, there is nothing contemptable in either taking a moral stance or being an arthouse film maker. I'm proud of both.
The truth is that if film making is only about profit we may as well all stop writing and start making porn, as long as we don't use a black actor and actress in the lead roles, because no-one in middle America is going to rent a porn film with two black leads, because they wouldn't be able to relate to it.
Just as a point of reference, here's one group's formal definition:
Definitions of Racism
That said, personally I find the idea that films that aren't arthouse are exempt from any sense of social responsilbilty sad. It implies that anything is excusable as long as there is a profit in it.
And, there is nothing contemptable in either taking a moral stance or being an arthouse film maker. I'm proud of both.
The truth is that if film making is only about profit we may as well all stop writing and start making porn, as long as we don't use a black actor and actress in the lead roles, because no-one in middle America is going to rent a porn film with two black leads, because they wouldn't be able to relate to it.
Last edited:
T Shipley said:
there is historically speaking supposed to be line of racist thought. it begins with weak racism (which is simply a statement like 'blacks can jump' or 'boy can those Latino ladies jiggle' etc). The line only ends with strong racism, which is what you have described above (the belief in inherent superiority). I think the casting choice is an eg of weak racism, and a pandering to weak racism in society for the means of making money.
clive said:
there really isn't, and i'm sure that no-one here would ever suggest there is - thats what i really appreciate about this place
After much consideration, I've decided this is more of a Viewfinder type discussion. So I moved it here. Wow, that's a really long way to say I moved something. Damn! I just made it longer! What the hell is wrong with me!? Why am I still typing!? Someone! Please stop me! I--
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To get serious for a moment (and back on topic), I see nothing wrong with the casting decision. Sure you could imply that this is a racist decision, but for me racism lies in the intent of the action. If the Casting Director for Hitch said, "We already got one (racist term here) in this here picture show, we don't need another!" then yeah...racist casting decision. Since it was said to be a move to make the movie more available to everyone, then it's not racist...it's racial.
Sure it's the "Weak Racism" that Nique mentioned, but it's not the dangerous and completely wrong kind. We all exhibit forms of "Weak Racism." I can't tell you how many times I've heard racial remarks towards me at work (I'm one of three anglos at a hispanic TV station), but they're never offensive...just simple things like "Guero" or "White people are always so mean." And I have to admit that I've made joking racial remarks back.
See I differentiate between a "racist remark" and a "racial remark." A "racist remark" is one that is meant and/or taken as an insult to one's race. A "racial remark" is one that has not malintent, merely an observation or comment on one's race. I'm not saying all "racial remarks" are a-okay, but they are definitely not as dangerous and wrong as "racist remarks."
I guess I just see racism as a problem that is never going to go away...kinda like war. It's inherent in us to see differences, no matter how small. With that said, racism is no where near the problem some make it out to be. We have moved past the days of enslaving other races (at least in this country). We all get judged for things that we have little or no control over - our accent, our weight, our choice of car, our choice of friends, etc. Racism ranks higher than those in the realm of societal judgement problems, but not by much.
Now with all that said...think about this...we are condemning a movie with a black lead, a latin female lead, and a white in a supporting role as racist.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Poke
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To get serious for a moment (and back on topic), I see nothing wrong with the casting decision. Sure you could imply that this is a racist decision, but for me racism lies in the intent of the action. If the Casting Director for Hitch said, "We already got one (racist term here) in this here picture show, we don't need another!" then yeah...racist casting decision. Since it was said to be a move to make the movie more available to everyone, then it's not racist...it's racial.
Sure it's the "Weak Racism" that Nique mentioned, but it's not the dangerous and completely wrong kind. We all exhibit forms of "Weak Racism." I can't tell you how many times I've heard racial remarks towards me at work (I'm one of three anglos at a hispanic TV station), but they're never offensive...just simple things like "Guero" or "White people are always so mean." And I have to admit that I've made joking racial remarks back.
See I differentiate between a "racist remark" and a "racial remark." A "racist remark" is one that is meant and/or taken as an insult to one's race. A "racial remark" is one that has not malintent, merely an observation or comment on one's race. I'm not saying all "racial remarks" are a-okay, but they are definitely not as dangerous and wrong as "racist remarks."
I guess I just see racism as a problem that is never going to go away...kinda like war. It's inherent in us to see differences, no matter how small. With that said, racism is no where near the problem some make it out to be. We have moved past the days of enslaving other races (at least in this country). We all get judged for things that we have little or no control over - our accent, our weight, our choice of car, our choice of friends, etc. Racism ranks higher than those in the realm of societal judgement problems, but not by much.
Now with all that said...think about this...we are condemning a movie with a black lead, a latin female lead, and a white in a supporting role as racist.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Poke
Last edited:
good point.
hold on - i think that spotting differences is inherent, but not racism. as you yourself said, its racist if offence is meant. that is not spotting the difference, that is utilising that spotting to offend. the ability to dicriminate between 2 things is part of human nature, but the contemporary channels through which this reveal itself (eg - racism) are not. Comptetition and the struggle for recognition are part of human nature, and I feel that war is merely a channel through which that is revealed - war itself is not inherent, just competition, and whilst all war is competition, not all competition is war.
blueberry muffins
bird said:
my god, you must be lightyears ahead in the evolution of muffins. and i thought walnut cake was revolutionary.....
