Personally, I think Glover would do the hell out of a Wonka role. He certainly has enough charisma for it. The article does bring up that white actors playing canonically non-white characters is...
Personally, I think Glover would do the hell out of a Wonka role. He certainly has enough charisma for it.
The article does bring up that white actors playing canonically non-white characters is labeled as "white washing" and problematic. The difference is, white actors don't struggle for representation in big-ticket films, nor has there been a dearth of roles for white actors in works that are adapted to the screen. I think what we're seeing is a corrective diversification, a conscious effort to make the media we produce more inclusive. Once no one thinks it's a big deal that, for instance, Black Panther becomes highly successful, then we might be in a place where we can talk about removing the white-washing stigma and cast actors who match the role without considering what they look like.
We're not post-racial yet. And until and unless we are, there will always be things that are problematic for the majority that aren't for the minority. Because the majority doesn't need a leg up.
I have no problem with that, but my issue is changing the races (and sometimes sex) of already existing characters. It feels like a cheap way to get that diversity goal without putting in any...
what we're seeing is a corrective diversification, a conscious effort to make the media we produce more inclusive.
I have no problem with that, but my issue is changing the races (and sometimes sex) of already existing characters. It feels like a cheap way to get that diversity goal without putting in any effort into new, original IP
It doesn't seem cheap to me at all. In fact, it seems very hard-won. For many many years, it was "no, you can't play this role because of the color of your skin." Yes. It would be amazing if we...
It doesn't seem cheap to me at all. In fact, it seems very hard-won. For many many years, it was "no, you can't play this role because of the color of your skin." Yes. It would be amazing if we could just write brand new characters for actors of color and they would be big box-office smashes, but that's not the way we've been going in the last several years. Reboots and remakes and reimaginings are what the general populace are calling for, and it takes nothing away from Willy Wonka for him to be portrayed as a black man. And this is coming from someone who loved Gene Wilder. WW and the Chocolate Factory was my favorite movie growing up.
Maybe if the move was about the Klan, I'd say "Yeah, that character needs to be white." But otherwise, what's the big deal? It doesn't take away the old portrayals (I really wish it could replace Johnny Depp's one.) it adds a new one, with a new actor who new kids can see themselves in. I would be so excited if this happens.
Humans have been retelling the same stories for millennia, re-interpreting, adapting, revising and evolving. It's how some of humanities greatest works were created. The colour of Willy Wonka's...
Humans have been retelling the same stories for millennia, re-interpreting, adapting, revising and evolving. It's how some of humanities greatest works were created.
The colour of Willy Wonka's skin has zero impact on any aspect of the story, and Donald Glover seems like he'd be fantastic in the role, so I don't see any reason not to cast him.
True, but good luck pushing new, original IPs when Marvel dominates the box office for 3 months out of the year. I'd love to see more original works too, but that's not the climate in Hollywood...
True, but good luck pushing new, original IPs when Marvel dominates the box office for 3 months out of the year. I'd love to see more original works too, but that's not the climate in Hollywood (and a separate issue, I think)
I agree, the climate in Hollywood is fucked right now. But every time I see a "reimagined" IP where the races/genders are swapped, the cynical part of me can't help but think that the only reason...
I agree, the climate in Hollywood is fucked right now. But every time I see a "reimagined" IP where the races/genders are swapped, the cynical part of me can't help but think that the only reason they're making the movie is for that free diversity marketing/inevitable controversy.
While this is still just a rumor, I'm sure that making a new IP with Glover as the lead wouldn't get nearly as much attention as announcing that Glover is playing Willy Wonka.
While it's important to make sure that the studios aren't exploiting female/actors of color for controversy, I think that kind of cynicism is taking away credit from actors who earn those roles...
While it's important to make sure that the studios aren't exploiting female/actors of color for controversy, I think that kind of cynicism is taking away credit from actors who earn those roles with their talent. In this case, two white actors are being considered as well, but clearly Donald Glover is the best choice for the role. To imply that controversy is part of his consideration is massively discrediting him. Even if it were, this cynicism is exactly the controversy they would be hoping to exploit. It's not angry posts on stormfront or other white nationalist (who likely hate the original anyway since Wilder was Jewish) websites that they are going after, it's posts and articles like this. If their goal is the controversy, this is exactly what it looks like. There is no controversy to exploit of we make the discussion about talent and not about skin color or potential controversy.
I totally agree. At some point it becomes a colouring exercise. When I want to see, say more Asians, it's because I want their perceptive. Simply swapping races is a good start, but it's not...
I totally agree. At some point it becomes a colouring exercise. When I want to see, say more Asians, it's because I want their perceptive. Simply swapping races is a good start, but it's not one-to-one to representation in media.
