-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
‘Sweetness In The Belly’: First Clip Of Dakota Fanning As A White Ethiopian Muslim In Refugee Story
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
There is no recent trope of "X must direct X." There is a recent belief that in an industry with minority groups marginalized/underrepresented across the board, especially behind the camera and behind the pen, that it's probably in a studios best interest to give a movie about a specific gender, ethnic group, culture, religion, sexuality, etc - to individuals who identify as such for authenticity and representation purposes.
I think you're confusing an individual's self-given call to action to improve representation for their own people, like Jordan Peele for example, with people being forced into making movies about stories that they identify with.
You're also completely twisting the argument. The main problem is that people can only create what they can secure funding for or have greenlit, and there's a longstanding notion - not backed by anything tangible - that movies require a White and/or Western surrogate through which the audience can identify with. If that's the underlying belief that filmmakers have to navigate through when pitching movies, then you're going to have films skewed in favor of that belief because people have to ultimately work at the end of the day. It doesn't mean that it's true or right.
Then why add the ".....wait"
The title
Aka half of era
Sure, but the studios are doing this to look good, not because they actually care. I know several writer/producers who have pitched latino-oriented projects and basically had them taken away from them and given to inexperienced writers of Hispanic descent (who are several generations American and have barely any personal identity with any latin american country). It's not really making it more authentic, it's like the illusion of authenticity, and the studios like it because they can play that up.
To be clear, I'm all for greater representation, but I don't think the situation I just described should be happening at all. If you want to tell a story, you should be able to tell that story -- that's what filmmaking is all about.
I think what Jordan Peele is doing is awesome, and should be done way more. All I'm saying is that if we have a director from Ethiopia, he shouldn't be pigeonholed into only making movies about Ethiopia. I think it's wrong to assume he even wants to tell that story. He will do that to get noticed, and then try to move into bigger Hollywood movies. Almost everyone does, because they see Hollywood blockbusters and go "I want to be Spielberg" (or whoever). That's a dream for many people. And reaching for that is a positive. Look at Ava Duvernay as an example, yeah she did these smaller movies, finally got noticed, and now she's on the big blockbuster train and not looking back.
Like I said before, "Stranger in a Strange Land" is tried and true. The protagonist doesn't have to be white, but as long as the movies are being made in America, primarily for America, they are going to overwhelmingly be told from an American perspective.
What you're after is increasingly more found in international television productions (or co-productions). Netflix especially is a big proponent of it.
Of course, none of this has to do with the movie the topic is about.
Well of course they're going to cast a name actress in the lead. Raj from TBBT isn't going to cut it.
It's an Irish production though and was originally going to star Saoirse Ronan.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised by this, I mean, this shit has is practically a meme at this point for a reason. I just don't like it.
Hopefully it won't be as bad as The Impossible (also based on a true story!).
Of course the studios don't care, but why does the road towards diversity and how it's achieved ultimately matter? The under representation and mischaracterization of ethnic groups and genders are the result of institutionalized bigotry and inequality. It's pretty difficult to combat institutional inequality without going out of your way to inject institutional equality into those same groups. What you're describing is collateral damage from the industry pivoting towards where it should have been all along. There's only so much work in the industry, and I can stomach people losing out on work in an attempt to steer the industry towards equality, versus the alternative system in place since the beginning of time - which is people losing out work to maintain the status quo of specific demographics being able to continually reign supreme.
That's a naive vision of what filmmaking is all about though. Yes, you should be able to tell the stories you want to tell, but that's not obviously not the case. For every story of a non-X writer/producer having their project taken away from them and given to an inexperienced writer of X descent (this statement reeks of the type of anecdotes you hear in protest of Affirmative Action by the way), there's infinitely more of X writer / filmmaker pitching a story about X ethnicity, culture, religion, sexual orientation, etc - that never have the opportunity to become experienced because their stories and services are continually rejected for reasons.
You're combating my assumption with an assumption of your own. But alongside Jordan Peele, you mentioned another filmmaker in Ava Duvernay who has "made it" but continues to make movies about her people and culture.
A better question is why do we liken "making it" to abandoning movies representative of who you are? That's probably an appropriate definition in 2019, but do you think that's a phenomenon born out of want or is it a phenomenon built out of necessity and acceptance? Using people like Spielberg as an example, every director has project(s) that they look back, inward, and around them to craft - such as Schindler's List for Spielberg. And with that in mind, assuming the director of Sweetness in the Belly ever truly "makes it," what makes you think he wouldn't want to use his prominence and power to give agency and a voice to stories that are typically never told in film?
The notion that Western audiences desire a visually and culturally like surrogate through which to understand and enjoy the movie is not backed by reality though. It's a longstanding assumption that has been disproven over and over again. It's also a phenomenon that's almost always to the benefit of white characters.
The character Fanning is going to play is born to British parents in the book. She's not Moroccan by ethnicity, just where she was abandoned and raised in.
