Jim Crow casting?

Jim,

You're able to make light of this because you're not a person of color. Jolie is white with Native American ancestry. But to play Mariane Pearl, Jolie had to use brown make up. There are a lot of mixed-race actresses who could have played the role. But they weren't given the chance to audition.

Blackface, yellowface, and brownface are insulting to people of color. Malcolm X was mixed-race with a skin ton similar to Pearl's. Do you think Brad Pitt should use some brown make-up and a wig to play Malcolm? Frederick Douglass was also mixed-race. Maybe Michael Douglas could play him. A little make-up, a wig, a prosthetic nose and voila!

Why doesn't Jolie play a young Lena Horne or Billie Holiday?

The majority of African- Americans are mixed-race. Hollywood is still very racist. There are few decent roles for women of color. Look at the paucity of roles for Asian-American women let alone black, mestizo Latinos, or Native American women.

This is a non-issue to you because you're white, I guess. Race hasn't been a major factor in your life, I suppose.

This is why I've always laughed when people get up in arms over trans-racial acting (or whatever we want to call it). Granted, stuff like the blackface as seen in The Birth of a Nation is inherently ridiculous at (no pun intended, I swear) face value, but when the contrast isn't so plainly obvious to even the most untrained eye, a little something called suspension of disbelief steps in, and everyone should be happy. For example, I myself wasn't pleased with the casting decisions made with Memoirs of a Geisha (I won't even begin with how I feel about the movie itself), but I realize that the actresses chosen were likely just as capable as any others, and that the racially insensitive overtones were manifest more of the need for a box office draw than deliberate cinematic imperialism.

On the other hand, you have Al Pacino playing Tony Montana. Straights play gays, and gays play straights. Men played women during Shakespeare's first runs. All of this exemplifies the true nature of acting (in simplified terms): the form exists for people to play someone that they otherwise are not.

Too many fans pretend they know actors personally, and think more about an actor's latest real-life romantic encounter than about their performance in a movie. To the artist, this is, as you said, a non-story. But to the public, sadly, it's as much the story as the plot of the movie.

Daniel Pearl is being played by Dan Futterman, writer of Capote, and apperantly he had a role on will and grace for a while. I think he's a good choice, and the stuff with Jolie is much ado about nothing as others have said. She's a good actress, and the casting decision isn't "Hollywood" as much as Michael Winterbottom, who I don't think anyone would classify as "hollywood." There's a difference between say, Mickey Rooney's racist buck tooth-L's are R's role in Breakfast at Tiffany's, and Jolie's.

Dear Jaycen: I understand what you're saying, and I'm sure you're right that there are many other mixed-race actresses who could play the role. But I think this is less a racial issue than a professional and economic one. Actors are lightened and darkened with make-up all the time to suit the role, no matter what their racial heritage. Denzel Washington was lightened, freckled, and had his hair tinted red to play Malcolm X. I don't recall anyone asking why a "mixed-race" actor wasn't chosen for Spike Lee's film. On the other hand, Cameron Diaz is, like Mariane Pearl, Cuban and Anglo-European, but with her blonde hair and blue eyes, it would be more of a stretch for her to play Pearl than for Angelina Jolie, don't you think? As shown in the photographs above, Jolie actually looks pretty much like Pearl (not that I think physical resemblance is necessarily the best qualification for a role -- particularly if the person isn't a well-known public figure). Sure, bizarre racial casting can look ridiculous (John Wayne as Genghis Khan? Jim Caviezel as Jesus of Nazareth?)

But all this aside, I'm sure the casting of Jolie was (like most casting) primarily a commercial decision. She's a marquee name and she wanted to do the part. Since it's not a big Hollywood production (it's from the "dependent," Paramount Vantage and directed by Michael Winterbottom), casting her may have enabled the movie to be made (from Mariane Pearl's book) in the first place. This is an extreme example, but Eddie Murphy plays an old Chinese-American man (I think) and a fat black woman in his next movie, "Norbit" -- and that may or may not be offensive, but what people are paying to see is Eddie Murphy. But I don't think Jolie is a case of stunt casting.

