TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Diversity and Representation in Media

Go To

A thread for discussing representation and diversity in all kinds of media. This covers creators and casting decisions as well as characters and in-universe discussions.

Historical works and decisions are in-scope as well, not just recent news.

Please put any spoilers behind tags and clearly state which work(s) they apply to.

    Original OP 
For discussing any racial, gender, and orientation misdoings happening across various movies and the film industry today.

This week, producer Ross Putnam started a Twitter account called "femscriptintros", where he puts up examples of how women are introduced in the screenplays he's read. And nearly all of sound like terrible porn or are too concerned with emphasizing said lady is beautiful despite whatever traits she may have. Here's a Take Two podcast made today where he talks about it.


(Edited April 19 2024 to add mod pinned post)

Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 19th 2024 at 11:45:51 AM

PhiSat Planeswalker from Everywhere and Nowhere Since: Jan, 2011
Planeswalker
#37551: Aug 1st 2024 at 4:04:00 PM

[up]x4 I don't have any definitive takes on your questions, but they did remind me of a K-Drama I watched years ago on Netflix where one of the actors was biracial but was playing a non-biracial character. The casting was very distracting because this particular actor was so white-passing my brother and I thought a random white guy was in an otherwise fully-Korean cast with no explanation.

Edited by PhiSat on Aug 1st 2024 at 4:04:54 AM

Oissu!
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
#37552: Aug 1st 2024 at 4:19:19 PM

On paper making any casting choice based on race or other protected characteristics is illegal discrimination, at least in the US.

Really? That’s very strange, most countries have an explicitly exemption written into their equal protection laws in relation to acting, alongside a number of other professions (religious jobs are generally able to discriminate on religious grounds, jobs that service a particular characteristic community can normally discriminate on the grounds of said characteristic, modelling jobs can discriminate on gender and race, etc…).

What’s the anti-discrimination law in the US that causes this?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
HeyMikey Since: Jul, 2015
#37553: Aug 1st 2024 at 5:07:17 PM

In the US, you are able to discriminate against people of a protected class for hiring purposes if they meet what are called “bona fide occupational qualification”. Basically, the qualifications for meeting that role are intrinsically tied to meeting a protected characteristic.

So if an artistic or performance role calls for being a protected class (say, a historical piece for Martin Luther King Jr.), you can call on them to discriminate on race (they have to be black) and gender (they have to be male). It's why Hooters can get away with gender discrimination of the servers (since the qualification for their servers is attractive women working as performers) or religious institutions can have religious restrictions on hiring for anything relating to religious instruction or companies with strict safety standards can have mandatory retirement ages (bus drivers and pilots) or a men's clothing advertisement line can ask to only hire male models.

Edited by HeyMikey on Aug 1st 2024 at 5:10:10 AM

AegisP Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man
#37554: Aug 1st 2024 at 5:21:41 PM

Has anyone mentioned the new Shogun miniseries? Much more accurate and respectful than the 80's one.

As long as this flower is in my heart. My Strength will flow without end.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#37555: Aug 1st 2024 at 5:39:54 PM

[up][up],[up] Casting directors are allowed to hire based on appearance and physical characteristics, as those are not protected categories. Title IX specifically forbids hiring decisions made on the basis of race. The only exception is in the case of a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification”, but existing legal precedent would indicate that race would not be considered one of those in a casting situation.

This is why you typically see casting calls describe roles with language like “fair-skinned” and other physical descriptors so as to not run afoul of Title IX. To use the MLK example, the required characteristic for an actor playing MLK is not that they’re African-American but that they look like MLK.

To combat this, I would perhaps Race Lift some of the other characters in the film, though naturally this wouldn't work for every film (say a historical drama aiming for accuracy, or a work where the race of characters is important, I don't know if either of those is true for The Beguiled), and/or do colour blind casting.

Coppolas reasoning for not doing this was that she wanted to explore specific themes regarding denial, agency, and female desire, a central part of which is the the main characters suddenly having to fend for themselves and do things they previously relied on men or slaves for. Given this, she felt that race lifted casting would be insensitive at best, or require nuance beyond the scope of the movie’s narrative. Make what you will of that, though it’s clear at the very least that she considered these decisions carefully.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 1st 2024 at 5:56:19 AM

They should have sent a poet.
HeyMikey Since: Jul, 2015
#37556: Aug 1st 2024 at 6:41:12 PM

Depends what physical characteristics, because color is a protected class, based on appearance, but obviously you can discriminate in casting calls based on that. Actually the original BFOQ allowances in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was specifically sex, religion, and national origin. But Hollywood gets around that regularly because casting directors and production executives have exceedingly large leeway on who they get to choose in order to meet an "artistic vision" usually under First Amendment grounds.

