![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think I'll quote somebody out of context, because that's always worked really well for me in the past.
Saying "black characters are written too broadly in New Who, making them resemble stereotypes" rather ignores the fact that white characters are treated the same way.
Look. This is the problem with trying to raise white people on Sesame Street in order to cure racism: you get a generation of white people who think it's to their credit that they hold everyone to the same standard, and run around operating like the world is one big, happy block party -- people who think they're complementing themselves when they say they're "colorblind."
BLIND is not a moral positive. BLIND is an inability to perceive what the non-blind people around you can clearly fucking see. My grandfather was red/green colorblind. His family also had a strawberry farm. His father used to beat him for not obeying instructions to pick only the RED strawberries and leave the GREEN ones on the bush.
Now, I'm not recommending regular beatings for the colorblind. That wasn't a nice thing to do (my great-grandfather was not a nice person in general, for oh so many reasons). But the thing is, my grandfather's colorblindness? Was a problem, because there is actually such a thing as color when it comes to strawberries, and it's easier to work on a strawberry farm when you can see it.
And there is actually such a thing as race. If you can't see it, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Some fans seem to find gender easier to understand than race, so think of it this way: if there's a character that isn't very bright but always uses sexuality to manipulate other people, does it make a difference if that character is a man or a woman? Isn't it more of a stereotype in one case than in the other? And if some writer or producer said, "Oh, it's not sexist -- this is just what we were going to do, and we thought we might hire a male actor, but we went with a woman instead, so we kept the same stuff!" that doesn't magically make her not a sexist cliche, does it? If they'd cast a man, the character would read one way; when they do cast a woman, it reads differently. Same character. Different, because of the baggage we bring surrounding gender. If you were somehow magically oblivious to any and all gender issues, you might not notice that. But you wouldn't thereby be a better person than the rest of us. You'd just be oblivious.
Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind. They have to work with their eyes open and their brains engaged and with the awareness of subtle signals and context and connotation that anyone who writes for a living should damn well be conversant with. To do less than that is to write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft, and to do all that because you can't or won't go the extra mile to bring race into the universe of stuff that factors into your writing does, in fact, have racist implications.
"Colorblindness" may be one's reason for making all of those mistakes, but it isn't an excuse, and it doesn't magically make the product impervious from criticism. Be less blind.
Saying "black characters are written too broadly in New Who, making them resemble stereotypes" rather ignores the fact that white characters are treated the same way.
Look. This is the problem with trying to raise white people on Sesame Street in order to cure racism: you get a generation of white people who think it's to their credit that they hold everyone to the same standard, and run around operating like the world is one big, happy block party -- people who think they're complementing themselves when they say they're "colorblind."
BLIND is not a moral positive. BLIND is an inability to perceive what the non-blind people around you can clearly fucking see. My grandfather was red/green colorblind. His family also had a strawberry farm. His father used to beat him for not obeying instructions to pick only the RED strawberries and leave the GREEN ones on the bush.
Now, I'm not recommending regular beatings for the colorblind. That wasn't a nice thing to do (my great-grandfather was not a nice person in general, for oh so many reasons). But the thing is, my grandfather's colorblindness? Was a problem, because there is actually such a thing as color when it comes to strawberries, and it's easier to work on a strawberry farm when you can see it.
And there is actually such a thing as race. If you can't see it, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. There are cases where you can give the EXACT SAME script/character arc/iconography/etc. to a white performer and to a performer of color, and the overall effect WILL BE DIFFERENT. Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Some fans seem to find gender easier to understand than race, so think of it this way: if there's a character that isn't very bright but always uses sexuality to manipulate other people, does it make a difference if that character is a man or a woman? Isn't it more of a stereotype in one case than in the other? And if some writer or producer said, "Oh, it's not sexist -- this is just what we were going to do, and we thought we might hire a male actor, but we went with a woman instead, so we kept the same stuff!" that doesn't magically make her not a sexist cliche, does it? If they'd cast a man, the character would read one way; when they do cast a woman, it reads differently. Same character. Different, because of the baggage we bring surrounding gender. If you were somehow magically oblivious to any and all gender issues, you might not notice that. But you wouldn't thereby be a better person than the rest of us. You'd just be oblivious.
