TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

John Oliver's Last Week Tonight

Go To

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#276: Feb 24th 2016 at 8:41:02 AM

I'll say this... I'm not for diversity for diversity's sake. Works that go, as Yahtzee puts it, "full Burger King Kid's Club" are pretty jarring to me and less realistic than even Monochrome Casting.

Which isn't to say I'm not for diversity. Idris Elba in Thor? Fucking glorious. I'd cast that man as literally everyone in the movie. I don't care.

But good lord, trying to pass super white people as non-white? Whyyyyyyyy? The clips of Aloha were bad, but they also reminded me of Street Fighter The Legend Of Chun Li where actually half-Asian Kristen Kreuk played very Chinese Chun Li. They could've made the character half-Asian to fit the actress, but they just went "nah. She's Asian enough" and made both her parents as well as flashback Chun-Li full Asian. Because wtf.

edited 24th Feb '16 8:43:59 AM by Larkmarn

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#277: Feb 24th 2016 at 10:52:21 AM

I have the impression The Last Samurai makes him a westerner who's learned the ways of the samurai. Which I'm not sure is better or worse.

Fresh-eyed movie blog
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#278: Feb 24th 2016 at 10:53:39 AM

Worse.

The whole "man, white people sure are naturally better at your own culture" thing is a mess. Plus the fact it perpetuates the whole "people are incapable of watching something without a White Male Lead."

Like, I get why they do it. I honestly do. It's hard to go to the studios and say "hey, I know you don't want to take any risks, but let's cast a minority lead." Hopefully Star Wars has shown that the main characters' race/gender can be incidental.

edited 24th Feb '16 10:57:16 AM by Larkmarn

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#279: Feb 24th 2016 at 11:52:17 AM

Actually, it's a common mistake to say the Last Samurai has the white guy being better than the Samurai at their culture. This isn't the case. Tom Cruise's character also isn't the Last Samurai, that'd be Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe's character).

The main character of the Last Samurai is at no point portrayed as superior to the Samurai in their fields of expertise (swordfighting and Samurai tactics, horse-riding, and philosophy), the only thing he's unquestionably superior is knowing the enemy (which makes since, given he was the enemy before Going Native).

That and the main character is basically a Composite Character of two two actual historical characters, one of which was a white Samurai.

In general I'd say that movie is very respectful to Japanese culture. In fact, perhaps too respectful, one might say.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#280: Feb 24th 2016 at 12:04:38 PM

Yet The Last Samurai is still "that Tom Cruise movie", because the lead is Tom Cruise, who is a white man. The title may be misleading, and the movie being respectful of Japanese culture, the most prominently featured character is still a white guy.

You can compare it to Heroes who had (in season 2 I think?) a plot where Asian character Hiro Nakamura met a white samurai back in the past. Except this time, he was the lead, not David Anders' character.

Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#281: Feb 24th 2016 at 12:16:38 PM

Like I said in the other thread, it's a problem when taken as part of a larger trend, but as its own, the movie is internally very functional in that regard. And it has a stronger excuse to have a white protagonist (chiefly that the movie's story is a) based on an actual guy b) about the Culture Clash of Eastern and Western war philosophies).

Still, I agree with the video outside of that specific example.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#282: Feb 24th 2016 at 12:39:23 PM

If the movie is about the culture clash of Eastern and Western war philosophies then it kinda has Unfortunate Implications. The white guys come and actually do a better job than the Asian ones.

You could have a story centered about Ken Watanabe's character with a white man being the Naïve Newcomer so the viewers can discover a different culture through his eyes - kind of like Ellen Page in Inception, except that she is here to explain the whole dream thing.

