" Blackface" on Iplayer

[JudyJudyJudy]

I watched this excellent documentary on the iPlayer.  Its presented by the fine black actor David Harewood.  It looks on his minstrelsy started and why.  It looks at how degrading. derogatory and offensive it was about black people.  It looked mainly at the evolution of it in the UK when it begin the mid 1830s.  Surprisingly Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire and even Judy blacked up on screen. I know Judy later apologised for this in the 1960s and was involved on the black civil rights movement. 

 

Incredibly " The black and white minstrel show" was still on tv until the late 1970s.  One of my favourite entertainers was Al Jolson and I know that he is almost cancelled now,  However he did some very fine music and removed the black face part from his act eventually.   However I can completely understand why some people find him offensive or at least his act. 

 

 

 

BBC Two - David Harewood on Blackface

 

 

David Harewood on Blackface review – a shocking, deeply moving piece of television | Television | The Guardian

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Excellent article about Al jolson 

 

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-20-ca-39153-story.html

[Cade]

In before the usual "White Girls" and "Eddie Murphy Jewed-up in Coming to America" posts.

"Tropic Thunder" also usually gets a mention in these threads. Not sure why, because Robert Downey Jnr's entire character was a critique of blackface. (What do you mean, "what do you mean you people"!?) 

 

Pretending to be something you're not is what acting is.

But there is a line.

Blackface acts like the "Black&White Minstrel Show" were not actors playing black men. They were entertainers playing ridiculous colonial-era stereotypes and caricatures of black men. That's way over the line.

Ben Kingsley browning up to play Ghandi gets a free pass, as Sir Ben is half Indian.
Sean Connery yellowing-up as a Japanese man in "You Only Live Twice" is close to the line. It looks shite but he was at least playing it straight as a Japanese local. They could perhaps have come up with a different disguise, but whatever.

Same for John Wayne yellowing up to play Genghis Khan. Looks shite but was played straight.
Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in "Breakfast at Tiffanies" was way over the line. Over-the-top stereotyping in the very worst way. 

 

These days it can't be hard to cast the right people in the right roles. Have asians playing asians, indians playing indians and so on.

Actors of every creed and colour are readily available. And this is a good thing. A face for every role a screenwriter can ever need.

 

But it's a nonsense to suggest that "gaying up" or "cripping up" are in any way every remotely close to as insensitive and downright offensive as blackface, brownface and yellowface.
It's ridiculous to claim that straight actors should not play gay characters. Or that fully abled actors should not play disabled characters.

Even though sexuality and disabilities are protected characteristics which come under hate speech laws, it is not a hate crime to cast a straight actor in a gay role. 

Accusations of hate crimes in mis-casting a sexuality or disability is just the twitter mob trying to stir up trouble.

As I said before, pretending to be someone you are not is what acting IS.
If gay men weren't allowed to play straight men, Hollywood would have disappeared decades ago(!)

There is also an argument/debate/discussion to be had about "race swapping" and "gender swapping", which is becoming a regular thing, mainly in Hollywood.

Characters from novels, comics, even previous films are having their race and/or genders swapped when being made into Hollywood productions, whether that be Films or TV shows.

But as long as that character still behaves in the same way as the original, I'm not bothered by this at all.

But Hollywood does have a tendency to also alter that character's...well....character at the same time as altering their race and/or gender.

And this is over the line. It's showing huge disrespect to the original author, the screenwriter of the original film and the fans of the books/previous film.

Changing the way a character acts usually results in shite writing and fan backlash.
If you don't like how that character acts, why are you even making the film/TV show in the first place? Make your own new production with a new character that behaves the way you want them to!

Yes, screen adaptations have always taking "artistic licence" with books and stage plays or previous films, but it's getting ridiculous now.

Previous works beloved by millions for decades are being trashed for no good reason.

 

[il Duce McTarkin]

We need more blackface imo

[Dick Dastardly]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

In before the usual "White Girls" and "Eddie Murphy Jewed-up in Coming to America" posts.

"Tropic Thunder" also usually gets a mention in these threads. Not sure why, because Robert Downey Jnr's entire character was a critique of blackface. (What do you mean, "what do you mean you people"!?) 

 

Pretending to be something you're not is what acting is.

But there is a line.

Blackface acts like the "Black&White Minstrel Show" were not actors playing black men. They were entertainers playing ridiculous colonial-era stereotypes and caricatures of black men. That's way over the line.

Ben Kingsley browning up to play Ghandi gets a free pass, as Sir Ben is half Indian.
Sean Connery yellowing-up as a Japanese man in "You Only Live Twice" is close to the line. It looks shite but he was at least playing it straight as a Japanese local. They could perhaps have come up with a different disguise, but whatever.

Same for John Wayne yellowing up to play Genghis Khan. Looks shite but was played straight.
Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in "Breakfast at Tiffanies" was way over the line. Over-the-top stereotyping in the very worst way. 

 

These days it can't be hard to cast the right people in the right roles. Have asians playing asians, indians playing indians and so on.

Actors of every creed and colour are readily available. And this is a good thing. A face for every role a screenwriter can ever need.

 

But it's a nonsense to suggest that "gaying up" or "cripping up" are in any way every remotely close to as insensitive and downright offensive as blackface, brownface and yellowface.
It's ridiculous to claim that straight actors should not play gay characters. Or that fully abled actors should not play disabled characters.

Even though sexuality and disabilities are protected characteristics which come under hate speech laws, it is not a hate crime to cast a straight actor in a gay role. 

Accusations of hate crimes in mis-casting a sexuality or disability is just the twitter mob trying to stir up trouble.

