Originally posted by MrTalented: I don't care what Michael did to NOT appear black. The facts are that he was black. Period. So let's not pretend that he wasn't by making asinine statements like that.
.
Of course you don't care. You're not alone. But you're totally in denial. And this very attitude is what is blinding many of his fans and supporters. This "black man" did not want to be black. Period. Biologically, hell yeah, he was black, but he spent millions of dollars in doing everything to not LOOK black and be perceived as Black.
Check out this article that touches on this very damn topic!
Originally posted by seanflynn: You are making me far less sympathetic to your argument with each post, Mr. Talented. You are conflating art with affirmative action, which is very dangerous.
Cate Blanchett (a woman) played Bob Dylan (a man) in I'm Not There. If Todd Haynes were to make a movie on Michael Jackson, and cast Johnny Depp (or maybe make a movie with several people playing him at different stages of his life), I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The problem with saying only black actors can play black characters - which of course is based on the unfortunate lack of roles for these actors - can lead to bad things, like assuming that black actors can't play anything BUT (on paper) black characters. It's part of the same problem.
I stand by my point, while understanding in part what you are saying. But by being completely offender and unwilling to understand that art can transcend race, sorry, you've lost me.
You've lost me by being unwilling to understand that art doesn't transcend everything.
And your Cate Blanchett/Bob Dylan point really doesn't convince me any further. Blanchett did an excellent job, but I didn't agree with that casting decision either. There were men who could have played Bob Dylan well too.
I always thought that one of the reasons why Blanchett's performance in that film was lauded so heavily was because she was a woman.
You also don't see the MAJOR difference between Blanchett playing Dylan and Depp playing Jackson. Dylan's gender wasn't as important to what his life meant as much as Jackson's race was important to his. Jackson's being black was a major part of his life. Him not wanting to be black was also a major part. His race is of more importance to his story than Dylan's gender would be to his.
So the comparison isn't nearly the same. It only appears so on the surface.
I don't want you to feel sympathetic based on my argument, seanflynn, and neither do I care. I'm simply expressing my opinion the same way you expressed yours.
I get it. Art is great. And I do think that it transcends race in some cases. I just don't think that this is one of those cases.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MrTalented,
Originally posted by MrTalented: I don't care what Michael did to NOT appear black. The facts are that he was black. Period. So let's not pretend that he wasn't by making asinine statements like that.
.
Of course you don't care. You're not alone. But you're totally in denial. And this very attitude is what is blinding many of his fans and supporters. This "black man" did not want to be black. Period. Biologically, hell yeah, he was black, but he spent millions of dollars in doing everything to not LOOK black and be perceived as Black.
Check out this article that touches on this very damn topic!
Originally posted by seanflynn: You are making me far less sympathetic to your argument with each post, Mr. Talented. You are conflating art with affirmative action, which is very dangerous.
Cate Blanchett (a woman) played Bob Dylan (a man) in I'm Not There. If Todd Haynes were to make a movie on Michael Jackson, and cast Johnny Depp (or maybe make a movie with several people playing him at different stages of his life), I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The problem with saying only black actors can play black characters - which of course is based on the unfortunate lack of roles for these actors - can lead to bad things, like assuming that black actors can't play anything BUT (on paper) black characters. It's part of the same problem.
I stand by my point, while understanding in part what you are saying. But by being completely offended, calling my case BS and being unwilling to understand that art can transcend race, sorry, you've lost me.
What you are saying is that no white man should ever play a black man on screen in a biofilm.
For obvious reasons in contemporary movies most of the time it wouldn't work (people wouldn't buy it, it would be too much like the offensive black-face days of past eras, and so on).
Clint Eastwood is Nelson Mandela's age and has a similar build. Of course he would be ridiculous playing Mandela. But Depp would not be similarly ridiculous as Jackson. And to say so categorically is to lose the reality of what in his later life Jackson became, how he mixed both gender and racial images (what the hell, maybe a woman should play him).
To say that in no case can a white actor play any black real life character, no exceptions, ever, even if it makes artistic and casting sense, sorry, that is extremely anti-artistic and anti-intellectual.
