chiquita
Blueblood
Posts: 1,616
Nov 7, 2006 19:00:53 GMT -4
|
Post by chiquita on Jan 20, 2016 17:19:08 GMT -4
They had a piece by Kevin Frazier of Entertainment Tonight about this on CBS This Morning today, and at the end of it, Frazier pointed out that of the last however many movies Clooney's produced, none had big roles for black actors, which I thought was an impressive highlighting of hypocrisy. considering he's on ET. Granted, a lot of the movies Clooney's directed have been period pieces in which it would have been inaccurate to have African Americans in certain roles, but maybe he should broaden the types of films he chooses and become part of the solution. I watched Henry V on the BBC and they had a black actor playing the Duke of York with no explanations or apologies and it was fine. Even if you want to maintain historical accuracy and not, for example, have Don Cheadle play Edward R. Murrow, I think there are a lot of opportunities to cast non-white actors in roles where strict historical accuracy isn't so important. And Clooney has made movies that weren't historical that he could have cast black actors in... Colorblind casting in Shakespeare and other theater is standard practice these days (in Chicago, the Goodman Theater does A Christmas Carol every year, and the Cratchit clan is a veritable Benetton ad circa 1992). But if you're doing a movie about American servicemen in World War II, you can't have people of different races alongside each other and claim your film has historical accuracy, as US troops were segregated. Same thing with Leatherheads - sports teams were segregated. That was my point regarding the films he's directed. He certainly could have had a widely diverse cast for The Ides of March, and as a producer, he could choose to expand the films he does and insist on colorblind casting.
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Jan 20, 2016 17:39:30 GMT -4
But if you're doing a movie about American servicemen in World War II, you can't have people of different races alongside each other and claim your film has historical accuracy, as US troops were segregated. I have a family member who could have testify to this. The only way to play off colorblind casting in that case would be if the movie were deliberately portraying an alternate reality.
|
|
|
Post by Martini Girl on Jan 20, 2016 19:07:59 GMT -4
Obviously there is enough blame to go around. George was kind of in a no win situation. THR came to him, not the other way around. If he declined comment, I'm sure that would have made news too. And now in certain circles, he's getting slammed for never having made films w/ roles for minorities.
However, I do think people should be able to make the movies they are passionate about, as opposed to checking off boxes to make sure they're always politically correct. I know some of you will find this statement troublesome, and I welcome your opinions. I absolutely see value in A-list talent trying to be a part of the solution, but I don't think it should be totally incumbent on them to be responsible for changes. I mean, I hate Harvey Weinstein, but more often than not, I like the films TWC produces. I like high-brow British period pieces. I will see them on opening day, and more often than not, I think they're some of the best films of the year. But my dad would have rather stuck hot pokers in his eyes that watch any of those films.... We all have our preferences.
My point is, if that's HW's niche, I think he should be allowed to continue making those films. Just like Spike Lee and Tyler Perry make urban-oriented films that appeal to them. Then the question becomes: Where do you begin? Who holds the most responsibility for finding the solution? Another Greecie (Maybe Ginger?) talked about diversity VS quality. I think this component needs to be a big part of the conversation. It's not enough to check off boxes, Society needs to really get to the underlying root of the problem. But again, where do you start when there's so much money, and so many egos involved, and for a majority of the players, the system is working for them?
In the Hollywood Reporter article on Will Smith's page, I loved what Gregory Peck (As President of the Academy) did in the late 1960s. He booted off old-timers who hadn't made films in decades from voting for awards, but allowed them to keep the rest of their Academy membership benefits. I think if the playing field could be leveled somewhat and the majority of the Academy voting block weren't old white men, changes may be seen more quickly.
But at the end of the day, so much comes down to politics (who's friends w/ who; who's owed a favor), and personal taste when nominating films/performances. If I was voting this year, best picture would be Spotlight. There are no people of color in the film. If my votes go for that film, instead of Straight Out of Compton, Concussion or Creed, does that make me a bad person? No, I don't think so. If I'm an influential filmmaker and I have the opportunity to make Spotlight, and it's something that I'm passionate about, shouldn't I have that opportunity? Or do I pick something more diverse to help the cause, and not be a part of the problem? There's no easy answer to that question as far as I can tell.
