|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 28, 2019 3:40:59 GMT
I haven't watched it but I want to talk about another Twitter polemic! Apparently a few Twitter users are angry at Greta Gerwig for not including POC on the film. Interesting but not surprising a good number of actual POC are on her side saying that well, the story it's not about them and that it would be much better if people were asking for more films by and about POC instead of asking just for token roles. One thread was brilliant in its madness because someone who claimed to be black said Gerwig didn't need to include someone like her because that totally would alter the historical context of the story. She said "it was in America in the 1800s". This caused that someone accused her of racism for believe that black people didn't existed at the time! It's great because that's of course the standard answer to people angry at the BBC for changing the race of Dickens or Shakespeare characters but it totally doesn't work here! Context matter, people! The father of the girl is fighting in the Civil War, black people were slaves, etc. Who knows? Maybe they could do it but they would have had to change a lot of the story and give some lengthy explanations! But that's not all, then someone mentioned a few "racist" filmmakers that NEVER include POC in their films. One of them was Wes Andersen. Someone then mentioned Danny Glover and the guy answered that it's just one actor in a long career. Then someone else mentioned more actors. Here are a few I remember from his films: Lumi Cavazos, Seu Jorge, Waris Ahluwalia, Amara Karan, Tony Revolori, Kunichi Nomura, Yoko Ono and the mature guy who was in his early films but I can't find his name (he wasn't clearly a professional actor! I thinkI watcheda documentary in which Anderson said he was a friend). But the guy was still unconvinced and changed the goal again, Anderson is despicable because even when he regularly hires POC he doesn't gave them the main role in his films! Something that's also a lie, by the way, Tony Revolori was the main character in The Grand Budapest Hotel and Glover had a very important role in The Royal Tenenbaums which is in a lot of way an ensemble film. Seriously how these people help to the cause! They are just fools! Why not campaign for more minority filmmakers instead of randomly attack people just because they don't like them! There's not other reason! EDITED I'm very ashamed of myself, the old man in the early Wes Anderson movies was actually a professional actor called Kumar Pallana. He sadly died. He was really funny but he always said his lines in the most deadpan way that I thought he wasn't an actor. Just someone the director liked to put on his films because was very funny! Sorry! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumar_Pallana
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 28, 2019 4:17:57 GMT
Omg thoughtful discourse is dead. 😣
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Dec 28, 2019 12:42:20 GMT
I haven't watched it but I want to talk about another Twitter polemic! Apparently a few Twitter users are angry at Greta Gerwig for not including POC on the film. Interesting but not surprising a good number of actual POC are on her side saying that well, the story it's not about them and that it would be much better if people were asking for more films by and about POC instead of asking just for token roles. One thread was brilliant in its madness because someone who claimed to be black said Gerwig didn't need to include someone like her because that totally would alter the historical context of the story. She said "it was in America in the 1800s". This caused that someone accused her of racism for believe that black people didn't existed at the time! It's great because that's of course the standard answer to people angry at the BBC for changing the race of Dickens or Shakespeare characters but it totally doesn't work here! Context matter, people! The father of the girl is fighting in the Civil War, black people were slaves, etc. Who knows? Maybe they could do it but they would have had to change a lot of the story and give some lengthy explanations! But that's not all, then someone mentioned a few "racist" filmmakers that NEVER include POC in their films. One of them was Wes Andersen. Someone then mentioned Danny Glover and the guy answered that it's just one actor in a long career. Then someone else mentioned more actors. Here are a few I remember from his films: Lumi Cavazos, Seu Jorge, Waris Ahluwalia, Amara Karan, Tony Revolori, Kunichi Nomura, Yoko Ono and the mature guy who was in his early films but I can't find his name (he wasn't clearly a professional actor! I thinkI watcheda documentary in which Anderson said he was a friend). But the guy was still unconvinced and changed the goal again, Anderson is despicable because even when he regularly hires POC he doesn't gave them the main role in his films! Something that's also a lie, by the way, Tony Revolori was the main character in The Grand Budapest Hotel and Glover had a very important role in The Royal Tenenbaums which is in a lot of way an ensemble film. Seriously how these people help to the cause! They are just fools! Why not campaign for more minority filmmakers instead of randomly attack people just because they don't like them! There's not other reason! EDITED I'm very ashamed of myself, the old man in the early Wes Anderson movies was actually a professional actor called Kumar Pallana. He sadly died. He was really funny but he always said his lines in the most deadpan way that I thought he wasn't an actor. Just someone the director liked to put on his films because was very funny! Sorry! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumar_PallanaI haven't watch it either but seeing its promo pictures I thought: can a cast be whiter? Not that I care but the whiteness surprised me (I'm white, by the way, not that white but white).