As I said before, pretending to be someone you are not is what acting IS.
If gay men weren't allowed to play straight men, Hollywood would have disappeared decades ago(!)

There is also an argument/debate/discussion to be had about "race swapping" and "gender swapping", which is becoming a regular thing, mainly in Hollywood.

Characters from novels, comics, even previous films are having their race and/or genders swapped when being made into Hollywood productions, whether that be Films or TV shows.

But as long as that character still behaves in the same way as the original, I'm not bothered by this at all.

But Hollywood does have a tendency to also alter that character's...well....character at the same time as altering their race and/or gender.

And this is over the line. It's showing huge disrespect to the original author, the screenwriter of the original film and the fans of the books/previous film.

Changing the way a character acts usually results in shite writing and fan backlash.
If you don't like how that character acts, why are you even making the film/TV show in the first place? Make your own new production with a new character that behaves the way you want them to!

Yes, screen adaptations have always taking "artistic licence" with books and stage plays or previous films, but it's getting ridiculous now.

Previous works beloved by millions for decades are being trashed for no good reason.

 

Snow white and the seven mystical companions..... 

[Cade]

16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Snow white and the seven mystical companions..... 

 

Exactly

[JudyJudyJudy]

34 minutes ago, Cade said:

In before the usual "White Girls" and "Eddie Murphy Jewed-up in Coming to America" posts.

"Tropic Thunder" also usually gets a mention in these threads. Not sure why, because Robert Downey Jnr's entire character was a critique of blackface. (What do you mean, "what do you mean you people"!?) 

 

Pretending to be something you're not is what acting is.

But there is a line.

Blackface acts like the "Black&White Minstrel Show" were not actors playing black men. They were entertainers playing ridiculous colonial-era stereotypes and caricatures of black men. That's way over the line.

Ben Kingsley browning up to play Ghandi gets a free pass, as Sir Ben is half Indian.
Sean Connery yellowing-up as a Japanese man in "You Only Live Twice" is close to the line. It looks shite but he was at least playing it straight as a Japanese local. They could perhaps have come up with a different disguise, but whatever.

Same for John Wayne yellowing up to play Genghis Khan. Looks shite but was played straight.
Mickey Rooney as Mr Yunioshi in "Breakfast at Tiffanies" was way over the line. Over-the-top stereotyping in the very worst way. 

 

These days it can't be hard to cast the right people in the right roles. Have asians playing asians, indians playing indians and so on.

Actors of every creed and colour are readily available. And this is a good thing. A face for every role a screenwriter can ever need.

 

But it's a nonsense to suggest that "gaying up" or "cripping up" are in any way every remotely close to as insensitive and downright offensive as blackface, brownface and yellowface.
It's ridiculous to claim that straight actors should not play gay characters. Or that fully abled actors should not play disabled characters.

Even though sexuality and disabilities are protected characteristics which come under hate speech laws, it is not a hate crime to cast a straight actor in a gay role. 

Accusations of hate crimes in mis-casting a sexuality or disability is just the twitter mob trying to stir up trouble.

As I said before, pretending to be someone you are not is what acting IS.
If gay men weren't allowed to play straight men, Hollywood would have disappeared decades ago(!)

There is also an argument/debate/discussion to be had about "race swapping" and "gender swapping", which is becoming a regular thing, mainly in Hollywood.

Characters from novels, comics, even previous films are having their race and/or genders swapped when being made into Hollywood productions, whether that be Films or TV shows.

But as long as that character still behaves in the same way as the original, I'm not bothered by this at all.

But Hollywood does have a tendency to also alter that character's...well....character at the same time as altering their race and/or gender.

And this is over the line. It's showing huge disrespect to the original author, the screenwriter of the original film and the fans of the books/previous film.

Changing the way a character acts usually results in shite writing and fan backlash.
If you don't like how that character acts, why are you even making the film/TV show in the first place? Make your own new production with a new character that behaves the way you want them to!

Yes, screen adaptations have always taking "artistic licence" with books and stage plays or previous films, but it's getting ridiculous now.

Previous works beloved by millions for decades are being trashed for no good reason.

 

Excellent posting . Completely agree re actors playing any parts , it’s acting !! As you rightly state if gay actors can’t play straight roles most films would struggle to be cast . Also I do not mind re imagining characters if they are still in the spirt of the authors vision , like “ Sherlock “ which was terrific , although many of the stories were based on AC Doyle’s books . 
 

The article about Al Jolson is also a great read I feel . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

18 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Snow white and the seven mystical companions..... 

it’s ludicrous . “ snow  white “ hint hint !!! 

Edited July 28, 2023 by JudyJudyJudy

[Dick Dastardly]

9 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

Exactly

 

7 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

it’s ludicrous . “ snow  white “ hint hint !!! 

I just don't understand why they didn't create a whole new character and supporting cast, they could've called it anything and just done a vaguely similar story. Everyone's happy..... 

[JudyJudyJudy]

35 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

 

I just don't understand why they didn't create a whole new character and supporting cast, they could've called it anything and just done a vaguely similar story. Everyone's happy..... 

Exactly. The reason they didn't is they want the association with the classic tale for box office. 

[Cade]

Hollywood writers are itching to tell their own stories, but the Studios are far too risk adverse to actually try anything new and they demand that the project in question is set in an already existing IP, so box office sales are guaranteed because of association with that IP.

So the writers just try to jemmy their own story into an already existing one, and usually feck it all up.

 

Right now they're sharting out flop after flop after flop and some of the big studios are in serious trouble of going out of business.

 

But on the flip side, we have things like John Wick, Extraction, Sisu and Mission: Impossible and Top Gun raking in the cash. 

Aye, they may be franchises and sequels but they're at least not afraid to take risks and try new things.