Posted: 10/18/15 at 3:34pm
hork said: "Not everything is about geopolitical history" ---> "Racism is aboutgeopolitical racism." Are you saying everything is about racism? Verisimilitude is not racism. A Chinese production about 17th century China featuring a lot of white actors would be weird for reasons that have nothing to do with racism. That was my point. Although the point of that point is getting lost amid all this rhetoric."
Racism is huge in our country and a production about 17th century China featuring lots of white actors would be weird for the precise and overriding reason that white people don't have any reason to play Chinese characters. White people have been "putting their oar in" to other cultures for so long that the balance has been historically tipped, which is why a production about 17th century Britain featuring a lot of non-white people wouldn't be a bad thing - not only were there plenty of non-whites back then, but there have been so many white retellings of 17th century British narratives that they scan as being entirely normative.
"But is that the fault of the creative team of Gentleman's Guide? Why should they have to atone for others' mistakes?"
In a sense, yes. Is there a reason Gentleman's Guide should be all-white? If not, what's the harm in them making the effort to search for and cast a non-white actor or two? It's the responsibility of those in power to aid and assist in the fight against discriminatory casting practices.
"And my point is that casting a white actor as a white character is not discrimination, except in the most literal sense of the term (i.e. every casting choice is an act of discrimination)."
What makes a character white instead of not white? Are all characters white unless the script explicitly says otherwise?
"So we should cast the second best actor, just because he's not white? I'm not getting into this again."
Why assume a non-white actor is second-best? Is it just a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of "best actors" are white?