Bloodless Coup

Yeah - I think there's a bit of pushiness, offensiveness and presumptuousness associated with that "what are you?" question.

Given that, maybe it's not a shock that I don't see this as a big deal. I mean she's supposed to be ACTING a part. And if you applied this logic in every instance it strikes me that the roles available to non-white actresses would be highly limited. Or more so than they should be - I mean wouldn't this mean that, for instance, Jennifer Beals or Halle Berry couldn't play a white woman or a historical figure not recognized as black?

With the first, I'd say it is at least that.

On the second, I don't think it's quite that easy. I almost wrote something about the actor disappearing in the role and all that. However, traditionally, and even recently, there is a dearth of leading non-white roles. And especially w/r/t women of color, there is much criticism that even the "good" roles place them only as victims, or acting out classic racial scripts (scripts not in the movie sense, but the cultural sense).

I guess what I'm saying is that having an actor of color taking a role that was originally a white person IRL contravenes the norm. Having a person's color IRL not make it to the screen is the norm.

And again, I don't want to presume anything about the way Marianne Pearl identifies. It is not like we are talking about filming the bio of Sojourner Truth, in which racial identity (self- and assigned-) is central.

To be honest, I would probably be less weirded out if they had just gone with the white women in the role. There are objections to that, but at least there I can see the argument about actor losing self in role etc. Really, I think it's the makeup.

That's interesting - that the color of make-up has that effect - as opposed to say aging women or not aging them, or adding pounds and padding and whatnot. Or I guess I'm being presumptuous there too - would those things also affect you?

And I guess another part of all this is what effect does the fact that she's biracial have? Should it be a biracial actress? Or if it's make-up does it have to be a woman of color with the right skin color and not a darker one?

I get the arguments about there being a dearth of roles for non-white actresses - but I don't think this is the proper venue for that fight. That's a much, much bigger problem - considerably greater than one role in one film that's not likely to make much of a mark at the box office.

And I still think it's hugely problematic to say that only people of a certain race can play any role. I mean I'd love to see Angela Bassett play Lady MacBeth or Medea in a movie. But then of course from there we could get into a discussion of how women over 40 lack good roles, regardless of their race.

I agree with your last statement, and think that it basically agrees with my last comment about the norm versus violations of the norm.

As for the makeup, I think it belies the notion that the race of the actor is unimportant. If the physical characteristic is unimportant, then why do it, especially given the problematic (to say the least) history of white actors using dark makeup? Do I think Jolie intends an offensive "blackface" performance? No. But I keep coming back to the question "if her race isn't something essential, then why the makeup" which leads me to "if the representation of race is that essential, why not support/hire diverse actors?" In this case, the answer is probably to neither question, but more like "Pitt cast his partner" (since it was rumored to be Aniston's role before the divorce, and then went to Jolie).

As to your aging point, I think a counterexample would be Iris with Judi Dench and Kate Winslet.

And, I'd love to see Angela Basset in anything, pretty much.

based on the picture, the idea of aniston in the role is utterly laughable. while acknowledging pretty much all of the issues above identified about hollywood casting writ large, i'm with armand that these issues are much bigger than any one role. part of conjuring a real person as an actor is verisimilitude. some people inhabit roles brilliantly without the strong assistance of cosmetic work to augment the resemblance (think hopkins in nixon -- not that there weren't cosmetics involved, but that there was obviously no effort to go overboard in matching actor to historic personage inch by inch, and the brilliance of the performance lay in hopkins ability to mimic the body language and gestures of nixon to a T), while other equally laudable performances rely in part on a close resemblance (kilmer as morrison). honestly, as these things go, the resemblance between jolie and pearl is striking in the photos, and moreso inasmuch as a) jolie is a pretty singular-looking woman and b) her skin naturally is dark enough that i'd never have recognized she was wearing make-up if no one had told me. she probably could have accomplished nearly as much color on a tanning bed.

if pearl blesses the portrayal, such the better -- i think this is a tempest in a teapot. and as much as i want to hate jolie, every now and then she comes up with an excellent performance. she's got better chops than a lot of women in hollywood; unfortunately, she's become too much of a public figure, and the brunt of too many jokes, to entirely escape her own outsized public image.

A striking resemblance? I don't think they look anything alike. An actress that really looks like Pearl would be someone like maybe Beals, or Tamara Tunie.

Again, I think the main point I was trying to make is getting buried by the defensive position. I believe in the transcendence of the actor in a role. But if that's the case, why the dark makeup? If Jolie is so good (and I think she is) does she need it? Why emphasize race, in possibly one of the most crass ways possible (read the Harvard quip), if it's not the point?

and when hopkins played nixon, why wear a suit at all? if he's such a good actor, let him play it in lumberjack plaid and denim. and period-correct cars, why bother -- it's how people drive that matter. lars von trier or the like might be with you, and perhaps to good effect, but i think we're making a lot out of aesthetic choices here. there are all sorts of experimental ways to portray things, but that doesn't mean good old verisimilitude is part of a nefarious agenda.

as for the resemblance, no, they're not identical, but as far as (almost inevitably beautiful by someone's estimation) actors playing (often plain or unattractive) real people goes, the resemblance, in my view, is pretty good. and that's a matter of opinion based on two photos; shouting me down won't change it.

