'Hitch' Battled Race Issue - Insane Ignorance!
- Thread starter cinematography
- Start date
Nique!
bird said:the evolutionary culinary trailQUOTE]
i thought that i had made it to the very end of that trail when i invented my own dish. it was grated blue cheese with grated chedder cheese, in a mug, then microwaved for twenty seconds and it goes all gooey. then scoop it all out with a fork and gobble it down it a second of pure adrenalin. i was on cloud 20 til a pal tried it and was sick
the trail continues........still my ultimate irish (baileys, jamesons, coffee ,cream, no potatoes cake) is quite popular.
don't mock those creatures. 99% of our human genepool is shared with that of the gibbon. Makes you wonder 'what is in that one per cent?' (a not so original line from Supermarche, an original screenplay by Nique Zoolio)
now hows that for self-advertising
what a crock of S word here
clive said:
I was going off the dictionary definition of racism. The problem I have with the definition in the link you provided is that is specifies "in the United States" as well as blacks being oppressed and white being the oppressors. While historically, this has often been the case, those factors should not be included in the definition, which should end (in my opinion) at "targeted racial groups."
Also, going by this definition, i still don't think it's racism. I think we most of us would agree, the producers of this film most likely are not racist. They probably made the decision in attempt to gain a larger audience. If that's the case, then the problem is with the audience -- or the producer's perception of the audience. I propose that people are drawn to what they are most familiar to. The producers of Hitch want people to see the trailer and identify with the trials of dating. They wanted to take race out of the equation. A large portion of the movie-going audience in the US is white. Some may be less willing to see a romantic comedy with two black leads, not because they dislike black people, but because they identify less with the two main characters. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, i just don't really think it's racist. I think the producers were making a purely monetary decision. With a film like Hitch, that is broad entertainment, the studio doesn't want to risk isolating part of that if they don't have to.
Unfortunately, having two black actors in the lead may make some white people less likely to see it -- not in a way where they see the ad and say "I'm not going to a film with two blacks in it" but in a more subtle way. Producers are very paranoid about ticket sales -- it's they're job to make a film that brings in good profits for the studio. So when given the choice between and black and latino actress of equal talent, if they think the latino actress will be better for box office, they'll go with that everytime.
clive said:
I don't think that films outside of the art house are exempt from any sense of social responsibility. I just don't think it was the producers moral responsibility to cast as black actress in the lead. And, as Poke said, we're talking about a film with a black lead. It's not like they cast Tom Hanks as Ray Charles and made him wear black face.
clive said:
I don't think anyone said there is anything contemptable in taking a moral stance or being an arthouse filmmaker. I'm glad you're proud of morals stands you've made, as well as arthouse films you've made.
I also don't think anyone said filmmaking is only about profit -- but I think you'd agree that, especially at the large studios, profit has a lot to do with it. I think film can be art, at it's highest level. I also think film can be cheap and exploiting or just a two hour "escape." Personally, I try and to write things that someday would be called art.
Hey, despite all the debate this is actually a very simple issue, you either believe:
a) That the casting of all roles on a film should be open to all actors regardless of their colour
or you believe
b) It's OK to restrict casting to a particular ethnic group in order to appeal to the needs of white middle America
When you look back fifty years exactly the same arguements were used to support casting choices that denied black people lead roles in movies. The films that were made with black leads from that period were made by people who took a moral and political stance against the second view. In the Heat of the Night and Look Who's Come to Dinner being great examples of that.
Now it would be possible to argue that because "Hitch" has a black lead and a Latino romantic interest that progress has been made, but instead of patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come, instead we should be turning our attention to how far we still have to travel.
a) That the casting of all roles on a film should be open to all actors regardless of their colour
or you believe
b) It's OK to restrict casting to a particular ethnic group in order to appeal to the needs of white middle America
When you look back fifty years exactly the same arguements were used to support casting choices that denied black people lead roles in movies. The films that were made with black leads from that period were made by people who took a moral and political stance against the second view. In the Heat of the Night and Look Who's Come to Dinner being great examples of that.
Now it would be possible to argue that because "Hitch" has a black lead and a Latino romantic interest that progress has been made, but instead of patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come, instead we should be turning our attention to how far we still have to travel.
Exactly...
Exactly... That's a big problem with the system. I think they could have used anyone as Smith's love interest because of his popularity. It's a lot bigger than they give him credit for.
But that's money for ya...
filmy
clive said:
Exactly... That's a big problem with the system. I think they could have used anyone as Smith's love interest because of his popularity. It's a lot bigger than they give him credit for.
But that's money for ya...
filmy
-- well, here no one has actually said that it is ok - in every one of his posts T Shipley has said that 'i am not saying it is ok' - and he has been the most vocal defender of the decision as not racist.
what it really comes down to is
a) that you seek to live, and others too, by what ought to be done (your ideals)
or
b) that you accept that we do things not according to what ought to be done, but rather what is done - what is done within the prevailing order of things (the system)
as Film Jumper put it 'its what money can do', and the acceptance of that may lead people to feel b) (in no way do i percieve f.j to be like that - his own posts point that out, i am using f.j's statement , not his opinion, as an eg of the system as an excuse)
I completely agree, and by doing so reveal myself to be eternally aspiring to be of the a type.