Race is as much (or more) a cultural construct as a biological reality. I'm not indifferent to perceptions of race, but I think it's wrong to adopt the kind of Jim Crow thinking that says if you have "one drop" of African blood, you're "black." That's why I began my piece below by noting that, in reality, we're virtually all "mixed race" to some extent -- but looks can be deceiving.

Felt like posting again after reading these accusations that such a thing is a "non-issue" for whites. Certainly, yes, the fact that mixed-actresses and actors that could have received such roles but didn't IS a result of the destructive racial imbalances of society. These, however, are but the result, not the cause, and it is foolish to think that fixing this one thing will start some sort of reverse chain reaction to cure all racially-lined ills (if that sort of thing were the case, then, well, Paul Haggis would be some sort of God by now, wouldn't he?). The roots, prejudices, and divisions go much deeper than movie casting can possibly begin to fix in a concrete manner, and one of the things that needs to stop before these can be corrected is the idea that we are all separate, that we must somehow remain loyal to our "race" and background, as if the .002% difference between different races is more important than the similar 99.998%. Amidst all this is the fact that there is a very deep schism within the film industry between what is made for arts sake and what is made for moneys sake, which further complicates everything. In short: it's an issue, sometimes it sucks, but in the same line of controversy there are more important points of interest worthy of our time. And I reiterate: Al Pacino played Tony Montana. I hear none of that movies' fans - race regardless - complaining.

To quote Stephen Colbert: "I don't see race. People tell me I'm white, and I believe them ... because I belong to an all-white country club."

Jim,

You do realize that Denzel Washington is mixed-race? Washington didn't have his skin lightened for the role of Malcolm X. He just had his hair dyed.
http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/03/21/inside-dvd-malcolmx.jpg

The majority of African- Americans are mixed-race: James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman, Salli Richardson, Oprah, Jimi Hendrix, Gordon Parks, Frederick Douglas, Langston Hughes, Sonia Sohn, Vanessa Williams, Chris Tucker, etc.

And, the excuse of economics is quite poor since that could be used to justify a lot of things. Again, economics would say that Jolie playing Lena Horne or Brad Pitt playing Langston Hughes or Thurgood Marshall would be okay. I think you're out of touch with what it means to be a mixed-race/light-skinned African-American actress.

I'm a huge film buff. I've bumped into Roger at Sundance and Toronto several times over the years. At this year's Toronto Film Festival, there were very few features from North America or Europe that featured women of color.

Your excuse is similar to the disregard that white Brazilians seem to have about race. They are quick to point out that Brazil is mixed-race society but can't handle facts that show the majority of blacks, mixed-blacks, and indigenous people are in poverty. Recently, a new TV station was started in Brazil that focused on Afro-Brazilians. The white media described it as racist because of its focus but failed to point out that blacks were rarely seen on Brazil's TV or movie screens except as criminals and servants.

At the Toronto Film Festival, I saw a Brazilian film called "Antonia," the story of a group of black/mixed-race female singers and their struggles. The director spoke to the audience about the difficulties for non-whites in Brazil. How economics and race still segregates the country.

http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest/2006/films_schedules/films_description.asp?id=20

Maybe you should ask director Mira Nair how she feels about white actors wearing black face to portray Indians. You could also ask Sherman Alexie what he thinks of Hollywood's long history of whites in redface.

Again, this is a non-issue to you because it doesn't affect you. You're a film critic, why don't you talk to some mixed-race actresses and actors? As a journalist, why not do a little investigation into the subject?

You're offensive and insensitive. Maybe Jackie Onassis should be played by a black woman, or Marilyn Monroe. How about Betty Page?

Marianne Pearl IS BLACK. How hard is that for you to see? Since you spend your life in white neighborhoods, you would DEFINITELY notice Marianne Pearl.

What a typical Democratic hypocrite.

