WTF

[Resge]

All that fuss around Project Greenlight is ridiculous. "Matt Damon Interrupts Successful Black Woman Filmmaker to Explain Diversity to Her". How dare he!

[DudleyGray]

No, if you're a rich white male, you don't have a voice when it comes to diversity. At all. Too bad, sucks to be you. The one place you don't get a voice, fuck you, fuck that shit.

[Resge]

No, if you're a rich white male, you don't have a voice when it comes to diversity. At all. Too bad, sucks to be you. The one place you don't get a voice, fuck you, fuck that shit.

Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic. Well, he didn't argue for or against diversity; he argued for merit above anything else. I feel like it's been a trend: a lot of movies get publicity and awards at film festivals solely based on the director's race/nationality, and not because they are amazingly talented writers and directors. And I think it's wrong. My point is, they were having a heated but polite discussion with strong opinions on both sides. Somehow, it all got blown out of proportion.

[Shucks]

^this is a very naive statement by u. black people do not have equal opportunities to develop the skills or access the resources necessary to be able to 'merit' attention. white males have a smoother ride all the way. i'm tired of neoliberal 'everyone can be what they want if they just try hard enough' bullshit.

[bukka]

^rickandjulius?

[ian+]

^rickandjulius?

hahaha

[gregor]

^rickandjulius?

he was racist, as well? why does that not come as a surprise?

[Resge]

^this is a very naive statement by u. black people do not have equal opportunities to develop the skills or access the resources necessary to be able to 'merit' attention. white males have a smoother ride all the way. i'm tired of neoliberal 'everyone can be what they want if they just try hard enough' bullshit.

I'm reading my own comment trying to find where I said anything about equal opportunity or working not hard enough. Have you seen Project Greenlight? The whole concept is that "the best" filmmaker is given those resources your are talking about, to make a movie. I agree with you when it comes to skills, but then again, they are choosing a director with vision, not technical skills.

[LOVE]

Oh NOW we're a meritocracy

[Arkady]

Shucks is a little trigger happy on the pre-packaged tumblr issues lately, I don't think your analysis is particularly flawed Resge but I can also understand why Damon should've been far more aware of the impression of mansplaining/whitesplaining/assholery he was about to give.

This imaginary jumprope shit is rendering the world intellectually impotent in the name of false equality and does not broach real issues of class. And if you recognize that behind engineered racial separation stands a much more sinister dynamic of financial inequality and tactical myopia, Damon's comments are not offensive. Filmmakers can come from any class, any level of resources, and the finest ones often get to the stars by way of the gutter.

Enough sanctimonious posturing out of everyone, Damon himself is off base for saying racial diversity is fine when it's forced on screen but questionable in the boardroom. It shouldn't be forced either way.

For example, when that shitlord Horowitz said Idris Elba is "too street" to play bond. there's no reason you can't have a Black Scot/Swiss man or a white detective in Harlem -- that's a given.

I think Idris would be a great Bond but I feel part of the character's charm as Ian Flemming wrote him and his personality is the tongue-in-cheek mockery of 'white privilege' specifically and the playboy bullshit that surrounds it. He is a quintessential comic representation of the archaic white man warmachine. Similarly to Shaft being a decidedly black character -- it doesn't quite work another way, it's a different story. Though you could say Shaft was a blaxploitation piece to begin with and it's not exactly the same.

Either way I'd like to think a non-white actor picked for any "traditionally" white role will get it on the basis of talent alone and not for so-called progressive contrast.

I think the switching genders, race, etc for established franchises thing is mostly prejudiced pandering to audiences by producers who think their viewers are too stupid not to gravitate to their own demographic. It's insulting and it's not rooted in the liberalism that's ascribed to it. At some point it becomes apparent the demagogue shit is intended to keep people thinking about how different they are from one another rather than realizing everyone's locked into a neoliberal nightmare.

[Resge]

Arkady, this is exactly the point I was trying to make, you just articulated it much better than I could, thank you.

[Arkady]

Nailed it as usual -- thank you for the rejoinder. Jumpsuits aren't supposed to cut off circulation to the head, consider sizing up.

[HugAndWug]

Either way I'd like to think a non-white actor picked for any "traditionally" white role will get it on the basis of talent alone and not for so-called progressive contrast.

I think the switching genders, race, etc for established franchises thing is mostly prejudiced pandering to audiences by producers who think their viewers are too stupid not to gravitate to their own demographic. It's insulting and it's not rooted in the liberalism that's ascribed to it. At some point it becomes apparent the demagogue shit is intended to keep people thinking about how different they are from one another rather than realizing everyone's locked into a neoliberal nightmare.

I actually like this post because it really demonstrates one of my favorite issues with these arguments.

I mean we can ignore the first part because clearly talent isn't the main reason why actors get parts.

So, it's pandering when Hollywood decides to turn out one movie a year that isn't 500 white people and a token minority? Despite the fact that we can go for decades of film where characters who are written as minorities suddenly become played by generic white actor of the week we are going to have an issue with swapping gender/race. Even though movies still do this and will continue to do this (I mean Akira is supposed the story of white people right??) it's really wrong and bad when things are changed/challenged. How could we have fun with a ghostbusters cast that's primarily women. How could we have fun with a bond that's black.

We could put out 12 movies a year featuring all sorts of pandering flips we wanted and the results would still be the same. White people are the supermajority in films and will remain that way. Directors and audiences will continue to change minority roles so they can cast white people in their spot instead. But the real issue is that white people don't like it when there are minor changes in the generic white blockbuster of the month right?

[Arkady]

I said quite clearly that it shouldn't go one way or another -- be it minority roles being rewritten for white actors or white roles rewritten for minority actors purely for the sake of driving demographic growth. How exactly do you envision these large blockbuster films are constructed by studios? They are data-driven products.

You've also fabricated a point I did not make -- I didn't specify how many films I feel are released by major houses per year that fall into this trap. If you'd like to take me on as a consultant I'll be happy to do a report for you but there's no need to wear my skin to craft an argument.

If art is incapable of stepping beyond history then I don't see how any other sector is.

[HugAndWug]

I said quite clearly that it shouldn't go one way or another -- be it minority roles being rewritten for white actors or white roles rewritten for minority actors purely for the sake of driving demographic growth. How exactly do you envision these large blockbuster films are constructed by studios? They are data-driven products.

You've also fabricated a point I did not make -- I didn't specify how many films I feel are released by major houses per year that fall into this trap. If you'd like to take me on as a consultant I'll be happy to do a report for you but there's no need to wear my skin to craft an argument.

If art is incapable of stepping beyond history then I don't see how any other sector is.

But that's the issue. We can say we want things a certain way all we want but if the overwhelming majority of minority roles are lost to white people that's the real issue. It's not a "I just want things to be equal and changing it the other way is just as wrong!!" when you don't experience the issue firsthand. You're not the group being put down and constantly changed so that a movie becomes more marketable/desirable reinforcing the ideas about certain types of movies. The argument isn't just racial issues, it's only a matter of empathy and willing to see problems for how they really are. This shit doesn't affect white people on anywhere near the scale that it affects people of color.

I didn't claim you made the point, what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how many flips we put out a year. Hollywood will always remain predominately white and the fear of the flip is just inane.

We should never be stepping beyond history. Why do you feel the need to step past it when it's just as relevant now as it ever has been. The issues we face in this country didn't pop up last year, they've been decades forming and brewing. The struggles different groups face is nothing new and has a serious base to it.