Unfortunately, in our culture, we are conditioned to see white people as Real People, and black people as sort of thin slices of people, operating in one of a very few available modes and with only a very few emotions and interests. Therefore it's just different to write a white character "broadly" versus a black character. It's not enough to write the black character "just like" all your white characters, because race is not invisible to most of us and it doesn't have no consequences. In order to challenge people's already racist assumptions about black characters, writers have to work that much harder, and they have to work not blind. They have to work with their eyes open and their brains engaged and with the awareness of subtle signals and context and connotation that anyone who writes for a living should damn well be conversant with. To do less than that is to write lazily, to write foolishly, to write contemptuously of one's characters and one's craft, and to do all that because you can't or won't go the extra mile to bring race into the universe of stuff that factors into your writing does, in fact, have racist implications.
"Colorblindness" may be one's reason for making all of those mistakes, but it isn't an excuse, and it doesn't magically make the product impervious from criticism. Be less blind.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 05:29 am (UTC)From:Oh god, SO MUCH agreed.
The trouble with "colorblind casting" (or genderblind, for that matter) is that it doesn't apply to the leads. It just doesn't. How delusional do you have to be to think that there was *ever* a chance that they would have cast an Asian or Hispanic guy as John Sheppard, or Doctor Who, or Dean Winchester? Most shows *automatically* cast white male leads, which-- shock, surprise-- leaves women and minorities to play expendable one-shot victims, monsters or funny sidekicks.
And, interestingly, you don't see this emphasis on "we must be colorblind! be more colorblind!" when discussing *leads*. I don't see these same people insisting that we *must* cast the best actor for the part when that means less Cute White Guys.
No, it's only when you point out that the minor characters, babes of the week or extras fall into an unfortunate pattern-- that's when you get told to hush up, because considering someone's race is racist, or considering someone's gender is sexist, and so on and so forth.
But like you said: if you don't want to perpetuate stupid, offensive patterns you *have to* think about this stuff. You can't just say "well, it's totally a coincidence that we repeatedly cast black men as thuggish rapists." You know, it may in fact be a total coincidence! But being colorblind when it comes to specific instances-- if you do it enough, it means you're blind to the *pattern* that your individual instances are creating-- blind to the fact that your choices exist in a *context*-- a historical context, a social context-- that there are stereotypes that *already exist* in the world. And you can choose to either reinforce or reject them.
It's like, ok, suppose you have a 22-episode season and just *coincidentally*, whenever there's a need for an admirable, kickass, brave, self-sacrificing, heroic character, the best actor for the part is a blue-eyed blond, and also completely randomly, there are three or four parts for "thuggish animalistic rapist" and the best actor for the part in each case is black.
I was arguing with a guy recently who was basically saying "well, if you take the context into account, then you're letting race influence your thinking, which is racist!!!omg, and besides, it would Hurt the Show if we didn't cast the best actor for the part."
And I'm thinking-- but it doesn't hurt the show to perpetuate racist stereotypes? You *have to think* about this stuff. You can't just focus on the details and ignore the bigger picture that *you are creating with your choices*.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 06:13 am (UTC)From:Race is real. People respond to it, often on levels they aren't entirely aware of. So it actually misses the whole entire point of discussing race and racism if your sole defense is "but we're just treating them the exact same way we treat white characters!" It may be true, or it may not be true, but either way it's singularly useless.
Just...yes. Exactly.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 06:15 am (UTC)From:I've heard it said that before they decided to import the McKay character from SG1, the chief scientist on SGA was written as a Dr. Ingram, and the intent was to cast an African-American actor. I really, really wonder what the fandom would look like if that had actually happened. I want to travel to the alternate universe where it did, just to see!
It's like, ok, suppose you have a 22-episode season and just *coincidentally*, whenever there's a need for an admirable, kickass, brave, self-sacrificing, heroic character, the best actor for the part is a blue-eyed blond, and also completely randomly, there are three or four parts for "thuggish animalistic rapist" and the best actor for the part in each case is black.
Right, but I'm thinking more of -- I guess a more genuine kind of lazy foolishness, which is what I see in a lot of the Dr. Who debates. It seems like a lot of the defense that's been going regarding Martha's servant-role and the treatment of her as vastly inferior to Rose revolves around this idea that, well, what if the actress just didn't happen to be black? And it's not even a matter of pattern to me -- even if you had a 100% unblemished record of joy and puppies when it came to racial matters, there's something deeply loaded about taking a black female character of considerable achievement and education and running a whole season of her unrequited love for a man who never thinks she's as worthy in any way as the blue-eyed blonde. That isn't covered by "well, he would have felt that way about anyone after Rose, regardless of race!" or "Rose had to dress like a maid, too!"