Live by the oughts, only way to escape being noughts (or something catchy at least)................
hmmmmmm
clive said:
So you think Tom Hanks should have been considered for the lead in "Ray"? I know that's kind of a stupid example, but it just goes to show that race matters. Hollywood is not color blind. There will always be casting decisions based on race.
And don't think the producers are necessarily restricting a certain ethnic group, they are just looking at numbers, trying to get the highest profit (audience) possible. How many black people do you think went to see Annie Hall? Or Manahattan? Or even "50 First Dates" (though, I did see this with a black girl, but it was only because another movie was sold out) I believe about 10% of America is black. As I said in the last post, I think white audiences (or any ethnic audience) is less likely to see a film that features a race that is not their own. I think it's more human nature than racism.
I haven't seen Hitch, but I'm assuming the script as written could have been an all-black cast, all-white cast or all-latino cast. The producers selected a major black lead, a white supporting character and a latino leading lady (instead of white or black) in an attempt to draw in the highest audience.
Yes, it's a money decision and it sucks that money decisions have to be made in the course of film production, but I don't ever see that changing.
Looking back at the article, Smith says it's an "accepted myth" that two black actors will alienate a white audience. I guess Hitch would have been as good a film as any to try and displace this myth, but producers tend to play it safe when it comes to money. I'm sure they'd love to see that myth defunct, but they don't want to take a percieved risk with their film (and career) to do so.
Maybe I went a bit too far in defending this casting choice -- I tend to enjoy the roll of devil's advocate -- but I still don't see it as racist. It could range from being ingorant to catering to peoples' natural prejudices (ie... they prefer to watch a story feature people of the same race as them). I don't know if anyone really knows the answer.
But regardless, it's certianly an interesting topic of conversation (from an unlikely source).
Maybe I went a bit too far in defending this casting choice -- I tend to enjoy the roll of devil's advocate -- but I still don't see it as racist. It could range from being ingorant to catering to peoples' natural prejudices (ie... they prefer to watch a story feature people of the same race as them). I don't know if anyone really knows the answer.
But regardless, it's certianly an interesting topic of conversation (from an unlikely source).
Me too
I do think this is an important debate though and arguing it has help me clarify my responsibilites when casting.
In the course of the last week I realised that although I firmly believe in colour blind casting (except in biographical films or where the plot dictates a particular ethnic requirement) and I also believe in equal oportunites in employment, my first feature film had an entirely white cast and an entirely white crew.
Now I could argue that in the North East of England the population is 99.9% white, but actually the truth is that it didn't occur to me to open the casting process up to more actors. Shame on me
To be fair to myself, there is a very good chance my next feature is going to be shot in Africa, where all my cast and 75% of my crew will be African. Maybe that's why I'm thinking about this a lot at the moment.
Aout the very first post:
1. Movies with all or mostly black cast make tons of money all the time! Bad Boys, Friday, Delivering us from Eva, Boyz In Tha Hood, Coach Carter, the list goes on forever...PEOPLE DON'T CARE...and if they do, I don't think they will refuse to see a movie because of it.
2. I can't believe that a) the studio actually thought this through (proving that they're a little bit racist) and b) Is CATERING to a racist audience!!!! Rediculous! Crap like this pisses me off so much.
1. Movies with all or mostly black cast make tons of money all the time! Bad Boys, Friday, Delivering us from Eva, Boyz In Tha Hood, Coach Carter, the list goes on forever...PEOPLE DON'T CARE...and if they do, I don't think they will refuse to see a movie because of it.
2. I can't believe that a) the studio actually thought this through (proving that they're a little bit racist) and b) Is CATERING to a racist audience!!!! Rediculous! Crap like this pisses me off so much.
Last edited:
<<Now I could argue that in the North East of England the population is 99.9% white, but actually the truth is that it didn't occur to me to open the casting process up to more actors. Shame on me
To be fair to myself, there is a very good chance my next feature is going to be shot in Africa, where all my cast and 75% of my crew will be African. Maybe that's why I'm thinking about this a lot at the moment.>>
It sounds like both these films take place in places that are predominently white or black, and thus your film reflects that. America, on the other hand, is a melting pot, and thus Hitch reflects that... if you'll all buy that logic.
Anyway, I've think I've exhausted my "race in film" quota for the month. It's been a good discussion though.
To be fair to myself, there is a very good chance my next feature is going to be shot in Africa, where all my cast and 75% of my crew will be African. Maybe that's why I'm thinking about this a lot at the moment.>>
It sounds like both these films take place in places that are predominently white or black, and thus your film reflects that. America, on the other hand, is a melting pot, and thus Hitch reflects that... if you'll all buy that logic.
Anyway, I've think I've exhausted my "race in film" quota for the month. It's been a good discussion though.
sold.
Nique Zoolio said:
You're right. Maybe I should have said that it is human nature to mock and attack that which we deem different enough to be a danger. I think people who are racist act that way because in essence they are afraid of people who are different. It's been hard for me to recognize this. One of the man I most admired in my life, my grandfather, was a huge racist. It's taken me years to understand that despite all of the things about him that were great, when it came to people of a different color he was pretty much a coward.
clive said:
True, but let's not neglect the patting part. Put it in terms of filmmaking - you get an investor to lay down a substantial amount of money on your next project...do you not celebrate because you still have a long road aheadof you? I say we should pat ourselves on the back for the distance we have traveled and focus on the road ahead at the same time.
Poke