-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Nice interview from 2011. Screenshots taken from the video because uploader doesn’t allow linking. Video can be found on youtube. Uploaded by the user “rio pota” on Nov 7, 2011. (If you find it on youtube, please make sure you don’t link or embed it.)
This entry inspired by: this article/letter here
Well, actually it’s more like a response. But it got too long as my comments often do…
She makes a fair point. But personally, I generally do not hold the Academy in too high a regard. The values upon which it was built are admirable enough but over the years, like many other things that were started with pure intentions, it has been corrupted by…well, the things that usually corrupt when people allow them to go to their heads. While glamorous and held in high esteem when I was a little kid still susceptible to the notion that glitz and glamor = prestige and honor, after doing some growing up and having my view broadened a bit, I see it for what it really is from an outsider’s perspective: a dog and pony show whose prestige and honor are inflated by those who can buy them (for the ‘frontline’ categories anyway) and coveted by those selfsame people as well as others who buy into the facade nevertheless because well, it’s prestige and honor! Who wouldn’t want that?
That is not to say the nominees and winners are not talented. They are. But they deserve better than what the Academy Awards truly represents.
You see, the Academy truly does lack diversity. There’s a formula and pattern to who gets nominated and when you start seeing the same faces for X number of years, you start to wonder if the world’s talents (I’m using the term “world” loosely here) are only down to these few people every few years (give or take one or two less common choices in a weak effort to diversify), until a fresh batch gets brought in and the process gets rinsed and repeated until this batch gets old, and the cycle begins anew. I am well aware that it’s not just talent that gets an artist or producer recognition, but a combination of luck and circumstance, but even so, there are more than a few of those so surely it doesn’t have to be the same five or six? It’s very hard to not call shenanigans when rampant favoritism is being flaunted as artists just being that good and people will just have to accept it. Because surely, these aren’t the only ones, even among the ‘privileged’, who can claim to possess incredible talent and have proven as much? (By ‘have proven’, I meant those whose merits were given to them by others, not themselves.)
Regardless of the diversity insiders claim exists internally, the outcome proves that the only opinions that matter are those of the ones who hold the most power; fine, because that’s how the game has always been played. But it’s mind-boggling the way these authorities choose to limit themselves, because shouldn’t authority allow you more choices? And it’s not like the winners and Academy aren’t paying the price either. At the end of the day, this all goes back to them because now they get undermined, just like I am doing right now.
And, from what this lady is saying, the new voting sanctions won’t much contribute towards remedying this problem, which, to me, is the real issue at hand.
So yes, the Academy could do well with more diversity in their choices. That is the one thing the dissenters got right. The thing they got wrong is trying to use the argument to further their own agenda (not cause, because this isn’t one), which paints them to be every bit as self-serving as they are accusing the “other side” of being. Worse, in fact, because they claim to be doing it for a larger whole. And maybe some truly believe what they’re doing is for the greater good. If that is indeed the case, it’s all the more sad because it just goes to prove how deluded and disconnected from reality these people are from the heights of their Beverly Hills (or other similarly posh neighborhoods) mansions.
Being the minority (though some would interpret that as being synonymous with oppressed–it isn’t) is a form of power, especially with all the overblown sensitivity going on in this day and age, and this is just another example of people in the upper echelons of society letting it get to their heads. And as usual, there’ll be consequences mostly suffered by people who are not quite as high up in the social ladder as they are.
When you play the race card for everything, even when the real issue isn’t about race, you’re not just being a gigantic hypocrite, you’re both shaming and crippling yourself and your culture. Being proud of your culture is one thing but using your ethnicity as both crutch and handicap isn’t the most dignified way of showing it. If anything, it proves that you are ashamed of it. What these people are doing makes a mockery of those who are genuinely fighting to make a difference that would mean more to the world at large. Yes, injustice exists even among elite society and the people suffering within those circles have every right to fight it, but shouldn’t their educated heads have thought of a better way of going about it without bringing the consequences down upon the heads of people with more worldly things to worry about? Something more classy perhaps, instead of this puerile form of high society picketing they’re essentially doing?
Now, thanks to these ‘activists’, the cause and efforts of the real ones fighting real oppression may be downplayed. Because now, more than ever before, they are just going to be regarded as whiners and whingers and any concessions afforded them is made just to shut them up–as if those who have conceded them have been proven right and these protesters asking for much simpler things are merely loudmouths–and not because the conceders have truly had their eyes opened. But then again, this is what the elite, white, black, yellow, brown, etc., does best, isn’t it?
Here’s something I wrote in response to this article and some of the comments to it. I never posted it though because it’s too likely that I exceeded the word and character limit by 100x or something. So dumping it here it is.