It's not like I really think they went, "We need someone to be a companion, but we want to make sure she's just that much less appealing and desirable than Rose -- let's get a black girl, that should do it!" I think they probably really did develop the arc, and then cast a black actress -- I just think they *shouldn't have* cast a black actress for that particular arc, because it *changed* the story in ways that made it racist and weird instead of merely a personal drama about Ten's increasingly warped inability to deal with people.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 06:24 am (UTC)From:This extends far beyond writing and into the realm of basic human interaction and human understanding. Your words here are appreciated. I hope you don't mind if I link to this post in my own journal.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:07 am (UTC)From:And it's so creepy when it comes to fanfic, because if authors were just willing to do the critical thinking about individual characters that's necessary to write convincingly about background, motivations, interrelationships, etc., then just about all the unintentionally racially-charged portrayls wouldn't crop up. I mean, I've seen people argue along the lines that, hey, in an AU where, say, Atlantis is a major metropolitan newspaper, of course it'd make sense that Ronon was some guy in a street gang while everyone else was a reporter--Ronon keeps *knives in his hair*. How could someone like that to work in a professional setting? And I just think, What the hell, man? Stopping to examine that kneejerk assessment of Ronon's character would remind us that, on SGA, a large proportion of the characters go around with guns strapped to their legs. The fact that Ronon has knives in addition to a gun just means he's better-prepared than his colleagues. Thus, in an AU where everyone works in a newsroom, it'd make a lot more sense for him to be the reporter with pencils and tiny recording devices and cameras in his hair.
Now, I get that not everyone wants to think critically when it comes to writing fanfic. Hey, that's fair enough; when it comes to my hobbies and leisure time, I don't like to practice mathematical reasoning. But if fanfic authors just want to pour out their ids unfiltered and reproduce tropes uncritically, then I really wish they'd go on leaving out characters of color and women from their stories. Because the anti-color, anti-women stuff is so pervasive in the culture that shapes our ids and tropes, writing about characters of color and women without engaging critically will just lead to repeating the racist, misogynistic crap, and I just don't want to see that in fandom. A pile-up of shallow whitebread stories can get boring, but at least it's not *actively* offensive to me.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 09:11 am (UTC)From:I really, really wonder what the fandom would look like if that had actually happened. I want to travel to the alternate universe where it did, just to see!
Yeah. Presumably, they'd have cast a cute, young white guy as Ford, right? And then... well.
Actually, on SV, they originally wanted to cast a black actress as Chloe, but then when they found Allison Mack, they switched the "black character" slot over to Pete. I always wondered what the *show* would have been like if they'd gone with their original thought.
well, what if the actress just didn't happen to be black?
*nodding* Right, totally. It's like saying, "Well, we killed Tara, and people are complaining because, hey, Tragic Lesbians, but what if she wasn't a lesbian?" That's missing the fact that Tara's death isn't JUST about Tara, it's about the fact that just once, just ONCE, it would be nice to have lesbians who weren't inevitably Tragic Lesbians, and you had the *opportunity* to do it better than it had been done in the past, and you didn't.
Similarly, how many *prominent* black female sci-fi heroines are there? If Martha plays into an unfortunate stereotype, *where* is the contrast? Who else is out there, so that we can say "oh, not all black characters in sci-fi are like that?" or "Not all black characters written by Russell T. Davies are like that?"
If Martha was a white girl, I'd still be a little miffed that they failed to give her an arc besides "love the Doctor, serve the Doctor," but she would be like, .001% of all available female characters to choose from. Martha, on the other hand, is practically unique, and so yes, it *matters more* that they get it right.
We're *not* a colorblind, genderblind society yet, which means way less representation for minorities of *all* sorts in our pop culture, and much more stereotypical representation when they do appear. Which, yes, means it's *even more important* when writing a minority to get it right, to not rely on lazy stereotypes. You can't just say "Well, what if she was white?" because once again, the playing ground just isn't equal. If you've only got one shot at something, you can't *afford* to get it wrong. If you've only got one Martha... you'd better get it right.
That isn't covered by "well, he would have felt that way about anyone after Rose, regardless of race!" or "Rose had to dress like a maid, too!"
