One side being that sometimes casting solely for diversity's sake harms a film. I never got that sort of vibe from Okja. I felt each and every character, even the ones that didn't work that effectively for me, had a specific purpose, and the multi-diverse nationalities of its cast, especially the ALF, enhanced them. K, played by Steven Yeun, is a Korean-American techie and translator for the team. His inadequate command of the Korean language is used for gags and a crucial plot point, but like Song Kang-ho's character in Snowpiercer, I always felt it added to the film rather than feeling forced. The choice to have a South Korean lead who speaks two lines of English throughout the whole film, too, never feels forced.
In Spider-Man: Homecoming, we have diversity amongst the cast, to the point that some have cynically criticized it of doing so to pander to the current film debate climate. I'd agree if not for the fact that everyone, and I mean pretty much everyone, in the cast is pretty perfectly cast. We have Hawaiian-American Jacob Batalon as Peter's best friend Ned, an expy of Ned Leeds in name only, and what I liked about the character is that they used him for comic relief, but never in a mean-spirited way that say, funny but problematic films like The Hangover are guilty of. Glad to see that we've come a long way from Breakfast in Tiffany's: all the laughs are garnered from his chemistry with Tom Holland's Peter Parker, and earnest and endearing little quips he makes throughout.
There's a budding interracial romance at the film's centre, and I liked that it was never once raised as an issue, or something out of the ordinary: it's just a usual high school romantic subplot. The film's ostensible MJ is played by the decidedly not redheaded Zendaya, and Flash Thompson is a Hispanic, stocky individual who's more of a jerk than a jock bully. Though these made for substantial departures from the Spider-Man mythos as I know it, I frankly did not mind all that much. The way their characters were integrated into the film was enjoyable and made sense for the tone of the film.
In conclusion, I'm not someone who advocates that every film needs to have a specific racial quota: for example, if you're filming a British prestige picture set in the 19th Century, there's nothing fishy about a predominantly Caucasian and well, British cast. And sometimes, if you just place an ethnically diverse set of characters and make them little more than minor plot points (looking at you Suicide Squad and Kong: Skull Island, where the Japanese characters are used little more than to provide weaponary), that's not diversity, not is implementing offensive, tonally-deaf racial stereotype upon racial sterotype into your movies (looking at you, Michael Bay). But when a film can integrate diversity alongside well-cast ensemble, than that's always a good thing.
Completely agree, even though I haven't had a chance to see either of your two examples yet. If a part's ethnicity (and sometimes even gender) doesn't necessarily matter, what's the problem with doing race-blind (or gender-blind) casting?
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about it more, and gender-blind casting is perhaps a little too difficult for movies. There have been TV shows, however, that have experienced success with gender-blind casting, perhaps most notably Grey's Anatomy (at least here in the States). That being said there are certainly at least semi-valid criticisms of such practices. Take Grey's Anatomy, which is set in Seattle, WA. The show's first season/series had 9 main cast members: 5 White, 3 Black, and 1 Asian, with 4 women and 5 men. This gender parity is terrific (though Katherine Heigl's lack of talent is almost like not having anyone there at all), but while the racial diversity is high, it is not particularly close to the racial composition of the city of Seattle, or the larger Seattle metropolitan area, which is 66% White, 12% Asian, 9.5% Hispanic, and just 5.5% Black.
DeleteVery interesting! I've always known American shows have tended to have more diversity, and those statistics are pretty insightful. There's been work done, but still more to go.
DeleteThere's definitely a line where you can sometimes feel that the studios are getting certain actors cast of the sake of trying to seem diverse (same goes for illustrating sexual orientation in characters). As you've said, we've come a long way since way harsher times, but these roles (like any) need to have a proper writing behind them or the dishonesty of the casting decisions will be crystal clear, and there are many big barriers. Sadly, Hollywood probably still thinks of a black actor for a more "urban" type of character in many circles these days (I read something about it somewhere regarding the casting of Rachel Dawes for Batman, for instance), the same way it still would accept a cis actor playing a transexual role rather than looking for a trans actor, or it will cast English-speaking actors for foreign lead character roles, putting the star before the character.
ReplyDeleteYeah it's a tricky situation, you can't always blame studios for wanting more bankability. It's a process, slow but it's getting there!
DeleteAlso while Batalon is from Hawaii, he is not of the Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander US Census designation, but rather of Filipino descent.
ReplyDeleteNoted with thanks!
DeleteYou basically hit the nail right on the head when you said that casting based on race for only diversity's sake is somewhat problematic even if there were some good intentions.
ReplyDeleteHollywood has come a long way, partly due to the gender and race blind casting as of late. I personally feel that it's the perfect way to counteract the shameless whitewashing that happened before, and still does today to a certain extent.
The next logical step should be casting transgender actors to play transgender roles, which in the long run might accelerate their acceptance even more in the mainstream.