An example of that was during the casting call of Hamilton, where the initial casting call was for nonwhite cast. This lead to some backlash and potential legal issue, based on how BFOQ couldn't be applied to race or color. They got around that by saying everyone is free to audition. But also made it publicly known that the casting director was specifically looking for nonwhite to fulfill every role (except King George). Apparently that's allowable because 1st Amendment grounds allows artistic visions.

And you could also include things that are proxy for race. If you have a list of physical features that heavily correlates to an African American, it's de facto a casting call for an African American. Or if you use national origin, like how a lot of Disney animation usually have the voice actors in recent years for ethnic roles match their characters.

And really, for most physical characteristics, limiting it to certain looks is effectively de facto discrimination by race. If I have as a casting call "Looks like Martin Luthor King Jr.", that's pretty much de facto excluding anyone whose not Black. Maybe perhaps you'll get that completely Caucasian descent person with dark skin to look like MLK, but that's not likely. If I have as casting call "Looks like a standard Superman rendition" that de facto excludes most non-white people. And Hollywood could exacerbate that just by saying "we only want to create white looking roles, because that's what sells", which is de facto discrimination based on race.

Really the loopholes for race based hiring in these cases are generously wide.

Edited by HeyMikey on Aug 1st 2024 at 6:43:23 AM

AegisP Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man
#37557: Aug 1st 2024 at 6:52:01 PM

I think Archon didnt mean to point that at me?

Also, something Shogun did that I think is very correct is just subtitle a foreign language. I think not translating really bothers me unless there is a deliberate plot reason not to, as in to protect a twist or even have it blatantly said but its a Bilingual Bonus.

As long as this flower is in my heart. My Strength will flow without end.
archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#37558: Aug 1st 2024 at 8:50:10 PM

[up][up] Hence the “on paper” part in my original post. In practice, Hollywood has been given a lot of leeway with the law in regards to casting. My mention of this was meant to highlight the issues with the dogmatic approach to casting this thread seemed to be advocating for.

They should have sent a poet.
HeyMikey Since: Jul, 2015
#37559: Aug 1st 2024 at 9:27:54 PM

The fact that it's so easily and openly flaunted, its legality or lack thereof is really irrelevant that it wasn't worth mentioning.

But the issue is that the current setting's scales are so tipped against minority representation in media that requesting at least these roles be filled by their canonical representative minority is our best wedge against the cultural zeitgeist, because it's one of so few arguments that usually emotionally resonates with the average person.

Like when Idris Elba was being floated as a potential James Bond, the common retort is "James has always been white, why change it?" But when we have various minority characters get changed, it's regularly "They're more marketable", "They're the best one for the job", "The job of an actor is to play something they're not", "We have to appease our base audience", "We have to appease foreign markets for greater income". These are BS excuses, so unless they're willing to do more Race Lifting of much bigger roles (like say a black Superman), saying why can't the Romani character be played by a Romani actor is tossing their logic back at them in a way more understandable to the average person.

Under an ideal world, this wouldn't matter. Anyone could play anything. Everyone would respect everyone else's color, creed and race. But this is not an ideal situation, so many of us are advocating for various imperfect solutions that better uplifts the marginalized voices to a more equitable state.

Edited by HeyMikey on Aug 1st 2024 at 9:34:16 AM

J79 Since: Jan, 2015
#37560: Aug 4th 2024 at 12:50:39 PM

Was just wondering. There have been blind villains in fiction before, but have there ever been deaf villains? Just wondering how their lack of hearing affects them as a villain.

MovieNut14 from the U.S. of A (Don’t ask) Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#37561: Aug 4th 2024 at 1:05:16 PM

Hm, that's a good question actually.

[one quick search later...]

There's Mr. Wrench from Fargo: Season One (added points for being played by a deaf actor) but he's more of an Anti-Villain.

"We are all so afraid, we are all so alone, we all so need from the outside the assurance of our own worthiness to exist."
Logaritmus Since: Dec, 2022
#37562: Aug 4th 2024 at 2:28:16 PM

Ed Mc Bain's novel series 87th Precinct has repeted villian the Deaf Man. It is Moriarty-like character (uncommon for police procedural series like this), he always wear hearing aid, use more or less sofisticate puns and language translations of "Deaf Man" as his false names. But it is really theatrical, and some main characters think, that it is only act, which would just throw them. We dont know, if it is true or not, becouse he is never catched and we dont know much about this character out of borders of his actual plan.

archonspeaks Since: Jun, 2013
#37563: Aug 4th 2024 at 5:23:01 PM

But the issue is that the current setting's scales are so tipped against minority representation in media that requesting at least these roles be filled by their canonical representative minority is our best wedge against the cultural zeitgeist, because it's one of so few arguments that usually emotionally resonates with the average person.