See, I never thought the Doctor didn't think she was worthy, but... well, it all comes down to the fact that Rose and the Doctor were friends, partners, *equals*, but Martha always seemed to be treated (both by the narrative and the Doctor) as a combination maid, therapist and devotee. I don't think the Doctor really thought she wasn't as smart or tough as Rose, or anything like that, but I think he *was* purposely, deliberatly keeping her at arms' length. And yes, it makes perfect sense in Ten's *arc* for the "post-Rose" companion to be the "rebound" companion, and that he'd be all touchy and weird, "come here, go away"-- but yeah, the fact that there's also a racial element to the story? Makes it harder to take.
I just think they *shouldn't have* cast a black actress for that particular arc
See, and again, it kind of goes back to, what is the *larger pattern*. If, since 1963, we'd had a whole assortment of companions on the TV show-- white, black, Indian, whatever-- and if they'd had a whole range of personalities-- then it wouldn't matter so much that Martha just *happens* to have the arc of being "Not As Good As Rose, Except She Proves Herself By Putting Ten's Wants And Needs Above Everything Else In The World, Like A Good Servant."
But, yeah. You can't fix forty years of "no non-white leads on Doctor Who" by suddenly *ignoring* race. When you do start saying something, you have to pay attention to what you're saying.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 04:21 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 04:30 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 04:33 pm (UTC)From:Exactly right. Also- ha ha- I love that image.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 05:28 pm (UTC)From:mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-13 05:55 pm (UTC)From:In season two, we were introduced to hunter Gordon Walker, FBI Agent Henricksen, and the young soldier Jake, all played by black actors.
Was the casting insensitive? Racist? I don't think so, because the characters aren't simplistic; they are not "bad guys."
We cannot judge Gordon yet. Gordon could be right about Sam. Yeah, Gordon might be a little too fond of his work, but so is Dean (and probably the hunter majority).
Henricksen being black is a stroke of casting genius. When we learn he believes the Winchesters are backwoods survivalist types, possibly white supremacists, his pursuit of them takes on an extra dimension. His zeal makes total sense. His expression and voice when he finds a young black man he believes Sam and Dean killed says it all.
When Jake is threatened with a bleak economic future, it's far more of a threat because he's black. What chance does a young black man with a dishonorable discharge have of making a living? His choice to protect his family makes sense for his character; it's not "evil."
There is nothing innately villainous about any of the three characters. Their conflict with the Winchesters is brought about by circumstances, not evil intentions. They have depth because they have valid reasons, completely independent of the Winchesters, for what they do. So I think the casting decisions were good ones.
Also: I heartily hope Gordon Walker escapes from prison soon. :D
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 06:51 pm (UTC)From:I was just thinking about this after reading the comments on this thread (http://thete1.livejournal.com/628790.html?format=light&page=1#comments) at
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that casting the actress who plays Martha is problematic because A) she's a PoC and B) her role in the show is that of the "not good enough" companion. That makes perfect sense to me, but I'm wondering where that leaves actors of color when it comes to casting. I've actually only seen one Martha episode of Dr. Who, so the only thing I really know is that I think the character is great and the actress did a wonderful job with her. Quite honestly, I liked her better than Rose. As a result, I'm working from the premise that she *is* the best actress for the job. I really don't know much about how the relationship between The Doctor and Martha is going to work out, but what I've read on this thread sounds like The Doctor's attitude is actually an organic, realistic development of his character. So, you've got a role that requires a specific take on a character (Martha's, in this case), and actress who is capable of doing a fabulous job with the role who is also a PoC . . . isn't it also problematic *not* to hire her?
I can't entirely argue from a Dr. Who-specific standpoint whether or not rewriting The Doctor's reactions to Martha would solve the problem because I haven't seen the episodes. However, you have a situation on that show where The Doctor's personality and relationship with Rose is established long before there was any thought of hiring an new actress for the Companion role. Obviously, that's different than, say, a new show with unestablished characters/relationships and how you would cast those roles. But old shows cast new characters all the time, so I think it's still a relevant question. If the truly best actor/actress for the job is a PoC, the role is problematic for a PoC to play, but integrity of the characters/story would be compromised by changing either the new role or the previously established characters--which is the lesser evil? Hiring a second choice white actor/actress? Throwing continuity and character development out the window? Is there a third, better option?