This entry was inspired/sparked by: (see: link above)
The article says Asian-American. None of the famous Asians names named here are American.
I think the argument presented in the article is very flawed. If they want to talk about sticking close to the source, it isn’t Asian-American actors they should be sticking up for, it’s Japanese ones. This whole thing should’ve then been a Japanese production with Hollywood funding and production values. Because let’s face it, if they use Asian actors, they might as well stick to the same backdrop and the language might as well be Japanese, too. And for that to be pulled off well, they’ll need a Japanese director or a director who knows what they’re doing enough to pull of a western production with an eastern (albeit futuristic) setting, but either way, they’re going to need a Japanese crew on board, with the power to give advice and veto culturally contrary decisions.
But since this isn’t about to happen anytime soon, I’m assuming the argument is more about race elitism in big-budget blockbusters. If that’s so, then Akira is a poor example because, even if the creators are Japanese, it isn’t a cultural piece of work that’s exclusively indigenous to Japan. It’s a futuristic piece that, with a change of names in its characters (and by extension its eponymous title), locations and pop culture references, it could take place in any major city comprised of the local people. It could be Neo-anywhere. Heck, it could even be a fictional city and not be a Neo-anywhere. If the futuristically souped up Kawasaki-esque bike Kaneda rides on is too big of an identifier to the story to be changed to something that is more, say…Ducati-esque or Harley-esque, it still doesn’t have to be an Asian-American or a Caucasian or an African-American riding it. It doesn’t even have to be completely human. They could make the whole thing anthropomorphic or based on an alien society where its inhabitants have tentacles sprouting out of their backs and it’d still work.
Sure they could do something like Big Hero 6 (only live action this time around) where one plus one equals one big cultural melting pot of a universe, but it would be an artistic choice, not a culturally civic one. And no one should be penalized because of that. If Akira were a very culturally indigenous sort of thing and they’re whitewashing it, then they’ve got no excuse. Like the disaster that was the Airbender movie. What’s even more unforgivable about that one is that the director is Asian.
Like I said though, Akira, like Godzilla, isn’t significantly unique to a singular culture like Airbender is and by that logic, is a lot more fluid when it comes to deviation from source material, and so long as they stick to its story, they’ll still have something that’s pretty faithful. I’m more hung up on that, in fact, than I am about it getting whitewashed, which I think isn’t an accurate term to use anyhow in this case because if they’re going to Hollywood-ize this particular piece of work, I’m sure there’ll be some African-American actors that’ll get casted, too. And maybe that one Asian guy that sometimes pops up in big-budget movies–the one who plays Harold in Harold & Kumar.
Another thing is, the producers and bigwigs behind this would-be adaptation are non-Asians. Or most of them are anyway. And while it’d be exciting if they decide to explore less-treaded avenues in terms of casting options, I’m not about to expect them to suddenly go for an ensemble that’s comprised of mostly Asians, not unless the piece of work absolutely calls for it.
If they can change Prof X to be a Brit instead of an American and Heimdall can be African-British instead of Caucasian, Kaneda and co. can certainly be non-Asian (so long as their names aren’t distinctly Asian). Heck, as long as the eponymous character remains Asian or partly Asian, they can even stick with the existing title.
As for Exodus, I dunno about that too much as it isn’t the sort of thing I’d catch in the theater, much though I appreciate Bale’s acting, but if Lawrence Of Arabia made all those years ago could accomplish what it did with a mix bag of both white actors and non-white ones playing Arabians, then so could this one. That they largely didn’t go for that does indeed say something, despite all the cast, crew and producers’ claims to the contrary.
For Akira, I’d be more worried about the quality of the actors they’re getting than the color of their skin. Then again, I suppose people will bitch either way. They’re bitching about Oscar Isaac being cast as Apocalypse despite the guy actually looking the part ethnically (even if he isn’t exactly the same ethnicity as the character) and is a more than capable actor. They’re whining about that one storm trooper revealed as being portrayed by a black actor in that Episode VII teaser trailer. Heck, they even bitch about white guys portraying white guys so I suppose it’s all moot.
And Hollywood? Well, they’ve pulled that stunt where they got a decidedly non-Asian guy to play an Asian guy in a very stereotypical fashion before. And since then, they’re still getting away with a lot of bullcrap, some worse than others. Hollywood does what it wants when it wants and the audience can grumble all they want but so long as Hollywood more or less pulls off the other aspects in play, audiences will still lap up what they are served, and Hollywood producers will still be wearing their trademark see-I-told-you-it-wouldn’t-matter smirks all the way to the bank. Wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last.
May Elba be the next 007. Although my personal nomination and vote goes to either David Harewood or Ioan Gruffudd, Elba’s good, too. The guy will pull it off. I know he will.
Spiels 