And you can also advertise the movie so that the most important character is the lead. See The Last King Of Scotland, who is as of now primarily known for being "this movie about Idi Amin Dada", not "this movie where James McAvoy goes to Uganda".

edited 24th Feb '16 12:39:46 PM by Julep

Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#283: Feb 24th 2016 at 1:16:54 PM

The movie is more complicated than that. The western armies are ultimately superior at war because, well, they're using modern equipment like gatling guns while the Samurai are weaponry three centuries outdated like bows and swords. In terms of philosophies, however, the movie is abundantly clear in its opinion that the western philosophy of war (the Imperialist, pragmatic, and Zerg Rush one) can't match the Samurai philosophy of war (with its Warrior Poet, zen-buddhist outlook of the world that tries to make every man excel). The Samurai men are vastly superior to the western ones in terms of individual skill and morale, but they ultimately can't win for the very reason they're so superior: Honor Before Reason. As epically skilled, loyal and motivated the Samurai are (in comparison to the western more Army of Thieves and Whores thing), they're still insisting and fighting with weaponry three centuries out of date, and thus doomed.

Not only that, but the movie also portrays them as more moral. The western army philosophy seems primarily driven by greed and pride, seeking to subjugate the lower people and open markets to the sweet American dollar, while the Samurai's philosophy centers on fighting as best as you can and treating your enemy with honor, being primarily driven by loyalty to their master.

In short, the Eastern Philosophy (the Samurai one in this case) is a Doomed Moral Victor. Algren does manage to acquire the Samurai outlook of the world by the end of the film, but the true master Samurai here is still Katsumoto, and in the end it is Katsumoto that achieves (post-mortem) the moral victory of the film, for it is Katsumoto's Heroic Sacrifice that triggers a My God, What Have I Done? in the Emperor and causes him to backtrack out of the Westernization process.

I agree with you on the rest, though it is a curious comparison with the last king of scotland, because Katsumoto has a similar presence to that of Idi Aman, in that while he is secondary, he is the driving force of the plot (like I said, it is ultimately him who basically wins the moral conflict of the film, not Cruise), and gets almost equal screentime and character arc to Cruise. His perfomance was also seemingly more memorable than Cruise's (given Ken Watanabe was indicated for best supporting actor in the academy wards for it, while Tom Cruise was not nominated for best leading actor). And also like that movie, the title refers to this supporting protagonist of sorts, not to the white male lead.

I suspect the effect is more due the fact Tom Cruise was a bigger star when he made the movie than James Mc Avoy was when he made the Last King of Scotland.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#284: Feb 24th 2016 at 2:52:13 PM

I know, and it's not any star, it's Tom Cruise - one of the biggest. Cruise is an actor who basically makes his own movies on his name only (the Mission: Impossible ones among others) if he wants to. So either he was the main producer in the movie - in which case, well, for an ego trip it is a decently respectful one - or he was not the main producer - in which case there were many names that could have helped avoid this unfortunate misnaming issue.

It is a movie that has "Samurai" in its title. It is well-crafted. It has katanas.

You don't need Tom Cruise to sell it.

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#285: Feb 24th 2016 at 3:03:11 PM

Tom Cruise produced it, but he was one of 6 or so people who produced it, apparently.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
InkDagger Since: Jul, 2014
#286: Feb 24th 2016 at 3:54:10 PM

There are certain cases where race casting can be interesting. But, its never usually used in an interesting way. Or not in Hollywood really.

For example, I saw a production of Oklahoma which did some interesting casting. In the show, Jud is the 'antagonist' and he's kind of a bit of a drunk (but who isn't in some of these settings?) and all he really does is... Ask the leading lady out on a date/courtship. And everyone kind of villifies him. I mean, some productions make sure the actors plays it like a sleazy asshole, but nothing really calls for that.

I saw one production that made Jud the only black guy in the cast and he didn't play it as an asshole and it was a really interesting take on the show.

I was in a production of Romeo and Juliet where we reset it in 1915 India (Motagues = British and Capulets = Indian Brahmin Class) and so the 'unknown' conflict between the houses took on a racial context and it changed a lot of the meaning of the play and that was a really cool production.

But then... There are times where changing the race of a character just completely misses the point being made. Like, if I write a book where there's a character defining scene of a hispanic protagonist wondering if he's going to be harassed while waiting for a train to arrive, that's important to his character. Going to the movie and having them be white completely removes that element.

