A Splash of Colour: Actor Casting Priorities

 Greetings,

There has been a tendency in an effort to follow certain rules of "inclusivity" of late, to deliberately cast persons various lifestyles and ethnicities in particular roles in movies. In some cases it is simply adding a single representative member from each of these groups in the cast, even as characters to ensure that the movie or series is considered inclusive enough. I have referred to this in the title as "a splash of colour" because it is paying lip-service to inclusivity nothing more.

Word Use

A small note on wording, I am going to use the word ethnicity not race when referring to people of different colour or different cultural background, because it is the correct term to use. There is one race, the human race, we have multiple ethnicities within that race, and multiple cultures within those ethnicities. The more people realise that that they have more in common with one another, the easier it is that they will find ways to work together, so we need to find words to unite us, to take back words to unite us. Racism rolls off the tongue nicely, Ethnicism or ethnicitism does not. Lets kill the word, kill the idea. Make racism against humanity (as it is), not just against one group of humans.

From a Position of Privilege?

First there is going to be the complaint that I am a white male complaining about things in regard to race and sexuality so I am speaking from a position of "privilege" so I have no right to do so. Actually, I do because I watch movies and series, and because I am a human being. More to the point because I will be speaking from the perspective of a minority which often gets forgotten in these casting choices, and often played badly in movies and series, those with mental illness, and those with disabilities, but my discussion of the lack of representation of my minority, and its misrepresentation in movies will come later.

The Token Minority

How many movies and series have we seen of late where there has been the token person of colour, gay male, gay female, and so forth? In this case the casting directors have not chosen these individuals in the cases of those of a particular ethnicity because it was required for the role, but because they needed one to be representative. Or where characters were changed to be inclusive so alternate life-styles were present, and they grated against the original story, especially when they came from an original book or other source. These actions within the movie-making process are an attempt to appease some and make the movie more appealing to others.

Shouldn't the role go to the actor who is the best for the part, regardless what colour their skin happens to be? An example: in the original comic Nick Fury is white. In the Marvel movies he is was cast as Samuel L. Jackson, and he did an excellent job in the role; he suited the part. Jackson held the role, not because of the colour of his skin, but by the skill of his acting. Let the actor who is best suited to the role have the role, regardless of their ethnicity. In picking token roles for people of particular ethnic groups, they stand out more than if they were allowed to be cast and fill the roles like any other.

Misrepresented Minorities

The two minorities which are either misrepresented in movies, or are completely absent are those with disabilities, especially invisible disabilities, and those with mental illness. Yet, there are no great complaints about this misrepresentation, or lack of representation in movies or series. They seem to be swept underneath the carpet, pushed to one side, ignored at best, abused at worst.

Mental Illness

When mental illness is represented in movies there is one of three representations that is primarily present: criminally insane, military PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and socially inept. For the first group you have characters like The Riddler, Harley Quinn, The Joker, serial killers of different breeds and so forth. Mostly these people are presented as "insane" which has pushed them to be anti-social and criminal. The result of the way mental illness was played on the screen meant that people at large thought that schizophrenia and Multiple Personality Disorder were the same thing, which they are not. Next you have the military PTSD, which is a real problem in our society mind you. The soldier who has come home from war, or who is still in a war-zone, who experiences extreme "fight or flight" responses, or withdraws from society in general. There are aspects of PTSD that are seen in civilian life as well, usually as the result of abuse of some kind, but not always. The final group is the socially inept, Rain Man and Mercury Rising, both show two different perspectives of mental illness, but at an extreme end of the scale, so the individuals always have extreme difficulty dealing with society. These are extreme examples of these conditions, there are also other examples of both of these conditions, milder and with different symptoms. Yet, none of these, even the explanations, are completely representative of mental illness, only a single aspect of it within a single diagnosis. 

Disabilities

The first thing that someone will respond with is what about Professor. X? He's in a wheel-chair. Yes, played by a person who is perfectly able to walk, who does not have any idea about what it is like to really be stuck in that wheelchair every day of his life. There are a few notable actors with invisible disabilities, Morgan Freeman is one who has fibromyalgia, these are not represented on the screen. You don't see many movies with a person with a disability in movies. Ivar the Boneless is a classic character from "Vikings", born with a bone defect; are there any others even in the background with physical disabilities? Even as a result of battle? Yet, there is no great complaint about the lack of representation of disabilities being present on the screen, either big or small, even as extras. Well, let mine be the first voice of complaint. 

Tell the Story...

The focus of directors should be to put the best cast together so they can tell the best story that they can. They should allow their casting directors to find the actors who are most suitable to the roles which are present in the script, regardless of ethnicity or any other factor. If they need a particular ethnicity of an actor for a particular reason i.e. the movie is set in Africa, they need lots of darker skinned actors, then this should guide their choice. The important thing is to ensure that they have the actors to tell the story.