Not too excited by this....then again I don't think I would mind a movie/series about white people in South Africa or Zimbabwe. I guess it all depends on what the point of the series will be and whether the real focus will be the pretty white woman and how unfair the faceless multitudes of blacks in the background are......or perhaps a detailed look at a different culture, and a opportunity for black people of said cultures to explore this topic.
Not holding my breathe though.
Not holding my breathe though.
Putting this in my "never watching even for free" bin with tarantino and joker films. Sorry Dakota, nothing personal
Clearly Fanning won the role because she's a big star, but a caucasian Moroccan raised in Morocco would be closer to the character of a caucasian British girl raised in Morocco than a caucasian American raised in America.
Also, and I know this is a crazy idea but just hear me out, what if we make a movie about Muslims in Africa but not center it around white people?
but...but then only Muslims would watch it. you want to make a movie just for them?
i not understand thing.
It seems your real problem is with the source material. The book is literally about a white british person.
I have no problem with the source material, I mean, I haven't read it, but conceptually, there is obviously no issues with white people telling their lives stories.
I do however have a problem with how movies from the west repeatedly and persistently center stories that are not about white people around white people.
In isolation, you can justify those decisions, and if there were many stories being told about the plight of Muslims in Africa and one of them was about a white girl no one would bat an eye. But at the same time, if you're justifying every single movie that made like this, you end up justifying the bigger, structural issue.
The movies you're talking about already exist, they're just not made in Hollywood, Canada or whatever, because obviously western audience isn't really interested in a movie about the faith of an ethiopian woman in Ethiopia. It's like expecting Hollywood to make a french movie.
I think it's more like expecting Hollywood to make a black superhero movie, which they eventually did.
They were making the same relatability excuses for years as to why you can't have that. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.
"white saviour tropes" are generally misused by people in terms of criticism
a story that centers a white person in a foreign land is not necessary a "white saviour" story.
something like the Last Samurai has often been accused of that, but for those that have watched the movie, can tell you that Nathan Algren is not much of a "saviour" of anything, and that the title of the movie refers to Watanabe's character.
You can criticize centering whiteness in foreign land stories, but please stop misusing the white saviour card
a story that centers a white person in a foreign land is not necessary a "white saviour" story.
something like the Last Samurai has often been accused of that, but for those that have watched the movie, can tell you that Nathan Algren is not much of a "saviour" of anything, and that the title of the movie refers to Watanabe's character.
You can criticize centering whiteness in foreign land stories, but please stop misusing the white saviour card
Seeing responses of this thread about people not liking movies that center white characters in non-white lands
I wonder how this movie would be perceived if it came out today
I wonder how this movie would be perceived if it came out today
Seeing responses of this thread about people not liking movies that center white characters in non-white lands
I wonder how this movie would be perceived if it came out today
Odd film to choose as an example considering that T.E. Lawrence was an actual historical figure, and the film is based around his life. I personally have not watched the film, but unless there is problematic issues in regards to the depiction of Arabs in the film, why would a modern version cause issues (besides the whole UK helping cause much of the problems in the region, so I know that a film depicting part of the destabilization will not go down well in some communities)?
its based on a true story, and a historical figure but i wonder if it would still get criticized in today's climate
I'm pretty sure Alec Guinness in brown face would have not gone all that great with today's audience, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Lawrence of Arabia is one of my all time favorites, but I ain't gonna handwave problem it have.Seeing responses of this thread about people not liking movies that center white characters in non-white lands
I wonder how this movie would be perceived if it came out today
Also, that movie was first major Hollywood picture to have an Arab Muslim actor in a meaningful role and it fits the white savior trope only on a very very shallow reading of it, so I think the movie is doing pretty well on that front, and amazingly so for its time.
The sad part I could replace Anderson with like 3 other names and it would work 90%
brown face?
T.e Lawrence was a white british guy though, how is it brownface?
Yeah, but Alec Guinness played prince Faisal.
In makeup.
He wasn't the only actor in brown face in that film.
And again, I LOVE that film, and I'm still not sure what it has to do with the film this thread is about.
The movie is fucking awesome, this is like the one thing that isn't great about it. But even on that front, this is a movie from 1962, when red-facing native Americans in westerns was the norm. And this film gave Egyptian actor a major role, something that was pretty much unprecedented, and I think the story itself is great, and not really problematic even with 2019 presepctive, outside that fucking brown face.
And you know what, even there, I'm not defending brown facing, and I'm not defending whatever the fuck going on with Obi Wan's accent, but it's not meant to ridicule those characters or demean them.
It's just that white people thought it was okay to do that back then
I haven't read the book, but it seems like the story is about the character. Like, they didn't start with a story and then say "Now let's experience this story through the eyes of a white person". It seems like the character is the whole point of the thing.
The Impossible was also a story about the characters, but I still think it's gross for a movie about a tsunami that killed a quarter million Asians to make it about how one white family lost their luggage.
I'll reserve judgment until I see the movie, it is possible to make such stories work, but I don't think that the fact that it's based on a true story make it immune from criticism on that front.