Why does it not need to be a big deal that a film with a nearly 100% black cast is the top grossing film in a country where black people are 12% of the population? I'm not sure how we can measure...
Why does it not need to be a big deal that a film with a nearly 100% black cast is the top grossing film in a country where black people are 12% of the population?
I'm not sure how we can measure 'struggling for representation in big-ticket films', but the first thing I thought of was how much films people are in make. It's not a perfect measure for various reasons, but not sure what would be.
I think when actors of all races have equal (more or less, year over year) casting in roles. Including leading roles. I don't think a few years of putting a black person or two in (rarely complex,...
I think when actors of all races have equal (more or less, year over year) casting in roles. Including leading roles. I don't think a few years of putting a black person or two in (rarely complex, leading roles) will make up for many decades of all but ignoring all non-white people in casting decisions.
Also, is it a problem if we bring more attention to excellent actors of any race? The white actors aren't going anywhere; they won't become extinct if we start giving roles to people who have a touch more melanin.
I don't think going strictly statistical is appropriate here, either, but since you brought it up, where are our 17.8% of Latino winners? According to Wikipedia:
African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to an estimated 12.7% of the population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to an estimated 17.8% of the total U.S. population, making up the largest ethnic minority.[8]
In the 2000s, the Oscar nominations nearly represented the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population. But the current decade has had seven black nominees in five years, which means the academy would have to nominate 15 black actors by 2020 to match the number of black nominees from 2001 to 2010.
And here’s the thing about nominations for black actors: Two men account for a quarter of them. Without Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington, black representation since 1987 — when both men were first nominated — would be significantly lower.
When we start looking at not just the actors, but the writers, it looks even more dismal. There's no evidence that white people are better at writing films than people of color, but the percentages are in the 90s for white feature film writers. It speaks to larger problems in the industry and leads me to believe that we are nowhere near post-racial.
I acknowledge that we are getting better, and I hope we continue to. I firmly believe that representation matters to young people (and all people).
I said that since 2000 (the pt beyond which I consider this to no longer be an issue), 11.5% of nominees and 15% of winners in all acting categories have been black. I don't see how anything in...
I said that since 2000 (the pt beyond which I consider this to no longer be an issue), 11.5% of nominees and 15% of winners in all acting categories have been black. I don't see how anything in that article doesn't match.
But I'm not even sure where they're going with that first quote, or how they even came to those numbers.
Going by the link I initially posted, I guess they're taking only best leading actor/actress for 2011-2016. 7 nominations out of 50, or 14% (not sure how they halved that number for the graph, or if I'm missing something). So the academy would have to do exactly what it's been doing in the last five years for the next five years in order for it to be equal. I'm hoping I'm missing something because the way I'm reading it, that chart is factoring in the potential nominations that didn't yet happen in the 2016-2020 block to paint the picture that blacks are being underrepresented again.
Also worth noting in the same time period, black women got 5 nominations and 3 wins, 20% and 60%, for supporting actress.
I don't really how the bit about two very successful actors (Freeman and Washington) adds much. In the last decade Meryl Streep has gotten an even bigger proportion of the white nominations. So what?
I focused on acting because that's what the post I was replying to was about. But yes, as far as nonblack minorities, and nonacting roles, everything is very skewed. Hispanics and Asians are indeed significantly underrepresented. The job most definitely isn't post-racial for them.
Bit of a tangent, but yes, there's no evidence that white people are so much better at writing, nor is there evidence (I'm aware of) that black people are so much better at music. Yet they're typically overrepresented in the awards and nearly 25% of the 100 best selling albums in the 2010s so far are from black artists. Is this a problem?
Anyway, I'd very much like people of all skin tones to do whatever they want freely too. I'd just also want people to not invent and/or grossly exaggerate issues, eg that black actors at the highest levels have been anything but just great and equal in the past couple of decades, or that they need special treatment or artificial boosts, lest they go extinct.
In my opinion, the so what is this: If we act as if only percentage matters and not count, it could look very much like a certain population is being well represented when, in fact, its only the...
I don't really how the bit about two very successful actors (Freeman and Washington) adds much. In the last decade Meryl Streep has gotten an even bigger proportion of the white nominations. So what?
In my opinion, the so what is this: If we act as if only percentage matters and not count, it could look very much like a certain population is being well represented when, in fact, its only the same two people being picked over and over again. This could serve to hide goings-on in industry which make it harder for actors of color to get good roles, yet the leaders can point to their numbers and say "Look! It's almost population average!"
I agree with the idea behind that, but don't think it applies much here since you can point to various white actors who have gotten similar/bigger proportions at times, and the fact that the...