There will be bio-films on Barack Obama. He is half-black, half-white. In all likelihood, he will usually be played by black actors. But the man is half-white. Why couldn't he be played by a white actor just as easily?
I know how toxic racial arguments can be; at some level I do get your concerns. But I have a huge problems with the concept that in all cases, only members of one race or ethnic group can play roles in those groups. And Michael Jackson is one of those cases where I can see an exception being made.
Once again, your examples are getting ridiculous, seanflynn.
Just like Michael Jackson, Barack Obama's race is very important to his legacy. Yes, he's half-white, but should a white man portray Obama? No. Not unless he's half-black, half-white, just like Obama. But should a full-blooded white man, with no ounce of black blood in him play Barack Obama? No.
And really, anti-artistic? Anti-intellectual? Please.
Makeup and other technological advances have made it possible so that casting directors DON'T have to step outside someone's race to find an actor to portray them.
In this case, you're placing art above race, which I think is rather disrespectful to MJ's legacy. Like I said earlier, part of what made him such an icon was that he made positive strides for his race in the entertainment industry. To have Johnny Depp dress up and "pretend" to be a black man with those types of story elements is unrealistic.
By asserting Depp as Jackson, you also make it seem as if there aren't any men of color who could accurately portray him. That's the other problem I have with this whole discussion.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MrTalented,
Not going to change your mind, obviously, but I do think it hurts, not helps, the cause of black actors to make the statements you are making. Too many black actors have been disadvantaged because of exactly the same "don't think outside the box" thinking.
Michael Jackson could easily be played by Johnny Depp. I'm sure there are black actors obviously who could as well. But the attitude you are suggesting damages, not helps, the cause of black actors.
Was Sean Penn the wrong choice playing a gay icon like Harvey Milk because he's straight? Yes, it's "different", but not as much as you want to think.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Sean Penn playing Harvey Milk? Man, you're good, seanflynn. You're 3/3 for ridiculous examples to compare this to.
You wouldn't cast a black actor to portray a white person, so I don't see the problem with saying the same in this instance.
Also, I think it's easy for you to say that when you're not a black actor who's had to struggle in Hollywood for parts. It would be a slap in the face to give the role of playing perhaps the most influential black entertainer of all time to a white man.
That's my opinion and I stand by it. If you disagree (which you obviously do), then fine. But let's just move on. I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying for apparent reasons, but I'm just going to leave it at that.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MrTalented,
Unfortunately, I think I understand what you are saying far better than you understand what I am.
Michael Jackson is an exception to the normal rule that most of the time it is best for someone racially close to the character to play him in a biofilm. He is the perfect example of someone who could be portrayed by someone else.
Now, your points probably explain why it won't happen - not because there is anything artistically, morally, intellectually wrong with it, but because there'd be a firestorm of protest. But that firestorm is used a thousand times over by white producers as an excuse not to use blacks beyond certain roles. And as long as a rare, appropriate case is not accepted as an exception, the longer it will be for the racial barrier for blacks playing roles written for whites to be overcome.
And yes, I would, under unusual circumstances like Jackson, think of casting an appropriate black actor as a white real life famous character. I wouldn't have a problem for a minute.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
MrTalented, based on your comments in this thread, you have demonstrated perfectly to me how so many people (mostly blacks) refuse to accept an aspect of Michael Jackson that is indeed hard to swallow. I may have mentioned once before on these forums, but I'm black, and I find some of your comments offensive that a black man HAS to play Michael Jackson in a film one day because he was born black.
Michael loved, dated, and married white women, have white children (dyed his oldest boy's hair blonde), bleached his skin, um, white, all of this in an effort to live a life that most black men do not live.
To each their own, I'm light-skinned due to my Irish roots and damn proud, but you need to realize that a lot of people think like Sean and I when it comes to a potential artistic representation of Michael Jackson. In his latter years, he should be portrayed by someone with very, very pale skin, almond shaped eyes, a razor thin nose, and red lips. How many black actors can change their looks so radically for this role, even with CGI?
Maybe they could go the route of casting many actors to play the same character (like they did with the movie where Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, etc played Bob Dylan).
