Native Americans object to casting of Rooney Mara in “Peter Pan”

Well, duh!

Peter Pan is the creation of an English playwright with all kinds of fantasy characters in the story - pirates, fairies, a dog that is a nanny etc. etc.

It also has Indians - not native Americans but the kind of Indians that exist in children's stories.
If only native Americans can play the Indians, then who do you suppose should play the fairies? And the mermaids?
I do believe that Nana is usually played on stage by a human!!! Imagine that.

What ethnicity should Peter Pan be? Is he English because J M Barrie was English and should he only be played by an English boy?
Could he be a generic boy of no fixed ethnicity? We don't know anything about his parents so maybe he could be played by a Chinese lad, or perhaps an Australian because our men never grow up either.

I can see why there is a fuss about this but I don't think it has much validity.
Better to push for more parts for native American actors in all sorts of roles, not just ones where the ethnicity is specified.
 
Warrigal said:
Well, duh!

Peter Pan is the creation of an English playwright with all kinds of fantasy characters in the story - pirates, fairies, a dog that is a nanny etc. etc.

It also has Indians - not native Americans but the kind of Indians that exist in children's stories.
If only native Americans can play the Indians, then who do you suppose should play the fairies? And the mermaids?
I do believe that Nana is usually played on stage by a human!!! Imagine that.

What ethnicity should Peter Pan be? Is he English because J M Barrie was English and should he only be played by an English boy?
Could he be a generic boy of no fixed ethnicity? We don't know anything about his parents so maybe he could be played by a Chinese lad, or perhaps an Australian because our men never grow up either.

I can see why there is a fuss about this but I don't think it has much validity.
Better to push for more parts for native American actors in all sorts of roles, not just ones where the ethnicity is specified.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you. They need to choose their battles more wisely.
 
Isn't acting just make believe??? Yes, the majority has always discriminated against the minority and of course it's wrong. But, this is kind of just whining . . .

Say, didn't I just read lately that a man of color (choose your fav) has been cast as . . . oh, I forget . . . but some traditionally "white" role in a Shakespeare play?!?!? Big deal. It's time we got past caring one way or the other and just let actors take on any roll in which they can do a convincing job. Isn't that the point after all?
 
That Guy said:
Isn't acting just make believe??? Yes, the majority has always discriminated against the minority and of course it's wrong. But, this is kind of just whining . . .

Say, didn't I just read lately that a man of color (choose your fav) has been cast as . . . oh, I forget . . . but some traditionally "white" role in a Shakespeare play?!?!? Big deal. It's time we got past caring one way or the other and just let actors take on any roll in which they can do a convincing job. Isn't that the point after all?
Click to expand...

I take exception when they have actors of the race portrayed in the script and choose to use someone of another race. It's usually for the wrong reasons too. In the case of this story it doesn't necessarily apply because these are fantasy characters.

But for God's sake, use Native American actors to play native americans instead of Italians or other ethnic types as has been the case in past decades. We had a thread here recently and it was ludicrous when you looked at who they used to portray asians, native americans, etc. Insulting and idiotic.

Hepburn.jpg
 
True that a person of a particular race should play the roll of a specific character of that race. But, I still say that it's all make believe and acting. I really think it's ridiculous when people complain that a straight actor plays a gay character. It's pretend! Otherwise, an actual killer would be required to play the killer in a movie or play. And how the heck would we get monsters??? Thank God King Kong wasn't an actual gigantic gorilla. He certainly would have been difficult on set . . . !
 
NO, just don't agree with that reasoning. It's not just about makebelieve, it's in these instances about racial and ethnic discrimination in essence. Hollywood has been notorious in discriminating against actors from various ethnic and racial groups. Only in recent years have they been taken to task for it.
 
I see your point. Yes, as I said, the discrimination is disgusting. If there's a character of a certain ethnicity and an actor of that ethnicity qualified to play the part, of course they should be cast. In major productions, it shouldn't be too hard finding talent. Acting is still just acting . . .
 
That Guy said:
I see your point. Yes, as I said, the discrimination is disgusting. If there's a character of a certain ethnicity and an actor of that ethnicity qualified to play the part, of course they should be cast. In major productions, it shouldn't be too hard finding talent. Acting is still just acting . . .
Click to expand...

I never underestimate the power of cinema to influence society. Here are some examples:
Blood Diamond (2006)
Its a film that brought attention to the diamond-financed civil war in Sierra Leone. Just days before its release, the State Department became concerned that the film would have a negative effect on Africa’s legitimate diamond industry. While it is true that “blood diamonds” (diamonds that are mined in a war zone and used to finance war activities) only make up a small percentage of the supply, even that number can be significant. A chairman went on to say that, “the story is clear: blood diamonds are still being sold, and consumers cannot completely trust that these blood-soaked gems are being kept out of stores." The release of the film brought the issue of conflict diamonds to the forefront, but since then the effect of the film has been argued. Since 2002, the appearance of conflict diamonds in the market went from 4-15% to less than 1%. While this was caused by controls initiated by the diamond industry, the film still made an impact... making the existence of “blood diamonds” an issue in the general public.


