All that fuss around Project Greenlight is ridiculous. "Matt Damon Interrupts Successful Black Woman Filmmaker to Explain Diversity to Her". How dare he!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
WTF
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DudleyGray View PostNo, 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.
Comment
-
-
^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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Shucks View Post^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.
Comment
-
-
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.Last edited by Arkady; 09-17-2015, 12:55 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Arkady View PostEither 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 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?
Comment
-
-
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Arkady View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Comment