I agree with the idea behind that, but don't think it applies much here since you can point to various white actors who have gotten similar/bigger proportions at times, and the fact that the numbers are only even that skewed much because of that big chunk of the late 80s and 90s where Morgan/Denzel were nearly all of the representation and I wouldn't be making any of these arguments.
But sure, let's go for count rather than percentage. 39 nominations between 28 black people post 2000. I don't feel like tallying up the amount of unique / total nominations for the hundreds of white nominations, but I imagine it's not that different. I'd actually bet it's worse. Can someone make some script to get us an answer with less effort?
And what of the other points, or more interestingly, the first chart? Did I miss something, or should I just assume WP decided that selective unrepresentative samples weren't enough, so they had to blatantly manipulate the presentation so they could point to their now more meaningless numbers and say "Look! Poor black people!"?
For anyone curious: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ 2000 - 2017 39 black nominations with 28 actors (71%) 302 white nominations with 192 actors (64%) So not only population average based only on...
Agreed. One example where race was problematic in the casting was the Dark Tower movie. The Dark Tower books have major plot points that revolve around racial tensions, so switching the race of...
Agreed. One example where race was problematic in the casting was the Dark Tower movie. The Dark Tower books have major plot points that revolve around racial tensions, so switching the race of the main character basically required massive cuts and rewrites to the plot. The end result was a terrible movie devoid of the tension and resolution of the vast majority of the source material.
But for Wonka? The only requirement of that character is that he's charismatic and eccentric. Glover's acting fits those roles beautifully.
which character, the kid? haven't read the books, they're on my list.
The Dark Tower books have major plot points that revolve around racial tensions, so switching the race of the main character basically required massive cuts and rewrites to the plot.
which character, the kid? haven't read the books, they're on my list.
Nah, Roland. The racial tensions were between Roland and some of the other main characters that were completely stripped from that empty husk of a movie.
Nah, Roland. The racial tensions were between Roland and some of the other main characters that were completely stripped from that empty husk of a movie.
To use a Meme: "we were so preoccupied with whether or not we could, we didn’t stop to think if we should." Donald Glover is a generational talent and would knock this out of the park. But we do...
To use a Meme: "we were so preoccupied with whether or not we could, we didn’t stop to think if we should."
Donald Glover is a generational talent and would knock this out of the park.
But we do not need another Willy Wonka movie? Even if it is an origin story.
I was really dissapointed with the Willy Wonka remake. It was completely unnecessary, and Johnny Depp just played the same type of character he does in every movie. You can't beat Gene Wilder....
I was really dissapointed with the Willy Wonka remake. It was completely unnecessary, and Johnny Depp just played the same type of character he does in every movie. You can't beat Gene Wilder. Don't try. Let classics be classics.
And I have nothing against a black person playing Willy Wonka, I just don't want a remake/prequel/sequel/reboot/alternate universe/reimagining/whatever.
I will geek out about that shit enough for 1000 people. Maybe there are others out there like me. We can pull the weight for the rest. In all seriousness, I can see your point. It doesn't feel...
I will geek out about that shit enough for 1000 people. Maybe there are others out there like me. We can pull the weight for the rest.
In all seriousness, I can see your point. It doesn't feel like it's been long enough since the last one. To be fair, I feel that way about the litrally sixteen million Spiderman movies.
I will still be excited. I love the story and I love origin stories in general.
I would only allow it if Donald wasn't the real Willy Wonka, but instead inherited it from Willy Wonka who was now looking to retire, but he isn't the Real Willy Wonka either. The Real Willy Wonka...
I would only allow it if Donald wasn't the real Willy Wonka, but instead inherited it from Willy Wonka who was now looking to retire, but he isn't the Real Willy Wonka either. The Real Willy Wonka has been retired for a numbers of years and was happily living in a Oopa Loompa Sanctiary off the coast of Hangdoodle
Well... Roald Dahl had a touch of the anti-semite, so, extrapolating, I think he was probably supposed to be white. The episode of "Dead Author's Podcast" with Ben Schwartz portraying Roald Dahl...
Well... Roald Dahl had a touch of the anti-semite, so, extrapolating, I think he was probably supposed to be white.
In 1983 Dahl reviewed Tony Clifton's God Cried, a picture book about the siege of West Beirut by the Israeli army during the 1982 Lebanon War. He wrote that the book would make readers "violently anti-Israeli", saying, "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel." Dahl told a reporter in 1983, "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason."
The episode of "Dead Author's Podcast" with Ben Schwartz portraying Roald Dahl is heartbreaking... and hilarious. Never meet your heroes.