Jaycen:

Yes, when I say that Angelina Jolie should not be automatically disqualified from playing Mariane Pearl because she is not actually Cuban-Dutch-German, as Pearl is, it's almost exactly like the economic and racial apartheid you describe in Brazil and the racist attitudes of white Brazilians toward Afro-Brazilians on TV; and the next time I see Sherman Alexie (he lives in my neck of the woods -- or used to), I'll be sure to ask him about Hollywood's history of portraying Native Americans in "redface," because that's what this is all about. As you say, I'm a film critic. What would I know about Hollywood history?

But, no, your condescension (and tokenism) goes even further: I hear from you that such "research" -- even involving conversations with actual persons of mixed race -- would do me no good. You tell me I cannot see the parallels you wish to draw because "It doesn't affect me." So, when you can't actually make a case regarding Jolie's casting, you shift focus and make it about me and the life experiences you "guess" you imagine for me. Your logic makes my head spin!

I'm not going to take the disingenuous bait (well, maybe just a little bit), but I hope, at least, that I'd never make presumptuous generalizations like yours -- not because (like the esteemed Mr. Colbert) "I don't see race," but because (to shift the focus back to the original post for a moment) if you think Angelina Jolie was cast primarily because of -- OR in spite of -- her race... well, I'd sure like to see your evidence, and reasoning, for that.

Do you think she got the part because she was more "racially acceptable" than (other) mixed-race actresses? Brad Pitt, Jolie's famous co-star and partner with whom she recently had a child, is a producer of "A Mighty Heart." His company, Plan B, is co-producing the movie with Paramount Vantage (after it was put into turnaround by Warner Bros.). Are you saying you think this is just another example of a producer insisting his girlfriend get a plum part over better-qualified actresses -- like, say, David O. Selznick casting Jennifer Jones (as a "half breed" in "Duel in the Sun," perhaps)? Do you know anything about the director, Michael Winterbottom? This movie does not exhibit the signs of an overblown vanity production; it sure doesn't have the pedigree of a star vehicle for an actress who clearly isn't right for the part. Remember: I'm talking about Jolie's evident physical suitability (see photos above) for a particular role, and her economic clout in the industry, and you're responding as if these factors were insignificant. We're talking past each other.

Let me say I do not dispute that the film industry (especially in Hollywood) remains a business riddled with racial biases against people of color (even more behind the screen than on it), and that actors of color have long been denied good roles. But I suggest the casting of Jolie is hardly an example of this, because there's no reason on Earth to think she was chosen over other actresses because of her (or their) race, or that the movie itself (which we haven't seen) would have been better served with somebody else in the part just because they fit your definition of "mixed race." You portray Jolie as a symbol of larger injustices, but you don't offer support for any such claims. That's not to say the pattern of injustices is not real, but it doesn't make Jolie a part of that pattern, either.

As for your specific assertion: No, I do not know that Denzel Washington is "mixed race" -- except in the sense that most Americans, and African-Americans, are. That was one of the points I was making to begin with. And you choose a conveniently dark photograph of him (at night, with a hat on!) from "Malcolm X" -- but that's a little like comparing the light/dark Time and Newsweek covers of OJ Simpson. Look at the earlier stuff in the film -- the freckles, the red hair. (Are you saying freckles are acceptable make-up, but lighter or darker make-up is not? Is make-up itself wrong if you don't notice it -- or if you do? What about lighting?)

But, see, now I've wandered away from the primary issue to make a peripheral rebuttal of what was only one example. From what you write, I take it that you feel because make-up artists did what make-up artists do, and made Jolie's skin a shade darker rather than lighter, that in itself is evidence of racism, because you cite no other evidence but the make-up. And, in a Paul Haggis world of racial oversimplifications, things might work that way. Everything else you say about racism in Hollywood and Brazil exists idependently of whether or not Angelina Jolie wore darker make-up to play Mariane Pearl. I think your conflation of them is a mistake, and a logical fallacy. And you simply ignore what I wrote.

Meanwhile, Denzel Washington has played Othello and Richard III. He's a big star (like Jolie), so that gives him the clout to play all kinds of roles -- the kinds lesser-known actors don't necessarily get.