I think the executive block needs to diversify, and stop being scared sh*tless if something doesn't do fantastic business straight out of the gate. I also think film schools need to try harder in attracting not only AA, but also Hispanics and Asian filmmakers. Those relationships need to be nurture. Agencies need to diversify. Most of the A-list managers and agents are also white men (or women).
I'm sure many actors/actresses are going to be asked this question in the coming weeks, and none of them will probably give us answers that we're entirely comfortable with. But I do find hope in at least starting to have a conversation (again) on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jan 20, 2016 20:32:13 GMT -4
George Clooney has been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood for close to 20 years. He's not just a powerful actor, he's a prolific producer and a director. And when you look at his imdb page, it's startling to see how many of his projects are all about white men and stuff white men do or have nobly done in the past. Like too many for me to even start listing here.
So has he used his power to do anything at all to help minorities participate in film? No. Nothing. (And he hasn't done anything for women other than create about one white lady role - usually the love interest - per film.) But he sure as hell has talked a lot about minorities as if he's one of the good guys on that score.
So yeah, he should get ripped to shreds since he's part of the problem smugly masquerading as part of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by Atreides on Jan 20, 2016 20:59:33 GMT -4
Agreed. When George is talking about how "we need to do better", he is part of that "we" in a big way. He's not some D-list reality TV celeb with no say in things; he is truly one of the most powerful and influential of the Hollywood elite and has a huge voice when it comes to creating roles and casting actors. Looking at his filmography, he really hasn't done much to promote diversity. Like Viola Davis said when she won her Emmy, you can't win the accolades when you don't even have the opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 1, 2024 13:32:47 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 8:04:26 GMT -4
He also made that infamous declaration (3:17) that Hollywood as a whole are the good guys. Kudos to the director for finding the black man in the audience and getting a shot of Jamie Foxx to represent diversity. BTW, I found this clip by searching for "George Clooney smug." Thanks South Park!
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Jan 21, 2016 11:05:17 GMT -4
George Clooney has been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood for close to 20 years. He's not just a powerful actor, he's a prolific producer and a director. And when you look at his imdb page, it's startling to see how many of his projects are all about white men and stuff white men do or have nobly done in the past. Like too many for me to even start listing here. So has he used his power to do anything at all to help minorities participate in film? No. Nothing. (And he hasn't done anything for women other than create about one white lady role - usually the love interest - per film.) But he sure as hell has talked a lot about minorities as if he's one of the good guys on that score. So yeah, he should get ripped to shreds since he's part of the problem smugly masquerading as part of the solution. Remember that movie about Dorothy Daindridge for which Halle Berry won that historical Emmy? I heard a number of black celebs (like Janet Jackson) had purchased rights to the story. They had been trying for years to get a movie made. When it finally happened (via Halle), it had to go to cable as opposed in the movie theaters. See, George? This is the kind of thing we're talking about. Halle and Janet are A-list and they still encountered obstacles in Hollywood. You know what I'd like to see? A movie about Pearl Bailey starring Queen Latifah. Let's help make it happen, George! ETA: mrspickles - I heard Zoe Saldana was going to play Nina Simone. However, some people weren't happy with that casting choice because Zoe doesn't look too much like her (i.e. Nina Simone was a dark-skinned black woman and Zoe isn't). It's supposed to be released...one day.