orma Rae (1979)
No doubt, you have recently turned on the news and heard a bit about the chaos surrounding the unions in Wisconsin. The presence of unions has been an important part of culture within the United States for a long time. Whether you agree with the Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker or not, it's clear that the film Norma Raedramatically impacted the views of Americans in the late 1970's. Sally field won an Academy Award for her portrayal of Norma Rae; a Southern mill worker who becomes involved with labor union activities. Based on the true-life story of Crystal Lee Sutton, Norma Rae successfully orchestrates the unionization of the factory at which she works. The film caught the attention of the general public, causing a shift in sympathy towards the workers of the textile industry. The scene where Norma Rae writes “Union” on a piece of cardboard and waits for her colleagues to join her is now iconic within the union world. Not only was there an increase in unionization after the film’s release, but her legacy is still felt today. Google the current Wisconsin debacle and Norma Rae is sure to be referenced.


Schindler’s List (1993)
Few movies have touched the hearts of audiences like Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. Spielberg waited over 10 years to make the film, because he felt he was not ready to take on a project about the Holocaust at age 37. The film came out in December 1993, just three months after the Oslo Accords were signed. The film was (and still is) the most expensive black and white film ever made, and it paid off. The film earned over $321 million worldwide, but Spielberg made it known that he could not accept money for thisSchindler’s List. Instead, he gave the money back to Jewish communities throughout America. He established the Righteous Persons Foundation- an organization dedicated to building a “vibrant Jewish community in the United States." However, the film didn’t just affect Spielberg and his ties to Jewish people. The United States Holocaust Museum saw a huge jump in attendance after the film was released, proving that Schindler’s List caused audiences to reflect on the atrocities experienced during WWII. The film is not only responsible for creating a successful Jewish organization, but became an undeniable tool of education for awareness about the Holocaust.


Rambo (2008)
While it may not be your favorite Rambo movie, there is no doubt that Sylvester Stallone’sRambo drew attention to the ongoing problems in Burma. While filming the movie in Burma, Sly and his crew narrowly escaped an attack from the Burmese military. Stallone went on to say that after being attacked, he "witnessed survivors with legs cut off and all kinds of land-mine injuries maggot-infested wounds and ears cut off." The film has a Rambo record of 236 kills, and was panned in the United States for its excessive use of violence. However, the Burmese praised the film for its portrayal of the military’s oppression. Since the film brought such atrocities to world-wide attention, the Burmese government banned the movie. However, bootleg copies have circulated and created a “boost of morale." According to the Karen Freedom Fighters, they have even adopted a line from the movie, “Live for nothing, die for something,” as a new battle cry. Stallone has said that the attention brought to the Burmese and the reaction from Freedom Fighters has been one of his “proudest moments” he’s ever had in film.


Syriana (2005)
Stephen Gaghan’s Syriana elicited a huge critical response, raising questions about politics and the Middle East. The film portrays the state of the oil industry, and those who are personally involved in it. After its release, audiences sent over 8,000 emails to Congress. Many of the emails called for the United States to reduce it’s dependence on foreign oil: a notion that brought together left-winged environmentalists and right-winged security conservatives! The film became a go-to point for activists who wanted to prove that oil dependence results in violence and poor economies in the Middle East. No matter what side you’re on, you can’t deny that Syrianainspired political action towards oil dependence.

Here are more; It's not just make believe.

http://thescriptlab.com/features/th...changed-the-social-landscape?showall=&start=6



 
Well, see now I still disagree on the make believe. If somebody wants to expose some truths, then make a documentary film. Anything else may make a point but miss the mark.
 
That Guy said:
Well, see now I still disagree on the make believe. If somebody wants to expose some truths, then make a documentary film. Anything else may make a point but miss the mark.
Click to expand...

Millions at the box office would disagree with you. And the truth is that film is so powerful that it's an excellent tool to reach the world.

Philomena is a good example I like of a film that is educating the world about the sort of abuses that occured in Ireland, as was The Wind That Shakes The Barley. Not everyone will sit through a documentary, but if you can entertain them and capture their imaginations you can get the truth out at the same time.


 
Okay, I give up. As for the box office, I could not care less on what sells. But, you are right that some movies can make a powerful statement. I still vote on a documentary, though.

Back to the subject at hand regarding racist casting. I think the big companies have no excuse and the smaller independents often find literally unknown actors who do a terrific job. Perhaps, on the small stage of the community theatre or school production it can still be difficult to cast "appropriately" and I can accept that.
 
That Guy said:
Okay, I give up. As for the box office, I could not care less on what sells. But, you are right that some movies can make a powerful statement. I still vote on a documentary, though.

Back to the subject at hand regarding racist casting. I think the big companies have no excuse and the smaller independents often find literally unknown actors who do a terrific job. Perhaps, on the small stage of the community theatre or school production it can still be difficult to cast "appropriately" and I can accept that.
Click to expand...

chickenthinktank.jpg
chickenoriginal(1).jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top