We don't often think about it, but race can (depending on the context as there are some movies where it would change nothing) change the tone and how one might look at a work and, if not done well, it could also create Unfortunate Implications.

edited 24th Feb '16 3:55:17 PM by InkDagger

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#287: Feb 24th 2016 at 4:31:15 PM

Put another way, the race of the actor playing a character only matters if the race of the character is in and of itself significant to the story.

Otherwise, there is no obvious reason to have the cast be any less heterogenous than the population of actors from which it is drawn. If it is, then one has to look for an external motive.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
higherbrainpattern Since: Apr, 2012
#288: Feb 24th 2016 at 4:41:11 PM

If our fiction is meant to reflect aspects of our reality, there's really no reason for not having more diverse casting.

I really hate the "diversity for diversity's sake" argument. People just exist in real life, and they're all different, from various backgrounds and cultures, and that's just how life is, not just for diversity's sake, so why not fiction?

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#289: Feb 24th 2016 at 5:43:33 PM

The premis should never be granted, it's not diversity for diversity's sake, it's diversity of realism's sake.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#290: Feb 24th 2016 at 5:54:25 PM

Reality has a notorious liberal bias, and should be automatically discounted.

Fresh-eyed movie blog
TompaDompa from Sweden Since: Jan, 2012
#291: Feb 25th 2016 at 5:23:20 AM

Let's just say that if your movie is diverse in order to fend off criticism, you're not part of the solution.

Ceterum censeo Morbillivirum esse eradicandum.
Aquaconda (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#292: Feb 25th 2016 at 7:15:54 AM

[up]Agreed.

I got around to watching the video. Pretty much everything said was true.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#293: Feb 25th 2016 at 8:12:17 AM

There is such a thing as unrealistically diverse, you know. When I see a group made up entirely of one each of various minorities it does strike me as odd.

What can I say, growing up watching 90s cartoons have made me a bit jaded. I see those groups and I practically hear the executives saying "CAN WE WORK IN ONE IN A WHEELCHAIR?!?" Tokenism just feels disingenuous. And this is coming from an underrepresented minority.

edited 25th Feb '16 8:26:19 AM by Larkmarn

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
higherbrainpattern Since: Apr, 2012
#294: Feb 25th 2016 at 10:04:42 AM

@Tompa Dompa: What does that even mean? Fending off criticism for what?

Larkman: Ever seen the movie Dope? First of all, it's a great movie, but anyways, almost everyone character in the movie is black, and the three main characters are two black kids and their Latino American friend. Like, as weird as it may sound, minorities do hang out together. And I've observed stuff like this happen in real life.

Also, disabled people exist, so your comment about the wheelchair just seems odd to me.

edited 25th Feb '16 10:05:34 AM by higherbrainpattern

InkDagger Since: Jul, 2014
#295: Feb 25th 2016 at 10:58:32 AM

I think he's more talking about making sure that there is exactly one of everything in a 'Collect them all' or 'Tokenism' train of logic. Which is an unhealthy train of thought in the sense of you shouldn't be creating characters for the sake of representation; If my Narrative only really requires two characters, adding more makes no sense.

You should not be creating representation for the sake of 'advoiding problematic accusations', but instead creating representation because it creates an accurate reflection of the world and setting and allows someone for members of the audience to identity; because it creates a stronger work.

Modern day stories are easier to do that with; you can have a character in a wheelchair or have a character who is Asian with no issue. There's almost no excuse for a modern or future story to be lacking in diversity.

Historical ones are a bit harder to do because the social un acceptance of, say, a gay man or a physically disabled woman MIGHT need to be worked around (depending on the tone as there are works who will ignore the social expectations). I remember a movie, and I can't remember the name, where a Jewish boy escaped from being found by the Germans and ended up being pulled into Nazi service. He meets a Nazi soldier who is gay and the two kind of bond over the fact that the Nazis want to kill them. There's commentary there on the times for both minorities.