(Just in case I came across badly, I really don't know the answer to this, so I'm not arguing or trying to prove you wrong. Just trying to think and understand.)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 06:59 pm (UTC)From:But if fanfic authors just want to pour out their ids unfiltered and reproduce tropes uncritically, then I really wish they'd go on leaving out characters of color and women from their stories.
I should been clearer that I completely agree with what your post states so well: thinking critically about the characters also has to mean thinking through the implications of your portrayal in a broader cultural context. Just saying, "Well, this wouldn't be problematic if a white character did it!" doesn't constitute thinking it through. It constitutes being just as idiotic as the white guy on some reality show saying black people shouldn't be so be so sensitive about the n-word--if someone said it to him, it wouldn't bother him at all.
But that's even assuming that one's willing to accept an author's claim that they'd write a white male character in that same kind of degrading role they gave a character of color, and they just happened not to this time. Or any of the other times, and neither did any of the other authors. Because, unless they're making a rhetorical point to "prove" they're not racist, it wouldn't occur to these authors to reduce a white guy's status in their fanfic, the way they do with characters of color and women, because it'd just seem weird and throw the reader out of the story. True colorblindness is definitely a problem for all the reasons you say, but I feel like, at least when it comes to the fanfic-authors I've seen, the unconscious reproduction of racist assumptions and then the refusal to examine them is even more widespread.
Still, their excuse for doing this is often "But I don't see color!" So, yes, it's great you've made it so easy to reply, "Yeah, well, even if that were true, here's why colorblindness sucks."
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:16 pm (UTC)From:Exactly, and I think it's a good example -- from my perspective, anyway -- because I really felt sympathy with both positions in that argument. It did hurt, because she was a lesbian, over and above the way it would've hurt if it had been Oz's plotline -- but at the same time, I thought it was a good story, and I wanted to defend -- I did defend Joss' right to use his characters in the service of really good stories rather than as political examples, and I remain fairly impatient with the small crowd of fans who are like "I never can love anything Buffyverse ever again because of what he did to Tara!" So it's complicated for me. And I think race is complicated, too, and it's usually not as easy as "Well, if RTD (or whoever) would just obey these easy rules, my show could be totally racially blissful and unproblematic!" If only, you know?
But, yeah. You can't fix forty years of "no non-white leads on Doctor Who" by suddenly *ignoring* race. When you do start saying something, you have to pay attention to what you're saying.
More importantly, you have to pay attention to how it's being heard. Because it's no good being like, "Well, obviously I wasn't trying to say that black women are only good for thanklessly supporting white folks!" I mean, yes, *obviously* you weren't trying to say that, we all realize. But maybe look and listen and consult and not just do whatever the hell you originally thought was a good idea.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:20 pm (UTC)From:The way in which people shut down even on folks they would otherwise trust and listen to once the topic becomes race is really a tragedy.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:26 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:41 pm (UTC)From:However, I think there's a false underlying assumption that comes out when we talk about race and hiring, in any field, which is that it's always a choice between Very Best Person! and Sad Second Choice. Maybe in some cases there are roles that someone was simply BORN TO PLAY and no one else will do, but in other cases, I think it just seems that way because the actor shapes the character, and because that's what we become used to. Freema's a fine actress, she's doing a very nice job, I think. Does that mean she was SO AMAZING AND RIGHT that the producers' hands were tied, and they just simply had to cast her? Eh, I doubt it. I imagine there was a shortlist of actresses that they considered who would *all* have done an excellent job with the role. In the casting process, you choose one of them, not just on a Universal Talent Scale of 1 to 100, but also on how the actress fits the role.
My feeling is, this actress didn't *fit* this role well, because of racial baggage. Actors don't get jobs *all the time* because they didn't mesh with the look or the personality that the producers wanted to convey, and in the case of this particular arc, I do think that they problematized the arc and angered a ton of their fans by making Ten look like a racist asshole who expects his black companion's life to revolve around him for no real reward, when he doesn't appear ever to have treated any of his white companions that way.
It sucks a lot that actors of color lose jobs so often because of their race, but the world we live in isn't going to become fair and fantastic overnight. My preference for this situation would certainly have been to do the same season-long character arc with a white actress (or a white actor -- I think that would've been interesting and thoughtful in many ways, even if the sexuality issue was left very subtextual, which I think would be my inclination anyhow), have her go away for the very reasons Martha goes away, and then bring in a character of color when you're ready to tell a story about a Companion as Hero again, and not just the story about Mistreatment of a Longsuffering Companion.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:43 pm (UTC)From:<If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that casting the actress who plays Martha is problematic because A) she's a PoC and B) her role in the show is that of the "not good enough" companion.