Being anti-Semitic isn't the same as being anti-black. I found this while trying to research Willy Wonka's race: "Roald Dahl’s widow and biographer say first Charlie was black but writer was...
Also... "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel." It is possible to be against the official policies and actions of the government of Israel without being prejudiced against Jewish people. I'm against some of the official policies and actions of the government of Australia - does that make me anti-Aussie? (I am an Aussie, for context.)
I absolutely know that they're not the same. The reason I said "extrapolating" is because I'm going to hazard a guess that there's a strong positive correlation between people who are Anti-semitic...
I absolutely know that they're not the same. The reason I said "extrapolating" is because I'm going to hazard a guess that there's a strong positive correlation between people who are Anti-semitic and people who have racial biases against dark-skinned people. Intolerance breeding intolerance, and so on.
If that's true, that's so awesome! I'm happy to have my semi-educated guess proven false on something like this!
*In regards to your ninja edit, just because someone says "I'm not a racist" doesn't mean they aren't! Dude literally said I'm not an anti-semite, but they kinda-sorta had it coming with the whole Hitler thing.
I'm honestly curious, did I offend you by quoting something icky Roald Dahl said?
Fuck no! I get offended by misinterpretations much more than by icky things. I saw him describe himself as "anti-Israel" after you accused him of being anti-Semitic, and got on my soapbox (as I am...
I'm honestly curious, did I offend you by quoting something icky Roald Dahl said?
Fuck no! I get offended by misinterpretations much more than by icky things. I saw him describe himself as "anti-Israel" after you accused him of being anti-Semitic, and got on my soapbox (as I am wont to do!).
I have to confess, though: I skimmed your comment, and missed the part about Dahl saying there's "a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity". That is anti-Semitic.
Totally. I'm glad you agree! And no worries. I, too, carry a soapbox around with me. I've tried to throw it away, but it just keeps showing back up like a bad horror movie plot-line. ;-)
Totally. I'm glad you agree!
And no worries. I, too, carry a soapbox around with me. I've tried to throw it away, but it just keeps showing back up like a bad horror movie plot-line. ;-)
Also, that article has some seriously interesting information in it! I particularly enjoyed the bit about how the Oompa-Loompas were originally written as black pygmies from Africa. It shows real...
Also, that article has some seriously interesting information in it! I particularly enjoyed the bit about how the Oompa-Loompas were originally written as black pygmies from Africa.
The news in 1970 that there was to be a film of the book drew the attention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to the work and they said the importation of the Oompa Loompas to the factory had overtones of slavery.
Dahl insisted there was no racist intent behind the Oompa Loompas but also said he found himself sympathising with the NAACP. As a result, he rewrote them in time for the second US edition as white hippyish dwarves hailing from an invented place, “Loompaland”.
It shows real introspection and caring not to get offended and double-down on something like that.
Thanks for sharing the article. I really enjoyed it!
P.S. I posted this instead of editing because I wanted to make sure you didn't miss the edit.
This sounds like your typical run of the mill antisemitism. The whole anti-Israel spiel is just rationalisation
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity toward non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason"
This sounds like your typical run of the mill antisemitism. The whole anti-Israel spiel is just rationalisation
There's a big trend in making live-action versions of anime cartoons and taking characters that were asian in the anime and making them white in the live action version. One reversal of this is...
There's a big trend in making live-action versions of anime cartoons and taking characters that were asian in the anime and making them white in the live action version.
One reversal of this is the live action version of Full Metal Alchemist. While the main characters were actually caucasian in the anime, they were made asian in the live action version.
I wouldn't call it a trend. I feel like I've always seen this. And when an actor is not directly replaced, a Caucasian actor is added to the story, usually quite centrally.
I wouldn't call it a trend. I feel like I've always seen this. And when an actor is not directly replaced, a Caucasian actor is added to the story, usually quite centrally.
I was just talking about how bad the FMA live-action was, and I think one of the biggest issues with anime adaptations in terms of Western Cinema is the rewrites (to fit the white cast) just...
I was just talking about how bad the FMA live-action was, and I think one of the biggest issues with anime adaptations in terms of Western Cinema is the rewrites (to fit the white cast) just doesn't hold up well. I think it's interesting to see the Western adaptation of an anime, but the biggest thing holding it back is the bad rewrites of major plot points and characters.
Take the new Death Note for example. That movie was awful and not because it had white actors, but because the writing just didn't hold up, the characters just weren't the same, the tone wasn't the same, and it was just bad writing all-around imo. That being said I thought Willem Dafoe was a great choice to play the Shinigami.
As I recall, even though --Willy Wonka-- Charlie was originally written black, Dahl, while he was alive, adamantly refused any screenplay or reproduction of his work with a black Charlie. To the...