Does it emotionally resonate with the average person? Very few people have anywhere near the level of investment in any media that would cause them to feel strongly about adherence to canon, and fully half of Americans still believe there’s “too much” diversity in movies and TV. Pushing the most ideologically fraught version of your position to appeal to the group of people that are both invested in canon purity and on the fence about diversity seems absurd. It’s a position you have to tie yourself in knots to defend, and one that neither the opposite team or your own agree with. You’re not wrong to call it a wedge position, it’s just a wedge that I feel ultimately works against the cause of representation.

They should have sent a poet.
AegisP Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man
#37564: Aug 4th 2024 at 5:30:07 PM

[up] Not sympathy for canon casting,sympathy for The minorities that didnt have a chance to represent themselves.

As long as this flower is in my heart. My Strength will flow without end.
windleopard from Nigeria Since: Nov, 2014 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
#37565: Aug 4th 2024 at 10:17:00 PM

Was just wondering. There have been blind villains in fiction before, but have there ever been deaf villains? Just wondering how their lack of hearing affects them as a villain.

Digital Fortress by Dan Brown has Hulohot, a deaf assassin tasked with killing one of the main protagonists. He is depicted as a Consummate Professional and his deafness doesn't impede him much.

Another example is Theo Dimas from Only Murders in the Building. He is involved in his father's smuggling business and is the accidental killer of one of the main trio's friends. He is also played by a real life deaf actor.

Edited by windleopard on Aug 4th 2024 at 6:17:39 PM

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#37566: Aug 7th 2024 at 8:49:35 AM

Two random things of interest. Both sort of Shakespeare-adjacent.

First, I meant to bring up the tv adaptation of Shardlake as an example of Disabled Character, Disabled Actor. Shardlake, a hunchbacked lawyer in Tudor England is played by Arthur Hughes, who was the first disabled actor to play Richard III (or something like that), and basically has the disabilities that Shakespeare attributed to Richard. Incidentally, while I'm sure that at some point in the books there was a mention of Richard/Shardlake's common disability (although I don't remember), the show makes the link much more obvious, giving Shardlake asides to the camera.

Also, I've become kind of interested in Kiss Me, Kate, and at one point (to justify flirting with a much younger woman), Fred uses a version of a once popular catchphrase, "Free, White, and 21." I would say it's at least somewhat ironic in the original. However, I came across a recent production of the play from Rockaway Theatre Company where Fred is played by a Black actor. And I found the line very funny in that context (he naturally omits the reference to being White).

But I do want to call attention to the fact that it used to be a popular catchphrase to say that you were White and could do anything you want.

Mrph1 he/him from Mercia (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: This is not my beautiful wife!
he/him
#37567: Aug 7th 2024 at 9:04:35 AM

[up] I was going to mention Shardlake, especially as the release coincided with Shakespeare's Globe casting a non-disabled woman, Michelle Terry, as Richard III, which attracted some controversy.

Not least because Terry effectively cast herself - she's the Globe's artistic director. The furore died down, Terry pointed out that her contract meant that she was supposed to play in some of the productions, not just direct, and it got good reviews

But she also plays Richard as non-disabled character, from what I can tell. Which untangles the Evil Cripple trope, but also reduces the representation.

Russell T Davies recently did something similar for Doctor Who's villain Davros, showing him in a younger non-disabled portrayal without his Dalek-themed powerchair.

It's complicated. As with anything else, I'd hope there are enough disabled characters in the fiction that one or two villains are just representation - they're villains with disabilities, but not villains because of disabilities - but things like Shardlake also emphasise that we're not there yet.

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#37568: Aug 7th 2024 at 9:13:39 AM

Cool. Great minds think alike I guess.

I will say though that while I liked the Shardlake show, I did think that because of the combination of Colorblind Casting and being a Compressed Adaptation, they didn't do as good of a job of adapting the books' inclusion of other minority groups. Like Shardlake's assistant Barak is Jewish, and this isn't touched on.

Also, while both characters still appear in the show, the first book has more emphasis on Shardlake's racism towards a Moorish character, Guy (who becomes one of his closest friends) and homophobia towards a gay character. In both cases connected to Shardlake's initial militant anti-Catholicism (since both of the other characters are monks).

Might be for the best that some of these things weren't included, because I think that Shardlake and Barak both have a bit of Adaptational Villainy in the tv series.

Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 7th 2024 at 9:15:29 AM

king15 Have Faun Since: Mar, 2024
Have Faun
#37569: Aug 7th 2024 at 9:31:58 AM

[up][up]I get RTD's reasons for making Davros no longer in a wheelchair, but I personally disagree (though I myself aren't disabled, so don't want to speak for anyone). The reality isn't that disabled people, gay people, black people etc. are incapable of being 'evil' or villainous (I'm not saying RTD thinks this), just that they aren't any more likely to be 'evil' then anyone else. When the show itself also has a heroic wheelchair-bound character the same season (who's portrayed as competent and good, and while not a main character, is recurring and has a fair amount of scenes), I don't see an issue with having a villainous wheelchair user, especially when it's a character who already uses a wheelchair.

"As with anything else, I'd hope there are enough disabled characters in the fiction that one or two villains are just representation - they're villains with disabilities, but not villains because of disabilities"

This is exactly how it should be. I get the issues when the aren't many positive portrayals of disabled characters (who aren't just there to be pitied), but I don't think it applied in the case of Doctor Who since a positive portrayal of a disabled person was also included the same season.

[down]That is a good point, and to be honest, until I heard RDJ's reasoning, that was just what I assumed. I disagree with his reasoning, but don't necessarily have an issue with the choice itself since it would make sense for it to be him pre-needing a wheelchair.

Edited by king15 on Aug 7th 2024 at 5:24:12 PM

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#37570: Aug 7th 2024 at 9:53:53 AM

It's probably also worth noting that this particular appearance of Davros is much younger than any other appearance he's had.

Him being fully able-bodied when developing the earliest stages of the Daleks kinda hammers in that him being in a wheelchair has nothing to do with him being evil, he was evil before that happened.

CalicoCaitSith Part Time Magical Girl Since: Jun, 2022 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
Part Time Magical Girl
#37571: Aug 7th 2024 at 11:04:27 AM

The idea that you can't have a villain who's part of a minority group is ridiculous imo, and frankly pretty dehumanising in itself. Yeah, it's a problem if they're the only character representing that group, or if their villainy is tied to their minority status. But if you also have sympathetic queer/disabled/POC/etc characters, it's just portraying marginalised people as, well, people.

Avoiding marginalised villains entirely can easily lead to Positive Discrimination, which causes its own issues. It's like Marlon James said: "Representation doesn't just mean heroes. We need the villains as well."

Kindness is the most important thing in the world, and also the rarest.
CosmosAndChaos Peach from Brazil (Don’t ask) Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
Peach
#37572: Aug 7th 2024 at 11:11:09 AM

Well, yeah. I'm 100% fine with LGBT+ villains, as long as their villainy is not linked to their LGBT+ identity, and the work also has positive LGBT+ characters.

"Oh, did I win?"
AegisP Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
Kindhearted SSSSSNAKE Man
#37573: Aug 7th 2024 at 11:42:39 AM

[up][up] One good thing you can do is have a black actor play a villain, but have that character be an anthro character like in...Ugh, Glitter Force. The decision to cast black actors in the dub is very welcome by me. I just wish for everyone to return for an uncut redub, everyone did such a great job.

As long as this flower is in my heart. My Strength will flow without end.
Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015
#37574: Aug 7th 2024 at 11:43:18 AM

I realize this is in the direction of Positive Discrimination, but I'm personally most comfortable with "minority" villains when the minority identity is framed as a positive/redeeming quality. Or at the very least, the way they are evil doesn't fall into negative stereotypes about that minority group.

So as mentioned, having a villain who is gay having positively-presented romantic relationships. Or at least not being a Depraved Homosexual. Since I'm watching it right now, I was also thinking of how Batman: Caped Crusader gives a Race Lift to Arnold Flass, a violent and corrupt police officer, and makes him Black. There's no hint of Angry Black Man or related stereotypes though, since Flass is presented as soft-spoken and calculating.

dragonfire5000 from Where gods fear to tread Since: Jan, 2001
#37575: Aug 7th 2024 at 11:50:30 AM

It's something you have to handle a bit more carefully compared to non-minority characters, because minority groups are currently NOT on equal footing when it comes to representation in media. This means that problematic representations of minority groups will stand out more, especially if the character in question is a villain.

I'm reminded of Haven (2020), which caught a bit of controversy due to (putting in spoilers just in case) an LGBT+ couple trying to make the heterosexual protagonists "conform" and accept the romantic partners they've been assigned in a way that invokes parents of LGBT children trying to make their children conform to heteronormativity.

People who didn't like that particular bit pointed out that using a minority group in that particular antagonistic role carries a bit more unspoken baggage than if a non-minority group was used. I'm pretty sure the intent of the devs was just to show that the faults of the society the protagonists come from and that they didn't have any ill intent regarding that minority group, but it did come across as pretty iffy.

Thankfully, the devs did address the issue and take steps to improve it.

"I squirm, I struggle, ergo I am. Faced with death, I am finally, truly alive."

Total posts: 38,927
Top