It is not true that a "poc" could not be cast.
First, it is fiction. So you can adapt it the way you want. Recently Dev Patel played David Copperfield in the film directed by Ianucci. Second, the character Laurie played by Chalamet is described in the novel as "attractive and charming, with black eyes, brown skin, and curly black hair" (wikipedia) so it was very possible to cast someone not so white.
On the other hand I understand the casting choice. It is going to go do well in awards. It is a glamorous cast (with good actors, of course) where everybody is pretty. They cast Louis Garrel as the unattractive professor and future Jo's husband!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 28, 2019 14:33:44 GMT
The point was that it's slightly more complicated because contrary to David Copperfield, Little Women (the book) is not oblivious of the historical context of the story. If I remember well the family is abolitionist and the father is fighting against slavery in the Civil War. Society was unfair to POC people then and the author knew it and mentioned it.
They could had changed the race of (probably Italian not black) Laurie but then they would have to spend some time explaining why he was living in such a white environment then. Maybe the director considered that wasn't the core of the story she wanted tell. I think that's valid. I'm glad with what they did with David Copperfield and what it seems they will do with a bio like Louis Wain, which has a very diverse cast but I don't think anyone should be forced to do it. Especially if it could affect the plot.
Again, the effort should be to ask for more stories about minorities not to attack white filmmakers because they didn't did the adaptation as people on Twitter imagined it in their heads. To a certain degree it reminds me to fan fiction fanatics demanding artists to do things as they imagined them. All in name of social justice! Of course!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 28, 2019 15:13:11 GMT
I dunno, sgev. There were lots of free black people living in the north in the 1860s. Many had stores and lived side by side with white people. And yes, the March family were anti-slavery. They could have put some poc in the story, in the background! But then there’s your problem of token representation. Little women focuses so intently on the narrow lives of those women and not the larger social issues, except in passing.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 28, 2019 15:58:37 GMT
Yes, I agreed they could do it but she didn't and I think it's valid apart of that I can understand why. She couldn't just ignore the race of we would say a black Laurie because the plot didn't ignored the question of slavery or race conflict as David Copperfield did so she has to talk more deeply that the original text did about the issue and then spent more time in a theme that it's not central to the core story. It could feel forced and worse the black character could be just a token. Maybe it could be another version with another filmmaker going for it but this wasn't the case and it seems silly to me that people are attacking a FEMALE filmmaker for not doing something she probably didn't feel qualified o do. They wouldn't change the film. In the best case scenario for them, they would influence future productions with the danger of hypothetical future films putting forced random changes without actual meaning to the plot. Why not campaign for more opportunities for minority filmmakers and productions about minorities instead? Here is another thread about another silly polemic. Read all the comments to the tweets.
They are attacking films for not being what they imagined/wanted to be even when they were never about those ideological themes to begin with. Maybe these people are just working for dirty Oscar campaigns!
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Dec 28, 2019 16:05:23 GMT
Maybe the director considered that wasn't the core of the story she wanted tell. I think that's valid. I don't know what GG chose to tell because I didn't watch LL.
This movie gives me the same vibes as Lady Bird, La La Land and Marriage Story to name some of the recent movies. All about white privilege imo. That is, white privileged people telling stories of privileged white people.
Anyway, if GG only cared to show the girls' story independently of the social context perhaps it is something I'm not going to like. Also, I hate some phrases people use mostly as an insult but I'm starting to think that white feminism is really a thing.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 28, 2019 16:20:40 GMT
This movie gives me the same vibes as Lady Bird, La La Land and Marriage Story to name some of the recent movies. All about white privilege imo. That is, white privileged people telling stories of privileged white people. That's actually my point. You tell the story you know and understand. You can't force someone else to tell other's people story. That's why it's important a diverse point of views and not attacking people who are just talking about their very own stories.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Dec 28, 2019 17:58:48 GMT
I haven’t seen it, but I’ve seen many of the previous versions (the 1949 one with Elizabeth Taylor was the best, I think).
From what I’ve read, this new movie makes the girls much more outspoken about equality and the role of women in society. I thought the older versions did that quite well, but they’re more explicit about it and devote more dialogue to it now. To me, that doesn’t feel like authentic 1880’s dialogue. So, if they wanted to modernize it for today’s young girls, they really could have added diversity to the cast. And I don’t think it would have to be historically accurate, either, just like the girls in the movie making feminist speeches isn’t historically accurate.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 28, 2019 18:44:52 GMT
I haven't watched it neither but agreed the book was very proto-feminist and doesn't need added modern politics. It was very progressive in a lot of ways. Jo was very outspoken herself!
|
|