As I recall, even though --Willy Wonka-- Charlie was originally written black, Dahl, while he was alive, adamantly refused any screenplay or reproduction of his work with a black Charlie. To the point of pulling the plug on one play days before the debut once he found out they switched races. Which shouldn't be surprising coming from such an unpleasant man. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out during the Civil Rights protests and race riots in England, yet he chose to cast the oompa loompas, black pygmies, to the role of "the happy slave". I'm glad he'll be rolling in his grave
You should read that article more closely: ... not Willy Wonka.
You should read that article more closely:
Last week, Roald Dahl’s widow, Felicity Dahl, told the BBC that the children’s author had written an early draft of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” in which Charlie Bucket was black.
I assume you mean that "Charlie" was originally written as black, right? Unless I missed it in the article, it doesn't look like it says anything about him pulling the plug on productions due to...
I assume you mean that "Charlie" was originally written as black, right? Unless I missed it in the article, it doesn't look like it says anything about him pulling the plug on productions due to dark-skinned actors. Do you have any sources for that?
I’m not agreeing with the person you’re responding to, and I didn’t read The NY Times article, but I remember reading the book as a kid and the oompa loompas were black Pygmies slaves. IIRC, Wonka...
I’m not agreeing with the person you’re responding to, and I didn’t read The NY Times article, but I remember reading the book as a kid and the oompa loompas were black Pygmies slaves.
IIRC, Wonka took them from the trees they lived in in Africa. It’s been awhile since I read the book, but as a child I thought it was sordid. You can’t pay people in cocoa beans! They were addicted to them and that’s how Wonka got them to work.
Yes! Another user brought that to my attention in the article in this comment! Very interesting, but I like that Dahl was willing to make the change when the NAACP brought it up.
Yes! Another user brought that to my attention in the article in this comment! Very interesting, but I like that Dahl was willing to make the change when the NAACP brought it up.
I am all for anything Donald Glover does at this point, so I am happy to suspend any race related disbelief. Somewhat related, Dr Who’s next regeneration is a woman. This has been pretty...
I am all for anything Donald Glover does at this point, so I am happy to suspend any race related disbelief.
Somewhat related, Dr Who’s next regeneration is a woman. This has been pretty controversial and I am all for this as well.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I think Donald Glover is a great actor and think he would do great as Wonka, but on the other hand, when I read Chalie and the Chocolate factory, I...
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I think Donald Glover is a great actor and think he would do great as Wonka, but on the other hand, when I read Chalie and the Chocolate factory, I never would have imagined Wonka as black. Maybe that's just because I'm white and projecting that onto the characters.
As long as the character stays the same with him being the same Willy Wonka we know but just so happens to be black, I think there's not really a problem. I just don't want to see Wonka's character rewritten.
Personally, I think Glover would do the hell out of a Wonka role. He certainly has enough charisma for it.
The article does bring up that white actors playing canonically non-white characters is labeled as "white washing" and problematic. The difference is, white actors don't struggle for representation in big-ticket films, nor has there been a dearth of roles for white actors in works that are adapted to the screen. I think what we're seeing is a corrective diversification, a conscious effort to make the media we produce more inclusive. Once no one thinks it's a big deal that, for instance, Black Panther becomes highly successful, then we might be in a place where we can talk about removing the white-washing stigma and cast actors who match the role without considering what they look like.
We're not post-racial yet. And until and unless we are, there will always be things that are problematic for the majority that aren't for the minority. Because the majority doesn't need a leg up.
I have no problem with that, but my issue is changing the races (and sometimes sex) of already existing characters. It feels like a cheap way to get that diversity goal without putting in any effort into new, original IP
It doesn't seem cheap to me at all. In fact, it seems very hard-won. For many many years, it was "no, you can't play this role because of the color of your skin." Yes. It would be amazing if we could just write brand new characters for actors of color and they would be big box-office smashes, but that's not the way we've been going in the last several years. Reboots and remakes and reimaginings are what the general populace are calling for, and it takes nothing away from Willy Wonka for him to be portrayed as a black man. And this is coming from someone who loved Gene Wilder. WW and the Chocolate Factory was my favorite movie growing up.
Maybe if the move was about the Klan, I'd say "Yeah, that character needs to be white." But otherwise, what's the big deal? It doesn't take away the old portrayals (I really wish it could replace Johnny Depp's one.) it adds a new one, with a new actor who new kids can see themselves in. I would be so excited if this happens.
Humans have been retelling the same stories for millennia, re-interpreting, adapting, revising and evolving. It's how some of humanities greatest works were created.