Actually, that isn't what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is-- Martha's role, her story arc, is problematic for Martha in a way that it wouldn't be for a white character. That aspect of Martha's arc is explained more here (http://community.livejournal.com/lifeonmartha/268192.html) and also here (http://community.livejournal.com/lifeonmartha/259659.html).
Basically, in several individual episodes, she's explicitly given the role of the Doctor's servant, the one who works for him, who serves him, who tends to his physical and emotional needs without getting an equal measure of attention from him in return. In the finale, although we're led to believe that she's actually going to play some kind of active role in saving the world, instead we get a climax where Martha plays no particularly important role at all; in fact, she insists repeatedly that she is not important and only the Doctor is important, worth hearing about or believing in.
For a lot of people, giving a black female character a role like this, where she completely subsumes her wants and needs and emotions and only cares about what her white "boss" needs and thinks and feels-- it feels like stepping backwards to sometime between the 1920s-1950s, when this was basically only kind of role a black female actress could ever hope to play.
Incredibly talented actresses like Hattie McDaniel and Louise Beavers made *careers* out of playing this role-- the faithful, slavish black servant who just loves her white master or mistress so much that her own needs are totally unimportant. So when you give Martha lines like "[the doctor] is everything to me, just everything," even though, as she then acknowledges, she's barely just met him, and he barely even notices her-- it makes me cringe, it really does.
The "Mammy" role was a role that appeared over and over again in movies and books for *decades*, helpfully attempting to justify slavery and oppression by making it seem so *nice*. (Black people don't *want* to be free or independent, you see; they love being servants because they care about their masters so *much*, and besides, the white people really, really *need* them around, so it's just best for everyone if they stay in servitude.)
Anyway. I really just can't emphasize enough how much this *isn't* about "the Doctor doesn't like Martha as well as he likes Rose," and I hope I haven't given that impression in earlier comments.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 07:43 pm (UTC)From:If the truly best actor/actress for the job is a PoC, the role is problematic for a PoC to play, but integrity of the characters/story would be compromised by changing either the new role or the previously established characters--which is the lesser evil? Hiring a second choice white actor/actress? Throwing continuity and character development out the window? Is there a third, better option?
The thing is, saying "we should always hire the best actor/actress for the job" is examining the problem as if it existed in a vaccuum, and my whole comment was basically about how you can't do that, because to address racism, you have to recognize patterns and context, and not just treat individual examples as if they *weren't* part of the pattern.
I mean-- ok, here's a really obvious example. Suppose back when "Buffy" was holding auditions for the character of Spike, Nicholas Brendon's twin brother randomly showed up and just happened to be a slightly better actor than James Marsters. Would he get the part? Probably not, because it would be incredibly distracting for casual viewers to turn on the TV and be like "Wait, Xander is a vampire now? Why is there a vampire that looks just like Xander? Is Spike secretly one of Xander's ancestors? Is he a clone? What's going on?" Probably, James Marsters would get the part instead, because of all the baggage and confusion that it would cause to hire Nicholas Brendon's twin brother to play Spike.
The fact that Nicholas Brendon's twin brother might be the most talented actor *doesn't make him the right person for the part,* because the role doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It exists in a bigger context, as part of a bigger story-- we're not talking about casting a one-man show, here. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm not sure I'm saying it right.
I mean, it's like if you coincidentally, three times in a row, cast three redheads as three Babes of the Week on SGA and they all end up hooking up with Ronon Dex. After you've done that three times, people are going to *pick up on the pattern* and say "Ronon is totally into girls with red hair," and think of that as an integral part of his character-- he loves redheads! Of course! Even if it *actually* was just a coincidence, by the third time you open up auditions for Ronon's Babe of the Week, you *have to ask yourself*, "OK, are we going to purposely cast another redhead, or purposely go for something different, or just choose randomly? Because people pick up on patterns, and if we cast another redhead, it's pretty much the same as making it canon that Ronon loves redheads, so *if that's the message we want to send*, then we should do that."