Again: I'm saying I think it's wrong to turn Angelina Jolie's casting in this part into a contest about who's more mixed race. Not that there aren't plenty of talented mixed-race actresses. But this is a movie she and her personal and professional partner were instrumental in getting made. You think she's ill-suited for the part. I see no reason to make that assumption. But then, I give her some credit for helping get the movie made in the first place.

Here's what Mariane Pearl (herself a documentary filmmaker) said about the subject: "I am delighted that Angelina Jolie will be playing my role in the adaptation of my book. I deeply admire her work and what she is committed to. I am also happy that Michael Winterbottom, a versatile and talented director who genuinely loves truth, will be working on this project as well."

I'm sure she's just being insensitive to mixed-race actresses.

Dear "Please, you're a loser":
Wow, now I'm not only white, I'm a Democrat! (I take umbrage at that latter unfounded assertion; I insist you take it back!) And not only that, you know what neighborhood I live in. You couldn't have made my point about stereotypes and generalizations better. You're really Trent Lott, aren't you?

Not to prolong a discussion that has probably gone on longer than the original post warranted, but I thought I would throw this out there. I read in the latest Entertainment Weekly that Halle Berry will star in Class Act, "a true story about a (white) sixth-grade teacher whose students help her run for Congress."

Jaycen, do you have a problem with this? I presume they are not bothering to make up Ms. Berry has white. If the producers of A Mighty Heart had cast Ms. Jolie but not used dark make-up, would you still feel the same way?

To me, the casting of Halle Berry in Class Act speaks directly to your point, Jim, about economics. Halle Berry is a huge star, so who cares if she is the same color as the real life person she is portraying.

Actually, Jim, I pulled that picture of Denzel off Google's images of Malcolm X. All of the pictures show Denzel with the same skin tone. So, nope I'd didn't pull a Time Magazine to try to darken him. I just used the resources available to me.

http://images.google.com/images?q=malcolm+x+%22denzel+washington%22&ndsp=20&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=0&sa=N

If you didn't know that Denzel had mixed ancestry, you should have done your homework. (That reminds me of A.O. Scott decrying Anthony Hopkins or Wentworth Miller as playing a mixed-race white man (even noting that Miller was British born to whiten him, one must infer). As Roger Ebert pointed out it was not unreasonable to cast Hopkins at all since there are many cases of mixed African-Americans having white mixed-race children, like Miller. But many critics of Hopkins casting missed that point.).

http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?_r=1&res=9505E4D81430F932A05753C1A9659C8B63&oref=login

As for Jolie being mixed-race, yes she has Native American ancestry, however, she has always portrayed herself as white and never identified herself as mixed or Native as has someone like Wentworth Miller, Mariah Carey or even Carol Channing.

As for Jolie's and Pitt's professionalism, I have no doubts about their being probably decent people who don't have a problem using their money and power to get what they want. The whole giving birth in Namibia and paying the government for police security said a lot and reeked of a colonial mentality.

Hollywood's history is filled with stories of ambitious people doing lots of things to get what they want. And, many a producer has cast his/her lover in a part because of their connection and business reasons. Jolie is a name in the business and can bring financing to a film but so could Halle Berry. Be honest, Jolie didn't audition for this role and no press reports show that anyone else audtioned for the part. That says something about insensitivity.

The reality is that the film could have been made with a mixed-race actress but the powers-that-be chose Jolie instead. You go back to the economics to justify Jolie's casting but the point is that Hollywood has justified money for many of its casting situations without regards to people of color or their feelings. "Friends" took place in a New York where hardly any people of color existed. The producers of the new show "The Class" told TV critics that they used color-blind casting and just happen to come up with an all-white cast. Wouldn't the economics of having Pitt play Thurgood Marshall or Adam Clayton Powell be just as good as Jolie playing Pearl?