The colour of Willy Wonka's skin has zero impact on any aspect of the story, and Donald Glover seems like he'd be fantastic in the role, so I don't see any reason not to cast him.
True, but good luck pushing new, original IPs when Marvel dominates the box office for 3 months out of the year. I'd love to see more original works too, but that's not the climate in Hollywood (and a separate issue, I think)
I agree, the climate in Hollywood is fucked right now. But every time I see a "reimagined" IP where the races/genders are swapped, the cynical part of me can't help but think that the only reason they're making the movie is for that free diversity marketing/inevitable controversy.
While this is still just a rumor, I'm sure that making a new IP with Glover as the lead wouldn't get nearly as much attention as announcing that Glover is playing Willy Wonka.
While it's important to make sure that the studios aren't exploiting female/actors of color for controversy, I think that kind of cynicism is taking away credit from actors who earn those roles with their talent. In this case, two white actors are being considered as well, but clearly Donald Glover is the best choice for the role. To imply that controversy is part of his consideration is massively discrediting him. Even if it were, this cynicism is exactly the controversy they would be hoping to exploit. It's not angry posts on stormfront or other white nationalist (who likely hate the original anyway since Wilder was Jewish) websites that they are going after, it's posts and articles like this. If their goal is the controversy, this is exactly what it looks like. There is no controversy to exploit of we make the discussion about talent and not about skin color or potential controversy.
I totally agree. At some point it becomes a colouring exercise. When I want to see, say more Asians, it's because I want their perceptive. Simply swapping races is a good start, but it's not one-to-one to representation in media.
Why does it not need to be a big deal that a film with a nearly 100% black cast is the top grossing film in a country where black people are 12% of the population?
I'm not sure how we can measure 'struggling for representation in big-ticket films', but the first thing I thought of was how much films people are in make. It's not a perfect measure for various reasons, but not sure what would be.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/655480/all-time-top-grossing-actors-box-office/
According to this, 25% of the top 20 are black.
I recall all the drama about how the actors/actresses in the Oscars were often so white.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_black_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees
So since 2000, 11.5% of nominees and 15% of winners in acting categories have been black.
At what point can we say acting has become post-racial?
I think when actors of all races have equal (more or less, year over year) casting in roles. Including leading roles. I don't think a few years of putting a black person or two in (rarely complex, leading roles) will make up for many decades of all but ignoring all non-white people in casting decisions.
Also, is it a problem if we bring more attention to excellent actors of any race? The white actors aren't going anywhere; they won't become extinct if we start giving roles to people who have a touch more melanin.
I don't think going strictly statistical is appropriate here, either, but since you brought it up, where are our 17.8% of Latino winners? According to Wikipedia:
Back in 2016, Washington Post put out this article discussing today's Academy Awards as well as historical ones. It has a lot of charts and graphs which don't match up with what you've said, so you might be interested in checking them out. A few things stuck out to me from the article:
When we start looking at not just the actors, but the writers, it looks even more dismal. There's no evidence that white people are better at writing films than people of color, but the percentages are in the 90s for white feature film writers. It speaks to larger problems in the industry and leads me to believe that we are nowhere near post-racial.
I acknowledge that we are getting better, and I hope we continue to. I firmly believe that representation matters to young people (and all people).
I said that since 2000 (the pt beyond which I consider this to no longer be an issue), 11.5% of nominees and 15% of winners in all acting categories have been black. I don't see how anything in that article doesn't match.
But I'm not even sure where they're going with that first quote, or how they even came to those numbers.
Going by the link I initially posted, I guess they're taking only best leading actor/actress for 2011-2016. 7 nominations out of 50, or 14% (not sure how they halved that number for the graph, or if I'm missing something). So the academy would have to do exactly what it's been doing in the last five years for the next five years in order for it to be equal. I'm hoping I'm missing something because the way I'm reading it, that chart is factoring in the potential nominations that didn't yet happen in the 2016-2020 block to paint the picture that blacks are being underrepresented again.
Also worth noting in the same time period, black women got 5 nominations and 3 wins, 20% and 60%, for supporting actress.
I don't really how the bit about two very successful actors (Freeman and Washington) adds much. In the last decade Meryl Streep has gotten an even bigger proportion of the white nominations. So what?
I focused on acting because that's what the post I was replying to was about. But yes, as far as nonblack minorities, and nonacting roles, everything is very skewed. Hispanics and Asians are indeed significantly underrepresented. The job most definitely isn't post-racial for them.
Bit of a tangent, but yes, there's no evidence that white people are so much better at writing, nor is there evidence (I'm aware of) that black people are so much better at music. Yet they're typically overrepresented in the awards and nearly 25% of the 100 best selling albums in the 2010s so far are from black artists. Is this a problem?
