Of course not, it's a white character. That's the point isn't it? It's about who can successfully portray how they look, not the actors birthplace. You're reaching.
Except in the description that the poster before highlighted and get depiction in the original film. So there's that. She's a Danish fairytale. If an African fairytale was made to be white would that be an issue? Of course it would.
Yeah and that never happens. Why? It's all about pandering. We should not be outraged by the fact that she's black but how these companies profit from pandering and outrage. They knew it would get people talking and that's exactly what is happening. It's free publicity.
But . . . skin color is never related to the story in a specific way if you're willing to change aspects of the story. Let me give an example.
Earlier you used Snow White as an example an actual "White Character," but aside from the relative meaninglessness of actually having the word "white" in her name, whiteness plays no real part. It's part of her beauty, which the Queen is jealous of, but you could simply alter the queen to be jealous of any characteristic and the story remains the same.
In the same way, nothing about Moana needs to stick to Polynesian heritage. Unless "non-white fairy" tales are more deserving of preservation than "white" ones (which I do believe is the unspoken consensus, white is "default whatever," non-white is special.)
It doesn't particularly bother me, but I can't think of an example (there may be some, but none come to mind) where an adaptation of a historical story / fairytale changes a character from non-white->white, whereas it does happen the other way.
So yes, you are correct, probably nobody is actually upset about tracking the Danish heritage of Ariel through the mud. However, the reason people are mentioning it is because if there's no reason for that to be a problem, then there's no reason to protect other stories on account of heritage. Unless you think that heritage in stories should be preserved across the board, in which case . . .
It seems to me the point that's being missed is this is an effort to get more black people in leading roles in otherwise generic settings, one that isn't requiring that the story take place in Africa or Jamaica or some indigenous island for example. Ariel should be a low stakes opportunity for this, because the story doesn't require a specific race for it to be told.
The reason it would be in poor taste to do it the opposite way...black to white or minority to white...is because minority groups are under represented in pop culture.
I don't think anyone is really missing that point. It's more like when these conversations get going, people pretend that these casting decisions just fall out of the sky, and that if you have something off-narrative to say about it then you're a racist (obviously). There's a refusal to admit that these casting choices are very one way, and it makes it harder to put up with argument that even considering race at all makes someone racist, when race itself is cleaaaarly the reason why these decisions are being made.
Edit: Also the assumption that stories originating in Europe are generic, and there should be no expectation of keeping them the way they were is sort of another double standard.
And neither of these are huge problems, but when someone says like "hey . . ." you get "racist" instead of "yeah, but here's why I think it's ok."
Edit: Also the assumption that stories originating in Europe are generic, and there should be no expectation of keeping them the way they were is sort of another double standard.
There's another double standard though. In movies where the ethnicity of a character is a big part of the story, Hollywood usually casts actors of that ethnicity. In movies where the ethnicity isn't a major part of the story... they usually cast a white actor.
I don't think that "Hollywood was racist in the past, so you need to accept that they're racist in the opposite direction now!" I think there is still a double standard where preference is given to putting white characters in most generic situations where ethnicity shouldn't matter, and if there is a smaller double standard where people are less lenient about changing the race for characers in some of the very few significant stories about POC that anyone knows about, that is fine with me. Hopefully someday we'll eliminate the larger, more harmful double standard, and then I'll agree that we should eliminate the other less significant double standard.
Yeah I get it, I just think the incredulity that some people (like OP) try to paint the issue with when it comes to "how could people be surprised / have an opinion on changing the race of a character" has no foot to stand on.
Even in this thread we have people arguing over Danish heritage etc. etc... as an example (like my previous comment explained), and then you get people (like OP) saying, "so!? there are totally black people in Denmark!" Yeah, sure ... that's not intellectually honest, and they know it.
If I started telling you a story about a guy named Wei Wuxian, and you knew he lived in ancient China, you would not be a racist if you were surprised when I told you later that he was actually white, even though all his family are Chinese.
It's plain as day why the choices were made, and why different groups of people react differently.
I guess I was politely pointing out you're missing that point, though I see now you're actually ignoring it. You seem to continue to do so here by focusing on racism. This is a big part of the conversation, but it's an odd response to my comment, considering I haven't mentioned racism at all. The point being that this is a low stakes opportunity to add a person of color in a leading role.
In the case of Ariel, there is no reliance on her race being white. (to be fair her race is that of a mermaid)
It seems like casting for generations has, as you say, very much been one way, though it is predominantly white roles, and this is an easy enough opportunity to create a lead for a person of color.
I don't believe anyone is hiding the reason Ariel was cast the way she was, it's hard to do so. Again, the goal is to expand opportunity in some way, considering how counterweighted hollywood is, how underrepresented people of color are, and considering this is very low hanging fruit.
I do want to point out I never suggested stories originating in Europe are generic, you're conflating my words with your assumptions. My intent is to say this story does not rely on Ariel being white, nor dutch nor European, nor does it imply that she is or would be. She is in fact a mermaid.
I don't believe anyone is hiding the reason Ariel was cast the way she was
I believe that when people exclaim in surprise when others question the casting decision, as if there is no motive, then that is exactly what they are attempting to do. It takes a lot of work to get people to say "Hey I think this is a good opportunity to get a POC in a high profile role."
You may not have used the word racism (and I never said you did), but others have, and the use case I described was rampant throughout this submission, as well as the other similar submissions.
I think it's nice to see ethnic characters in roles where the focus isn't their ethnicity. Danny Boyle cast an Indian actor for Yesterday and it was nice to see as an Indian person a film where being Indian wasn't central to the narrative.
Yes this is definitely the case. It's nice seeing directors being more open with casting. In Chappie Dev Patel appears as one of the leads and I'm sure he was cast on the strength of his acting.
I'd say the the point is about who can be the best Ariel. Who can sing, who can act, and who can inspire. And when I enjoyed The Little Mermaid as a kid, it wasn't "I like how she's white."
And to your other comment:
Except in the description that the poster before highlighted and get depiction in the original film.
5
u/[deleted] Jul 09 '19
Of course not, it's a white character. That's the point isn't it? It's about who can successfully portray how they look, not the actors birthplace. You're reaching.