The reason I used "guess" was because I don't know what's in your head. I don't know your personal life. I can only infer and base judgement on the fact that your writing doesn't show much understanding of how mixed-race or other people of color feel when they go to the movies and see themselves or a lack thereof on the screen.

I spoke with director Eric Byler about his films "Charlotte Sometimes" and "Americanese." Byler explained to me that as a mixed-race Asian-American, he felt the need to see more Asians and hapas on the screen. In particular, "Americanese" deals directly to the experience of a mixed-race woman coming to terms with her Asian identity and how it's been devalued by her father.

Seeing Jolie, darkened says something. It's not so much racist, and I never said so, as it is arrogant and condescending. Again, did the producers bother to audition any actresses of color? And when the film is shown, will the audience draw the conclusion that Mariane Pearl is mulatta or just "Latina"? Will the film diminish Pearl's aural blackness, and more easily identify with Jolie because she doesn't carry any African features?

Looking at the picture of Pearl, most Americans would see and treat Pearl as a woman of color with Africa ancestry. When film watchers see the film, will they recognize that Pearl was a heroic woman of African ancestry?

As for "Crash" being "insidiously" racist, I agree, especially with the redemption of Matt Dillon's character, never showing the humanity of the Asian characters, etc.

__________________
"Thandie Newton is surprised that Angelina Jolie was picked to play the wife of Daniel Pearl in new movie A Mighty Heart because Mariane Pear is mixed-race, of Afro-Cuban and Dutch descent.

Thandie told the Sun: “God, I’m shocked. She’s been blacked up to play a black women. I have to say it’s surprising, very surprising.�

She did admit though that she would have loved the part: “It’s an absolutely fantastic role, I would loved to have played it.�

'But I’m not going to criticise or judge her until I’ve seen the film, that would be wrong of me.' "

OK, Jaycen: Thandie Newton the famous movie star (who, I'm shocked, actually played those insulting scenes with Matt Dillon in "Crash") is entitled to feelings but Angelina Jolie the famous movie star is not. Newton is not Cuban nor Dutch nor French, but is more qualified to play Mariane Pearl than Jolie. And Mariane Pearl herself has no say in the matter. What you're saying sounds suspiciously like: "They all look alike to me." I'll just say I think there are more complexities to racial identities, and to the business of Hollywood, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Here's an image of Denzel Washington as "Malcolm X." (also from Google images) And if you can show me a statement by DW where he says he identifies as "mixed-race" rather than black or African-American, I'd love to learn more. I've followed his career, I've interviewed him, and I've never seen him make any such statement.

which is more offensive; a actor portraying a person who is a particular race which said actor is not, or the suggestion that black people and white and people of every other race are so intrinsically and drastically different from one another that the a person of one race simply could never portray a person of another race?

i'm really asking.

Maybe this is a silly question to ask, maybe it has no relevancy at all, but in my strange mind it was the fourth or fifth question that came to me (maybe I'm looking for attention). But in this portraying of other races visually, does it also pertain to portraying other races in other realms as well by races that are not the same?

Novels: A white woman writes a novel about a black man. What gives her the right to do so? There are enough black men out there who are probably more qualified to write such a book - why didn't they?

Music: A white man sings a song that was originally intended to be sung by a black man - let's pick jazz. Let's say it's something Louis Armstrong sang, and made famous. Don't you think there's a black man better suited to sing this song than a white man? What if that white man mimicked the tonality and body language of a black man, as so many white pop, rap and R&B singers do? Is that wrong? Are they singing that way to capture a wider audience, or because they like music like that, and identify with it.

But why should it matter if that white woman can capture and identify with what a black man is going through, or if that white singer does justice to a Louis Armstrong original. Why is it that in movies it suddenly makes a difference? Is the decision to cast Jolie done out of ignorance to other races or hatred? Certainly hatred that would imply racism, and Jaycen isn't talking about racism... (?)

But whose to say this decision is done out of ignorance due to an extra dime on the back end reasoning. Maybe Jolie felt so strongly about the material, and identified with the character so much that as an artist she wanted the opporunity to breathe life into it. That is what an artist does - be it song, written word, or something of the visual arts, like acting.