Anyway, I'd very much like people of all skin tones to do whatever they want freely too. I'd just also want people to not invent and/or grossly exaggerate issues, eg that black actors at the highest levels have been anything but just great and equal in the past couple of decades, or that they need special treatment or artificial boosts, lest they go extinct.
In my opinion, the so what is this: If we act as if only percentage matters and not count, it could look very much like a certain population is being well represented when, in fact, its only the same two people being picked over and over again. This could serve to hide goings-on in industry which make it harder for actors of color to get good roles, yet the leaders can point to their numbers and say "Look! It's almost population average!"
I agree with the idea behind that, but don't think it applies much here since you can point to various white actors who have gotten similar/bigger proportions at times, and the fact that the numbers are only even that skewed much because of that big chunk of the late 80s and 90s where Morgan/Denzel were nearly all of the representation and I wouldn't be making any of these arguments.
But sure, let's go for count rather than percentage. 39 nominations between 28 black people post 2000. I don't feel like tallying up the amount of unique / total nominations for the hundreds of white nominations, but I imagine it's not that different. I'd actually bet it's worse. Can someone make some script to get us an answer with less effort?
And what of the other points, or more interestingly, the first chart? Did I miss something, or should I just assume WP decided that selective unrepresentative samples weren't enough, so they had to blatantly manipulate the presentation so they could point to their now more meaningless numbers and say "Look! Poor black people!"?
For anyone curious:
http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/
2000 - 2017
39 black nominations with 28 actors (71%)
302 white nominations with 192 actors (64%)
So not only population average based only on percentage, but also more a bit more diverse in terms of unique actors.
Unless the role is defined by race I don't see this being any problem. Glover would make a great Willy Wonka.
Agreed. One example where race was problematic in the casting was the Dark Tower movie. The Dark Tower books have major plot points that revolve around racial tensions, so switching the race of the main character basically required massive cuts and rewrites to the plot. The end result was a terrible movie devoid of the tension and resolution of the vast majority of the source material.
But for Wonka? The only requirement of that character is that he's charismatic and eccentric. Glover's acting fits those roles beautifully.
which character, the kid? haven't read the books, they're on my list.
Nah, Roland. The racial tensions were between Roland and some of the other main characters that were completely stripped from that empty husk of a movie.
To use a Meme: "we were so preoccupied with whether or not we could, we didn’t stop to think if we should."
Donald Glover is a generational talent and would knock this out of the park.
But we do not need another Willy Wonka movie? Even if it is an origin story.
I was really dissapointed with the Willy Wonka remake. It was completely unnecessary, and Johnny Depp just played the same type of character he does in every movie. You can't beat Gene Wilder. Don't try. Let classics be classics.
And I have nothing against a black person playing Willy Wonka, I just don't want a remake/prequel/sequel/reboot/alternate universe/reimagining/whatever.
I will geek out about that shit enough for 1000 people. Maybe there are others out there like me. We can pull the weight for the rest.
In all seriousness, I can see your point. It doesn't feel like it's been long enough since the last one. To be fair, I feel that way about the litrally sixteen million Spiderman movies.
I will still be excited. I love the story and I love origin stories in general.
I would only allow it if Donald wasn't the real Willy Wonka, but instead inherited it from Willy Wonka who was now looking to retire, but he isn't the Real Willy Wonka either. The Real Willy Wonka has been retired for a numbers of years and was happily living in a Oopa Loompa Sanctiary off the coast of Hangdoodle
Are you sure he wasn't "living like a king? " I dig your PB reference, friend. 😊😊
Was Willy Wonka actually written as white in Dahl's books? Or was he left to the reader's imagination? It's been a very long time since I read them!
Well... Roald Dahl had a touch of the anti-semite, so, extrapolating, I think he was probably supposed to be white.
The episode of "Dead Author's Podcast" with Ben Schwartz portraying Roald Dahl is heartbreaking... and hilarious. Never meet your heroes.
Being anti-Semitic isn't the same as being anti-black. I found this while trying to research Willy Wonka's race: "Roald Dahl’s widow and biographer say first Charlie was black but writer was persuaded to make him white."
Also... "I am not anti-Semitic. I am anti-Israel." It is possible to be against the official policies and actions of the government of Israel without being prejudiced against Jewish people. I'm against some of the official policies and actions of the government of Australia - does that make me anti-Aussie? (I am an Aussie, for context.)
I absolutely know that they're not the same. The reason I said "extrapolating" is because I'm going to hazard a guess that there's a strong positive correlation between people who are Anti-semitic and people who have racial biases against dark-skinned people. Intolerance breeding intolerance, and so on.