|
|
|
Post by mrspickles on Jan 21, 2016 11:24:12 GMT -4
George Clooney has been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood for close to 20 years. He's not just a powerful actor, he's a prolific producer and a director. And when you look at his imdb page, it's startling to see how many of his projects are all about white men and stuff white men do or have nobly done in the past. Like too many for me to even start listing here. So has he used his power to do anything at all to help minorities participate in film? No. Nothing. (And he hasn't done anything for women other than create about one white lady role - usually the love interest - per film.) But he sure as hell has talked a lot about minorities as if he's one of the good guys on that score. So yeah, he should get ripped to shreds since he's part of the problem smugly masquerading as part of the solution. Remember that movie about Dorothy Daindridge for which Halle Berry won that historical Emmy? I heard a number of black celebs (like Janet Jackson) had purchased rights to the story. They had been trying for years to get a movie made. When it finally happened (via Halle), it had to go to cable as opposed in the movie theaters. See, George? This is the kind of thing we're talking about. Halle and Janet are A-list and they still encountered obstacles in Hollywood. You know what I'd like to see? A movie about Pearl Bailey starring Queen Latifah. Let's help make it happen, George! That reminds me - whatever happened to the Nina Simone movie? I'd like to see that.
|
|
thneed
Landed Gentry
Posts: 816
Jun 19, 2006 0:42:40 GMT -4
|
Post by thneed on Jan 21, 2016 11:55:00 GMT -4
George Clooney has been one of the most powerful men in Hollywood for close to 20 years. He's not just a powerful actor, he's a prolific producer and a director. And when you look at his imdb page, it's startling to see how many of his projects are all about white men and stuff white men do or have nobly done in the past. Like too many for me to even start listing here. So has he used his power to do anything at all to help minorities participate in film? No. Nothing. (And he hasn't done anything for women other than create about one white lady role - usually the love interest - per film.) But he sure as hell has talked a lot about minorities as if he's one of the good guys on that score. So yeah, he should get ripped to shreds since he's part of the problem smugly masquerading as part of the solution. Remember that movie about Dorothy Daindridge for which Halle Berry won that historical Emmy? I heard a number of black celebs (like Janet Jackson) had purchased rights to the story. They had been trying for years to get a movie made. When it finally happened (via Halle), it had to go to cable as opposed in the movie theaters. See, George? This is the kind of thing we're talking about. Halle and Janet are A-list and they still encountered obstacles in Hollywood. You know what I'd like to see? A movie about Pearl Bailey starring Queen Latifah. Let's help make it happen, George! None of that solves the problem. A few biopics about black entertainers doesn't get at the fundamental issue. Hollywood does theatrically release those movies, like the Ray Charles one a few years ago or the James Brown one. Adding one or two more won't get at the real issue. The fact is Hollwood is going to make movies about its past. Those movies are going to be mostly white because Western history is mostly white, and since actor/producers generally want to write great parts for themselves, and you can't exactly do a WWII movie showing integrated units, they are going to be white. An example is "The Great Debaters" from 2007. That was a historical drama about black people. It was similar in tone to "Leatherheads" in that it's about underdogs triumphing back in the old days. And it was produced by Oprah. So that's the thing. The more black people with clout make their own version of "Leatherheads", the better off we all are. Depending on George Clooney to save black people is going about it the wrong way. What people don't seem to get it Hollywood sincerely believes it's trying. It sincerely believes the one or two biopics/movies about Civil Rights/Tyler Perry movies ut releases every year are them being conscious and telling black stories. And they can point to "Concussion" and "42" and "Get on Up" and say "See? What else do you want?" Because black people are giving them all the agency. Acting like this can only be solved if George Clooney saves them. If Will Smith HAD been nominated this year, or David Oyelowo last year, would the problem be solved? So why does this problem only get attention at Oscar time? And if Hollywood could make Jada shut up by having a token nomination they'll do that. And feel bitter and resentful and like they're sacrificing quality for diversity. And then we'll all be worse off.
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Jan 21, 2016 12:10:34 GMT -4
The other thing that has to be done is uncouple the association between "movie about black people" and "depressing lecture about racism". Because people feel they HAVE to see those movies but they don't think they'll be entertaining. That's Hollywood's problem, but it will only change with more, and more varied movies about black peoples getting made, running the prestige gamut from "Selma" to "Tyler Perry". I'd like to see this happen too - especially having (mainstream) movies made that happen to star black people, as opposed to it being a "black movie" - because having something perceived as a "black movie" may prompt a significant portion of the mainstream audience to ignore it (including those from the Academy).
|
|