If a person is going to complain about "inclusivity" and have to ensure that all types of people are included and are represented, they should be at least represented properly, not some token splash of colour. My continued argument to these individuals would be to ensure that they would fight to include people with disabilities as well in their "inclusiveness" because people with disabilities, physical and mental are sure a minority as well. Most of us are happy to be a minority, because it would mean more sick people.

Remember, change the words and things will lose their power. I will reiterate again. There is one human race, there are many ethnicities and many cultures. The more we begin to change the narrative, and change the word, come together, show how we are the same not different, the harder it is to break us apart. A single stick may be easily broken, a bunch of sticks together is much more difficult to break.

Cheers,

Henry.

Aristotle: The Right-Wing Misogynist

 Greetings,

Through some research and reading in to philosophy it has come to my attention that Aristotle had misogynistic and right-wing tendencies in his political and social thought. He rejected Plato's thought of his Republic, which mind you contains questionable thoughts on the lines of eugenics (no really, it does), describing the flaws in Plato's idea of the perfect society and governmental form. These tendencies need to be discussed in some detail, exposed to the light of discovery so people may understand the flaws of this so-called "great man" of philosophy.

Of Government

"Aristotle was honestly conservative because of the turmoil and disaster that had come out of Athenian democracy." (Durant, 1957: 63) This points toward Aristotle being directed toward the more conservative side of politics as a result of the failures he has seen in the "birth-place of democracy". His reaction to this situation was to reject the Republic of Plato, "Aristotle fights the realism of Plato about universals, and idealism of Plato about government." (Durant, 1957: 64). His view is that maybe Plato's ideal of his communistic society may have worked in the distant past with smaller communities, the problem is that it doesn't work with larger societies with wider divisions of labour.

"where the division of labor into unequally important functions elicits and enlarges the naatural inequality of men, communism breaks down because it provides no adequate incentive for the exertion of superior abilities. The stimulus of gain is necessary to arduous work; and the stimulus of ownership is necessary to proper industry, husbandry and care." (Durant, 1957:64)

All that has been demonstrated so far is that Aristotle is not in favour of Plato's model and that he is not in favour of democracy, or communism for that matter. His political feelings on the matter are further explained in the same text, based upon the problem of the "average" human being, and more important that there are those who are "below average".

How far right?

"Because the people are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the intelligent. What we need is a combination of aristocracy and democracy." (Durant, 1957:70). His method would limit the ballot to a selection of the population. His aristocracy is one based on education, the ones who vote are the educated. Only those who have been prepared for the task will be allowed to vote, "the human average, is nearer to the beast than to the god. The great majority of men are natural dunces and sluggards;" (Durant, 1957:65). His politics are hard-hitting and pointed toward an elite making the decisions, at least they will be an educated elite; and it is likely that these will primarily be men.

Of Relationships

"Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind." (Durant, 1957:66)

The woman, according to Aristotle is definitively subservient to the man. The one serving the other as is described above. Once again, he attacks Plato's ideas of making woman more like the man so they can do the same sort of things, "rather dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different." (Durant, 1957:66). Aristotle would not have his women changed to men but kept the same as they are because they are more attractive that way; this is for the purposes of marriage, of course. This reflects his more conservative views.

Of Marriage

"As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years." (Durant, 1957:66). The marriage of teens which occurred in the Middle Ages is certainly not a practice advised by Aristotle. Indeed he discusses the importance of waiting until they are of a suitable age before marrying. "The union off male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; ... Health is more important than love." (Durant, 1957:67). His focus is on the production of off-spring and population control, not the relationship between man and woman, and the former he regards as a matter for the state, along with education.

How will you react?

Had most of these ideas been intimated by some contemporary person of influence, or celebrity today, then all of their books would be burned, CDs ceremoniously smashed and burned, and  products boycotted. However this is Aristotle, from which we get the "Aristotelian logic" among other important thoughts and axioms. His definitive leanings toward the right of politics, they could be explained as being "a part of his culture" or "a part of his time", as could his feelings about the opposite sex. The same were actually used by later generations, as is evident in some medieval cultures; many of his thoughts are still influencing the way we think and the way do things now.

When a book is read it is the expression of an individual's thoughts. The reader then has the option of accepting those thoughts, whole, in part, or not at all. The same could be said of a person's music. You don't have to like an entire album; you don't even have to like the person who produces the music to like it. The important thing here is that there needs to be a separation of the individual from the product.

If you dig deep enough, you will find skeletons in anyone's closet. 

How you react to that skeleton when it is exposed is up to you. Remember that many of the writers of the past were living in vastly different times to our own, this needs to be taken into account when you read their material. Remember, everyone is human and makes mistakes, and has quirks to their character. Is it necessary to burn books and destroy items when a person is "found out"? If this is so, then we are going to run out of books fast, because there are a lot of historical writers that should be first on the chopping block, and a lot that will have to be "excused" because they are "useful"...

One final thought, when does this lead toward censorship?

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Durant, W. (1957) The Story of Philosophy (2nd edition), Simon and Schuster, New York, p63