You have to think about the message you're sending with your choices, because people pick up on patterns. Roles don't just exist on their own, with entirely no relation to other roles, no connection to other actors and actresses, no references to other shows, to our history or society. They exist in a context. And a smart casting director *knows this*, and will cast accordingly. Making it about "the best actor for the part" is a straw man, I think, especially because so many roles (like the Doctor himself, for instance) are NOT and probably never will be open to "the best actor for the part."
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 08:05 pm (UTC)From:And? I think your idea for a male companion would have been fabulous; it would have adjusted the dynamic in interesting ways. Too bad TPTB didn't think of that.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 08:09 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 10:02 pm (UTC)From:I still don't think it really *does* boil down to that, though. I mean, just off the top of my head, I can think of so many ways that there still could have been a "rebound Companion" story arc, with Freema cast as the companion-- *without* the unfortunate stereotype that DW S3 invokes.
-- Give her an episode like "Father's Day," where we could have learned more about what's important to *Martha*.
-- Give her something *active* to do in the finale, besides being the disciple who insists loudly on her own insignificance, would have helped a lot.
-- Give Martha some active motivation to travel with the Doctor *besides* having a crush on him.
(Or, if you really *must* have Martha being in love with the Doctor, then just have her be more adult about it. I mean, she's a smart, mature, adult woman. Either have her *do* something about her crush-- make a move and get rejected and deal with that-- or else have her realize that Ten has way too many issues to be her boyfriend and show her at least trying to get over it, instead of just pouting and pining whenever Rose is mentioned.)
Also, as a lot of other people have pointed out, it would have helped if Martha hadn't come directly on the heels of Mickey, another black Companion who *was* brave, smart and loyal, but was constantly dissed by the Doctor and treated as "not good enough" for most of his appearances.
So I really don't think it comes down to "destroy the integrity of the story" or "cast a white girl." I honestly think that all the suggestions I've made, would have made DW S3 *stronger*-- give us a chance to get to know Martha better, make her a stronger character, treat the romantic subplot with more maturity, think about the resonances between Mickey and Martha and what kind of message that might send. Etc.
Re: mild spn season two spoilers here
Date: 2007-07-13 10:23 pm (UTC)From:Maybe I'm missing the part where this has much of anything to do with what Hth said, but...
I think it makes more sense to think of characters less in terms of good or evil, and more in terms of whether they're admirable or not admirable. Henricksen is an admirable character (apart from some slight bullying of the lawyer in "Folsom Prison Blues.") I'd love to see him go through a Jean Valjean sort of arc with the Winchesters.
Jake and Gordon, on the other hand, are non-admirable characters; vengeful, cowardly, vicious. I can't imagine a plot where Gordon comes back where he doesn't end up dying at the end. Gordon is clearly psychotic; he kills his own sister, which within the family-centric narrative of SPN clearly marks him as a bad guy. And Jake literally stabs Sam in the back and runs away in the *first* half of the two-part finale-- *before* the demon threatens his family in the second half.
Like I started to say in my first comment to hth's post, this is just the unfortunate side effect of a show where the leads are heterosexual white males; either there's no diversity in the show at all, or else the non-straight, non-white, non-male characters get to play the evil, dead or plot-device characters. And there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that, *if*-- well, put it this way. Of course there's nothing *inherently* wrong with having heterosexual white males as leads of one particular show... as long as heterosexual white males aren't the leads on *every* show.
Unfortunately in terms of sci-fi and fantasy, we have only taken a few teeny, tiny steps away from that place, meaning that more often than not, non-straight-white-male characters are all too often relegated to these stereotyped roles.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 10:26 pm (UTC)From:....::sigh::
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 11:10 pm (UTC)From:Maybe in Britain it's different and a series really is nailed down tight before you start filming, but in the States, at least, episodes are being written and storylines are being adjusted throughout the season. The latest widely publicized examples I can think of are the Sylar character's run being extended and the Zack character's run being cut short on Heroes. Also, Marc on Ugly Betty got brought on permanently, and the characters brought into humanize Wilhelmina Slater (her daughter and the Texas business man) were cut once they figured out they didn't work out. Or, one of the more famous changes of all, Majel Barrett played Number One (the XO) in the original Star Trek pilot, but audiences couldn't deal with a woman in command, so she was re-written in as Nurse Christine Chapel.
Storylines (at least on American television) are pretty mutable, and even if their series arc required the Doctor to be an asshole, they could have adjusted Martha's behavior, once a black actress was selected to play her.