If there is representation in a historical piece, assuming it doesn't ignore the social acceptability of the times, you will see representation in only very specific criteria which gets very bad for representation after awhile.

frosty from You'll mispronounce it Since: Jan, 2013
#296: Feb 25th 2016 at 1:43:00 PM

[up][up] I don't doubt that minorities hang out together, but I think it's weird that "diversity" as a buzzword doesn't really include that. Most people when they hear diversity, picture an "everyone is different" cast, like [up]. Depending on the story, it's more realistic to have larger mostly-homogenous groups, and the "diversity" is in the fact that they aren't white-cis-males. On a meta-level, it's better to have a diverse collection of protagonists/supporting characters across many stories than making sure one story has every social/racial category represented

edited 25th Feb '16 1:52:01 PM by frosty

InkDagger Since: Jul, 2014
#297: Feb 25th 2016 at 2:23:46 PM

I don't think of it that way, but you can bet that there are some people who look at a completed work and think 'K, but it needs x, y, and z'. I'll admit that I was being broad with my explanation though.

So, I agree with [up]. A work should have minority characters, but not all minority characters. As in, it shouldn't be going down a check list to include every single Minority (Tokenism), but should have a some who contribute meaningfully to the plot and ESPECIALLY if their minority status is relevant or adds depth to the narrative. I'm not going to say that that CAN'T work (having a cast with one of every type of minority), since I know Children's television that could use that and there are a number of works that can get away with casts of thousands where having very large minority groups of different types of minorities can work, but its hard to do without hitting Tokenism or Unfortunate Implications.

edited 25th Feb '16 2:27:02 PM by InkDagger

CrimsonZephyr Would that it were so simple. from Massachusetts Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
Would that it were so simple.
#298: Feb 25th 2016 at 3:41:23 PM

"In short, the Eastern Philosophy (the Samurai one in this case) is a Doomed Moral Victor. Algren does manage to acquire the Samurai outlook of the world by the end of the film, but the true master Samurai here is still Katsumoto, and in the end it is Katsumoto that achieves (post-mortem) the moral victory of the film, for it is Katsumoto's Heroic Sacrifice that triggers a My God, What Have I Done? in the Emperor and causes him to backtrack out of the Westernization process."

This, which pretty much encapsulates the position of the film, bothers me way more than Tom Cruise being a White Male Lead. Firstly, samurai were brutal thugs who did wetwork for local warlords, first and foremost. Some were cultured, but cultured thugs nonetheless, and by the 1800s had become little more than a landed class that lived on past glories. Secondly, Japan in 1867 wasn't a Tokugawa-era throwback suddenly thrust violently into the modern world; they were isolationists, not Luddites. Nobunaga had gunners in his army, by the time Commodore Perry arrived, Japanese armies used gunpowder as standard armament. Thirdly, "the Emperor embracing the Good Old Ways" is patently just wrong. Embracing the Good Old Ways meant allowing feudal armies to soak Japan in blood while great powers looked on and the Emperor himself was powerless. Westernization gave the Emperor power and authority, concentrating state power back in his hands.

I mean, I get that it's just a movie, and I have a huge bias against Romanticism in general, but honestly, in this particular case, casting Tom Cruise is the least racist thing about it, as its essential message is that Westernization is modernity and modernity is bad. It makes Asian cultures and history look like agrarian throwbacks incapable and unwilling to change, and it does everyone a cultural disservice by sandpapering away all the negatives in their society.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#299: Feb 26th 2016 at 9:26:32 AM

Yeah, I think that unless the race of the character is specifically described (and there's some leeway there for re-imaginings and such), you should just try and actually cast the best actor for the role.

I do think that Fantastic Four dropped the ball by keeping Sue white though. It throws a really weird dynamic into the movie that, while yes it's great that they have a happily adopted member of a family, makes it look like the filmmakers are perfectly happy with changing the race of a male character while having a problem with making the female character black. I don't know if that was actually the case, but I think they should have just gone all the way and made Sue black too.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
#300: Feb 26th 2016 at 10:42:57 AM

I am genuinely torn on that front.

On one hand, I dig the whole "she's adopted. It's not a big deal." Coming from a multi-ethnic family, that's a refreshing look at one. But I also feel like it's a cop out... the director wanted a certain actor as Storm and decided to just handwave the fact Sue didn't match. If we had a decent performance from either of them it'd be one thing, but they both... kinda... sucked.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Total posts: 3,845
Top