If there was a dramatic interpretation done on audio tape or on the radio, and a white person was cast to do the voice of a black Jamaiccan man, how much of a problem would it be if the performance and voice was so on that it didn't matter if they were white or black?

If a writer or singer wants to show what she thinks of someone who is not the same skin color as she, as an artist do they not have the right? So does Angelina Jolie not have the right to, as an artist, in her own art form, try and relate the story of someone who is not her skin color? Acting is how she speaks. That's what artists do.

But this feels like a much bigger issue to me, one that was pounded into my head when I was in High School. The idea that people of different races and colors are different. Certainly they take it from the angle that we should respect and love all the races, but they make such a strong distinction that it draws a really fine line between people so that when you look at someone who is of a different race, that's all you see. It's not racism. I don't think Paul Haggis' "Crash" was always about racism, it was about perception. Perceiving people to be just one thing, when there is something more complex than that going on in their lives. They only appear racist until we see why they act the way they do. It's not until Ryan Philippe's character sees Terrance Howard's character swinging around a gun that he's able to see beyond that since he knows in essence how he got there, imagine what those other cops were thinking, but he's also incapable of seeing beyond a character's color when he doesn't know them just as all the other character's are. Is it done out of hatred towards a race?

The perception of Jolie is that she is white, and that she cares a lot about people of different races. She knows she's talented, and she knows she wants to say something and can, so I say let her say what she wants to say without seeing everything in such simplistic terms. She's not painting her face black, and dancing around while blurting out "Mamie". She's portraying an actual human being as a ... human being. I wrote a whole piece on this at my blog some months ago. I hate it when people's perception of race only paints a stronger distinction between race, making it impossible for them to believe that someone of another race could understand them, and what their ancestors went through when I can't imagine that even they completely know what it was like for their ancestors.

Zac, Phillip -- good comments/questions: What bugs me is this assumption -- identical to the one behind Jim Crow -- that there are really only two racial categories: "white" and "colored." One drop of "colored" blood -- from anywhere in Africa, Asia, Latin America, North America, etc. -- and you're considered "colored," as if your actual racial heritage doesn't mean anything. That's what I find so reductive and simplistic about American attitudes toward race (across the political spectrum) today. If race matters, and it surely does, then let's not pretend that there's just "white" and "colored" (and "mixed" -- but only if you're talking about African heritage). If there was a better comprehension of racial diversity, maybe some people wouldn't insist that only someone with African genes can play a Cuban-Dutch-French woman -- or that Mariane Pearl herself is wrong to approve of casting a Czech-Haudenosaunee-American actress as herself in her own story.

I agree with your comment Jim. Race does matter, heritage does matter. And I'll never see a problem with casting like this if the artist behind it is searching for the humanity of the character, not just the ethnicity.

To my knowledge, Angelina Jolie has never identified herself as a mixed-race person/woman of color/white multiracial. One drop of non-white ancestry doesn't make a person black if she doesn't want it. Queen Elizabeth's ancestor Queen Charlotte was mulatto. Does that make Elizabeth II a woman of color?

Jesse Jackson is "black" but is mixed-race. Barack Obama is mixed-race. Louis Farrakhan is mixed-race. Muhammad Ali is mixed-race.
W.E.B. DuBois was mixed-race. Jimi Hendrix was mixed-race. Booker T. Washington was mixed-race. Martin Luther King, Jr. was mixed-race. Comedian-actor Chris Tucker is mixed-race (yep, he is. Checkout PBS.org). Quincy Jones is mixed-race. Oprah Winfrey is mixed-race. Dr. Mae Jemison is mixed-race. Corretta Scott King is mixed-race.

Val Kilmer has discussed his Native American ancestry. He's a bankable A-list star. Now, if he could get a movie made starring in the life story of any of these men the fact that he has a drop of non-white ancestry, is bankable, and with a bit of make-up, wigs, and prothestics look like any of these men, that would be better than finding an actor of color for you?