Anne Hathaway strangely would be a good choice for Michael Jackson, and I'm not writing that in a mocking way. Elijah Kelley (Seaweed in Hairspray) would be a good choice as well.
Originally posted by seanflynn: And as long as a rare, appropriate case is not accepted as an exception, the longer it will be for the racial barrier for blacks playing roles written for whites to be overcome.
While you make an excellent point here, seanflynn, the role of Michael Jackson wouldn't be a written role. He wasn't a fictional character.
GoBlue! you make some excellent points as well. However, I just don't think it's fair to Michael Jackson, or any of the talented black actors out there, that he should be portrayed by someone who isn't black.
Yes, his appearance changed drastically over the years. But that doesn't change the fact that he was born black and that his being black was a major part of why he's so iconic and why his life was so important.
I wasn't necessarily kidding altho I do like to lighten the air.
My point (and I don't intend disrespect) because I'm sensitive to the fact that Michael's father seems to perhaps been a monster figure to Michael's more sensitive persona. And Joe's doing himself no favors my shelling his videos or whatever it is at the moment.
But... Michael in some ways try to turn himself into the beautiful famous white older women he seemed drawn to, like Liz Taylor, Madonna and Jane Fonda. He seemed to outright reject his black roots, even down to his white children... and people are surprised that these aren't his biological children?! He was clearly effeminate and likely gay, yet in his music videos, postured like a horny teen, and pretended to want the cute girl, in a way that was almost offensive, in his self loathing gay denying ways.
I mention Hathaway because she seems to have the fragile, sensitive lovely persona of Michael, but seems an all together tougher, more together creature. Her father is gay, and she is clearly pro gay. And she's a magnificant talent worthy of Michael.
Posts: 3903 | Location: Church | Registered: July 10, 2003
I'm trying to think of some real life white characters who could be played by black actors - in terms of physical looks (I apologize that these two were bad people; it has nothing to do with my point) both Benito Mussolini or Al Capone I think could conceivably be played by an appropriate black actor. I think Halle Berry could possibly play certain white performers (can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'd bet they're out there), or other well known women as well.
And the cause of black actors would be aided, not hurt, by the idea in a rare, very special case, a white actor portraying a well-known black person.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
GoBlue! you make some excellent points as well. However, I just don't think it's fair to Michael Jackson, or any of the talented black actors out there, that he should be portrayed by someone who isn't black.
Yes, his appearance changed drastically over the years. But that doesn't change the fact that he was born black and that his being black was a major part of why he's so iconic and why his life was so important.
Fair?
Michael Jackson blew "fair" up nearly 20 years ago when he deliberately changed his appearance to no longer reflect a person whom people would easily identify as a bonafide black person. And I'm going to go a step further, and possibly offend you, but it's not my intention to deliberately offend you Mr. Talent. But based on the lengths that Michael went to in order to not look black, I think if anything, he would be pleased that someone who was not black portraying him onscreen.
There, I said it. And that's only because you said that you think he would be offended if someone who weren't black did not portray him.
And to get out of the supernatural relm of pontificating what Michael's spirit would approve or not approve of, I'm really flabbergasted that our thoughts on this subject is on the polar opposite. I do see where you're coming from, very much so, but I'm afraid you don't understand, or rather, refuse to understand what me and others are talking about.
In plain English: Michael was F'd up by his father and did everything possible to not look black like his father. Michael wanted to look non-black, and he succeeded to his own detriment. As ridiculous and psychotic as it seems, he was hell bent on erasing any ethnocentric qualities about his person in appearing like a normal looking black person.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: GoBlue!,
For the record, in any conventional Hollywood biopic, as well-done as is might be, I do have a hard time seeing Jackson up to the age of 25 or so being portrayed by anyone other than a black actor, and if he weren't at a later age, it would have to be directed with some who is going for something other than Walk the Line/What's Love Got to Do With It kind of films.
And if Tyler Perry can somehow be accepted as an old black woman, hasn't this barrier in some way been breached anyway? Yes, it is different, but it's artistic licence, and such a licence is not just available to one group of people.
Thought of a white woman Halle Berry could play - Eva (Evita) Peron. And it would have been interesting.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