If that's true, that's so awesome! I'm happy to have my semi-educated guess proven false on something like this!
*In regards to your ninja edit, just because someone says "I'm not a racist" doesn't mean they aren't! Dude literally said I'm not an anti-semite, but they kinda-sorta had it coming with the whole Hitler thing.
I'm honestly curious, did I offend you by quoting something icky Roald Dahl said?
Fuck no! I get offended by misinterpretations much more than by icky things. I saw him describe himself as "anti-Israel" after you accused him of being anti-Semitic, and got on my soapbox (as I am wont to do!).
I have to confess, though: I skimmed your comment, and missed the part about Dahl saying there's "a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity". That is anti-Semitic.
Totally. I'm glad you agree!
And no worries. I, too, carry a soapbox around with me. I've tried to throw it away, but it just keeps showing back up like a bad horror movie plot-line. ;-)
Also, that article has some seriously interesting information in it! I particularly enjoyed the bit about how the Oompa-Loompas were originally written as black pygmies from Africa.
It shows real introspection and caring not to get offended and double-down on something like that.
Thanks for sharing the article. I really enjoyed it!
P.S. I posted this instead of editing because I wanted to make sure you didn't miss the edit.
This sounds like your typical run of the mill antisemitism. The whole anti-Israel spiel is just rationalisation
https://tildes.net/~movies/1xv/donald_glover_as_willy_wonka_fictional_characters_changing_races#comment-khi
Fair enough. Still finding it hard navigating tildes comment threads :)
He wasn't written as either, but the illustrations in the book show him as a white dude.
go figure.
There's a big trend in making live-action versions of anime cartoons and taking characters that were asian in the anime and making them white in the live action version.
One reversal of this is the live action version of Full Metal Alchemist. While the main characters were actually caucasian in the anime, they were made asian in the live action version.
I wouldn't call it a trend. I feel like I've always seen this. And when an actor is not directly replaced, a Caucasian actor is added to the story, usually quite centrally.
I was just talking about how bad the FMA live-action was, and I think one of the biggest issues with anime adaptations in terms of Western Cinema is the rewrites (to fit the white cast) just doesn't hold up well. I think it's interesting to see the Western adaptation of an anime, but the biggest thing holding it back is the bad rewrites of major plot points and characters.
Take the new Death Note for example. That movie was awful and not because it had white actors, but because the writing just didn't hold up, the characters just weren't the same, the tone wasn't the same, and it was just bad writing all-around imo. That being said I thought Willem Dafoe was a great choice to play the Shinigami.
As I recall, even though --Willy Wonka-- Charlie was originally written black, Dahl, while he was alive, adamantly refused any screenplay or reproduction of his work with a black Charlie. To the point of pulling the plug on one play days before the debut once he found out they switched races. Which shouldn't be surprising coming from such an unpleasant man. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out during the Civil Rights protests and race riots in England, yet he chose to cast the oompa loompas, black pygmies, to the role of "the happy slave". I'm glad he'll be rolling in his grave
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/books/review/roald-dahl-black-charlie-chocolate-factory.html
EDIT: Thanks for the correction, I did mean Charlie
You should read that article more closely:
... not Willy Wonka.
You're right, that was a mistype on my part, I did mean Charlie
I assume you mean that "Charlie" was originally written as black, right? Unless I missed it in the article, it doesn't look like it says anything about him pulling the plug on productions due to dark-skinned actors. Do you have any sources for that?
I’m not agreeing with the person you’re responding to, and I didn’t read The NY Times article, but I remember reading the book as a kid and the oompa loompas were black Pygmies slaves.
IIRC, Wonka took them from the trees they lived in in Africa. It’s been awhile since I read the book, but as a child I thought it was sordid. You can’t pay people in cocoa beans! They were addicted to them and that’s how Wonka got them to work.
Yes! Another user brought that to my attention in the article in this comment! Very interesting, but I like that Dahl was willing to make the change when the NAACP brought it up.
Yes, I did. Wrote it on the bus and was a bit distracted :)
I am all for anything Donald Glover does at this point, so I am happy to suspend any race related disbelief.
Somewhat related, Dr Who’s next regeneration is a woman. This has been pretty controversial and I am all for this as well.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I think Donald Glover is a great actor and think he would do great as Wonka, but on the other hand, when I read Chalie and the Chocolate factory, I never would have imagined Wonka as black. Maybe that's just because I'm white and projecting that onto the characters.
As long as the character stays the same with him being the same Willy Wonka we know but just so happens to be black, I think there's not really a problem. I just don't want to see Wonka's character rewritten.