Heather Locklear has African and Native American ancestry. Wouldn't it be great for her to star in a film about the last years of Billie Holiday's life now that Lochlear is middle-aged?

Russell Crowe is mixed-race, his great grandmother was Maori. Crowe has built his career as a white, male actor. Would Crowe be a good choice to play Leonard Peltier because Crowe is bankable?

Bruce Lee created the idea of the TV show "Kung Fu" but was denied the role because Hollywood wanted a more acceptable face. David Carradine was cast. Thirty-years later Carradine is still making a buck off his supposed Asianess.

Isn't this an extension of white privilege wrapped in the bow of supposedly anti-racism why shouldn't a white person be able to play a mixed/person of color? Shouldn't the best bankable actor get the part? Yes, it's feature a film based on the life of Bessie Coleman but Kate Beckinsdale's great grandmother was Indonesian!

Actors and actresses of color, whether mixed or not, don't have the advantages that white or white perceived performers have. That advantage in their careers for opportunities will always be in their favor.

Do you think Hollywood producers would consider Halle Berry or Carmen Ejogo for the dramatic role of the life story of Carol Channing, who has spoken of her mulatto father?

It's not, as you say, just a question of someone with African ancestry being the only one who can portray a another person of color. In fact, Katrina Lombard did an excellent job of playing a tragic white mulatto in "The Wide Sargasso Sea." Anthony Hopkins, again, was perfectly cast Coleman Silk in "The Human Stain." Heck, I could see Brad Pitt as NAACP leader Walter White, who was fair- skinned, blonde and blue-eyed.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/q-and-a/glossary/white-walter.htm

Hollywood is a business that offer employment. There are very few roles for women of color. This was a great role. Good actresses like Sandra Oh or Angela Bassett or Jacqueline Kim or Kimberley Elise can't find decent film roles. The greater good would have been to cast a woman of color who looks like Pearl.

As for Thandie Newton's scene being disgusting, was portraying being sexually assaulted disgusting? Or, did you find Dillon's character rescuing her disgusting? Sexual assault affects 25% of all women in the United States. Portraying a real crime should not be disgusting, especially a scene that shows what women of all colors can face. The scene was not erotic or excessive like something from "Baise Moi."

When moviegoers see "A Might Heart," they will see a tan Angelina Jolie with a funny accent. No one will think that that she is a woman of African ancestry. Will they? When we look at Mariane Pearl, we know that she isn't just a white woman with a tan and frizzy hair. We can see Pearl's African and European ancestry. We know Pearl is mulatto. Why does that matter? Because Mariane Pearl is a historical figure. Rarely, do we see heroic figures of history who are women of color on film except for those who are in slave era or Civil Rights dramas, for instance. That means something to people of color, to see someone on screen who looks like you is life affirming in a white normative society.

Eddie Murphy will be playing an old Chinese man in one of his new movies. I know Asian folks who are pissed because he's using broken English and find his performance just as offensive as Mickey Rooney's houseboy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's."
So, the street works both ways.

(BTW, did you ever wonder why so many African Americans have Irish last names even though very few slaveowners were Irish? As it turns out a lot of Irish women in post-1865 America had relationships with black men.)

Finally, here are some facts for you. The average African-American has 18 to 20% European ancestry and 8 to 11% Native American ancestry. Between 20 to 30% of African-American men have European associated Y-chromosomes.

And, 1/3 of white- identified Americans have African ancestry traceable to enslaved Africans. Most of those people probably even know it.

PBS has a site that overviews some of the many famous white folks who have African ancestry. You'll find the late Jackie Onassis and Peter Ustinov alongside Locklear.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/locklear.html

Thanks for all that information, Jaycen. This is exactly what I was saying in my original post, Happy 300 million!, when I celebrated the fact that "we're a nation of ethnic mutts," and said: "I wish I could live long enough to see the day (and it won't be that long) when most Americans will resemble Tiger Woods or Sonja Sohn or Bejamin Bratt or Halle Berry or Cameron Diaz or Jimmy Smits or Salma Hayek or... Well, OK, the beautiful ones, anyway."