no one made christiane bale starve himself for the machinist, or theron gain wait for monster. but that they chose to do so didn't bespeak a pro-anorexic or pro-obesity or pro-whatever bias of theirs or of their producers. it was an artistic choice. some choices are better than others, and while some reflect a political agenda far more, especially in hollywood, reflect a marketing agenda. the two are not mutually exclusive, but lots of people would shoehorn jolie into their movie just to ensure x amount of ticket sales, not as some sort of latter day minstrelsy.

furthermore, given pearl's clearly mixed parentage, i can't get worked up over the failure to cast someone with precisely the right racial composition to play the role. furthermore, as noted somewhere above, the idea that the role must go to a woman of color suggests the anachronistic view that "a little black" is like "a little pregnant," a proposition every bit as dubious as any other we're discussing or insinuating here.

isn't it possible that the filmmakers, imbued with the knowledge of the actual woman's personality, mannerisms, etc., to an extent none of us can claim, concluded that jolie nailed the role? you'll say (you have been saying)that, okay, fine, but if they were so confident in that fact the only way to show that confidence is to cast her to play a mixed-race woman in ashen white skin. hell, you might even be right about that, but it's their call, since it's their money, time, and reputations.

really, on this one, i just don't see it.

Really? Just this one?

Or just the other ones where you're so eager to defend the status quo that you can't focus enough to read the discussion for the actual issue (which is why did they have to put Jolie in what some critics are calling "blackface"?)

i see the issue. i just find simply calling it blackface to be question-begging, and i haven't been persuaded by the defenses of the cursory allegation forwarded by you or at the links. is it blackface just because she wears make-up that darkens her skin? what, then, of montel williams (whose real skin no camera has ever seen) or good old gerry rivers (who's no more Latin, in any material way, than joan rivers). whiteface. brownface. whatever. just saying it doesn't make it so, and just invoking the injudicious use of cosmetics isn't enoug, at least for me, to invoke jolson.

"so eager to defend the status quo that you can't focus enough to read the discussion for the actual issue"

ad hominem is beneath you. but to dignify this anyway, there's a big gap between conspiracy-theory level the-EVERYTHING-is-political(-enough-to-support-a-monograph) theorizing and "eager" defenses of the status quo ante.

You see the issue. But evidently not what I wrote about it, or the ambivalence stressed on what-is-going-on, or ever the title. Right. Got it.

so you're going to stand by the "status quo" apologist slur without qualification, eh? i'm no radical, at least not on the issues that the more extreme race and gender theorists tend to focus upon (sometimes a pipe is just a pipe, not a phallus), and you and i disagree often, but i'm hardly Joe Six Pack on the Way Things Are, and that's nothing i should have to remind you of by now.

and before you go beating me over the head with the "defensive" baton again (a diversion you not infrequently resort to in lieu of answering (my) direct challenges to your premises or conclusions), i'm not talking about the shrug-worthy topic of this particular thread. the degree of generality you employed ("just the other ones"!?) and stood by when called on it concerns me far more than brad pitt's casting decisions.

if you're standing by it out of sincere belief (as opposed to sheer intransigence), at least pay me the courtesy of substantiating it (as generally as you stated it, not just as to this thread). and anyone else who thinks i'm a shill for the status quo, by all means, chime in. maybe i'm missing something, and this certainly falls under the category of Things I Hope My Friends Would Tell Me About, like, oh, my fly being unzipped at a state dinner or the like.

in all sincerity, binky, if i painted you with such a broad brush (something i have no inclination to do no matter how much we disagree), you'd be all over me.

Ststus quo is now a slur? So who is the one holding that paintbrush?

"Or just the other ones where you're so eager to defend the status quo that you can't focus enough . . . ."

Playing dumb doesn't become you. You know accusing me of broadly defending the status quo is a slur in light of my unabashed leftward leanings on all manner of issues, and to suggest otherwise is defied by your choice of words and your obvious tone. And even if it weren't a slur and an insult, your continued arms akimbo pithiness would be. I'm not painting you, or people who embrace the status quo, with any brush. I'm just calling you out for resorting to what you know to be an insult.

Can you point to one instance on this blog where you've admitted being materially wrong, rude, or just plain out of line? Just wondering, because I can't remember any, certainly not in any engagement with me (although of course it's possible that in something like two years I'm simply batting .000). I'm the first to admit I'm a know-it-all, but I also have been known, here, at MOP, and elsewhere, to apologize, qualify, and so on when pinned down on something I didn't really mean or can't support.

oh great. Time to play "holier than thou." Get your scorecards ready.

And going back to the post title, as a final word here are some words from those more engaged and qualified than I in the debate.

more pithiness. whatever.

Really you two, is it time to break out the foam bats? :)

Okay so I don't really want to revive this thread, and I'm loathe to ever suggest that the South Park crew has any political observations worth taking even remotely seriously.

That said, this incident does remind me of a bit of a South Park I watched recently - when a little brunette girl is attacked by a red-haried mob b/c she's playing the role of Annie, instead of one of the "Ginger Kids". I only bring it up b/c ... I thought it was funny.