(And, just to clarify: I did not claim that Angelina Jolie "self-identified" as a mixed-race woman; we'll see how good a job she does when the movie is released. Likewise, I've never seen Denzel Washington self-identify as mixed-race, either. But my point is that, to some extent, we're all mixed race -- including me, though I have no intention of playing anyone in a movie, no matter what the character's racial background because I'm not an actor.)

Thinking about my comment that I made about race and heritage mattering, while they do, is it a problem that in a country like America where everyone is either already so mixed or becoming mixed that heritage or race won't matter as much. I add within our boundaries - within our communities. Obviously it would be a mistake to forget about the rest of the world. I'm Irish, German, some French (royalty in fact) and a little Native America. I accept and respect all sides and aspects of my heritage, as I do others... but what is my heritage really? Do I just chose to accept my Irish over my German side? Whatever I think is cooler? Then I would be insulting my German side, non?

The point I think I'm trying to make is that when I don't even know what my heritage is, and when others are so mixed - well, we're kind of creating our own heritage as we go, aren't we? Something kind of new, and alive in a way other cultures have not been. You are right Jim, there are many beautiful things about that. It would be nice if others accepted that fact rather than blanket everything with a black and white attitude. But I'm in LA... a melting pot of a melting pot. It's not like that over the rest of the US - the mixing of cultures - I've been there, it's quite different.

i think thatt angelina jolieee is beautiful...but she's more than thatt...she's exotic...&& thats's something a lot of people don't have. I always wondered what her ethnicity was and to be honest to me she isn't white, she's ethno-ambiguous.

I thank my fellow respondants for stating what I would have said especially concerning the insensitivity of this blogger's comments. If he lived the life of a black woman he would be accutely aware of our invisibility in American cinema.

So when a role featuring an actual woman who everyone knows is of color becomes available and is given to one of the usual suspects, It is all the more irritating. Having said that we must all remember that the industry doesn't exactly function with consideration of our highest goals and values.

Hey Jim, I just saw an interview with Michael Winterbottom in Comingsoon.com. He stated that Pearl chose Jolie to play her. I also suspect that many of the most vocal people regarding the casting have not even read Pearl's book to know how she thinks of herself.

Hey

Almost agree.

BUT

If race isn't an issue why have her 'brown up' at all? Why not let Jolie play Pearl in her own skin colour with her own hair? after all it's all about the acting. If race isn't an issue why not imagine Pearl as a blue eyed Angelina? Why the contact lenses and the new skin tone and the wig?

by not casting a latino or black actress, the producers did the film a disservice. i read somewhere that mariane pearl said that her not being white did help her as a journalist while she was working in the middle east.

hollywood is certainly (definitely) oblivious when it comes to people of color. hollywood is also clueless when it comes to culture. i'm sure mariane pearl was just happy that the film wasn't going to end up on the lifetime channel.

but in reality, the filmmakers should've pushed the story and not the actors. it's a story that the whole world knows and brad pitt didn't need to cast his ex-wife or his present girlfriend in the role. people would've come. but by this controversial casting, the producers ensured that african-americans and latino-americans would avoid the movie. the film company discounted almost 100M people.

and this is the problem that many people of color have with hollywood. that non-whites are invisible and discounted. telemundo is one of the most popular t.v. stations in the u.s. and la opinion has more readers that the l.a. times.

it is deplorable that angelina jolie is essentially in blackface / brownface for this role as she is wearing a kinky wig and make-up in a mighty heart. many roles are denied to asian american, latino-american, and african-american women because they white.

if you look at most hollywood films, ethnic minorities don't exist. oliver stone re-cast the part of the black police officer in his 9/11 filme as a white man. they later said, they didn't know he wasn't white. how bad is that?

in hollywood's eyes, the only heroes in the u.s. are white, anglo-saxon protestant. at least mel gibson had the decency to cast native americans in apocalypto.
http://thekrays.wordpress.com