An Essay on Whitewashing and the “Bankability” of
Asian Stars
I know there have been scores of
articles addressing the casting of Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One in Dr. Strange and Scarlet Johansson in Ghost in the Shell, but as my
frustration with the ongoing practice of yellowface and whitewashing in
Hollywood builds, I wanted to chime in with my response to the increasingly
hackneyed excuse that they had to do that because of the lack of Asian stars.
Being an engineer and an MBA, I
wanted to try and address this argument from a more data-driven, fact-based
approach, as opposed to the more anecdotal ones that are probably more
visible. There will, however,
undoubtedly be plenty of anecdote in my argument, as it’s a tough thing to
avoid; after all, movie-making is arguably more of an art than a science,
right?
Background
The impetus behind this is
probably the latest comments by Max Landis, along the lines of “If you’re mad
about “Ghost In the Shell,” you don’t know how the movie industry works.. There
are no A-list female Asian celebrities right now on an international level…
That is not the fault of the movie industry, really,” etc, which, especially
coming from Max Landis, seems like as white-male-privilege-splaining as it
gets, because who is Max Landis? He is a thirty year old white male son of much
better-known Hollywood player John Landis.
And of course, his white male privilege is only perpetuated by the fact
that major media outlets decide that his response is a worthy enough response
to cover as the primary defender of yellowface casting.
Of course, Max Landis is not the
only person who has made these comments.
Ridley Scott, the man who made Alien
with Sigourney Weaver whose credits at the time included playing “Alvy’s Date
Outside Theatre” in Annie Hall and
roles on TV series “The Best of Families” and “Somerset,” recently made a
comment along similar lines of not being able to get the movie made with
Mohammed So-and-so. The self-proclaimed,
in all caps “VERY LIBERAL” Oscar blogger Sasha Stone made the same argument
when defending the whitewashing casting of Mackenzie Davis in the role of Mindy
Park in The Martian, because you
know, that very small part amongst a pretty heavy-hitting cast led by Matt
Damon, was what the funding of the film hinged on.
So I contend that these comments are all
excuses, either out of ignorance or compliance, defending an industry and
institution that is inherently racist.
I’m going to try and use some data beyond the usual anecdotal evidence
to explore these contentions, namely how a star becomes “bankable” and why
there are no Asian females in that category, and the contention that the only
way to get movies made are with these “bankable” stars.
How a Star Becomes Bankable
As Max Landis says, there are no A-List female
Asian celebrities right now on an international level, which begs the question,
why not? In my attempt to explain this with data, I’ve looked at all Best
Actress and Best Supporting Actress Academy Award nominees since 2000 (which I
know is definitely not a perfect proxy for an actress’s star power), as I
figure it would serve to create a pool of worthy women who have had some
success in their careers. Moreover,
without much concrete backing, I do feel that your bigger female stars are more
likely to have showed up in the Oscar race (as opposed to the men who populate
superhero movies).
So I actually looked at every nominee since 2000,
and because I wanted to look for “breakout” roles to try and measure
bankability with some sort of before/after effect, I only looked at first time
nominees who were not already a known entity previously (which I recognize is a
slightly subjective measurement). I’ll try to append my list of nominees and who I eliminated at the end of this essay so
you can decide how much I’ve biased my arguments.
The actresses I ended up with are:
Laura Linney (2001, You Can Count On Me)
Keisha Castle-Hughes (2003, Whale Rider)
Naomi Watts (2003, 21 Grams)
Catalina Sandino Moreno (2004, Maria Full of
Grace)
Felicity Huffman (2005, Transamerica)
Marion Cotillard (2007, La Vie En Rose)
Ellen Page (2007, Juno)
Melissa Leo (2008, Frozen River)
Carey Mulligan (2009, An Education)
Gabourey Sidibe (2009, Precious)
Jennifer Lawrence (2010, Winter’s Bone)
Rooney Mara (2010, The Girl with the Dragon
Tattoo)
Quevenzhane Wallis, (2012, Beasts of the
Southern Wild)
Felicity Jones (2014, The Theory of Everything)
Rosamund Pike (2014, Gone Girl)
Brie Larson (2015, Room)
Marcia Gay Harden (2000, Pollock)
Kate Hudson (2000, Almost Famous)
Shohreh Aghdashloo (2003, House of Sand and Fog)
Virginia Madsen (2004, Sideways)
Sophie Okonedo (2004, Hotel Rwanda)
Amy Adams (2005, Junebug)
Jennifer Hudson (2006, Dreamgirls)
Adriana Barraza (2006, Babel)
Abigail Breslin (2006, Little Miss Sunshine)
Rinko Kikuchi (2006, Babel)
Saiorse Ronan (2007, Atonement)
Amy Ryan (2007, Gone Baby Gone)
Viola Davis (2008, Doubt)
Taraji P. Henson (2008, Hustle and Flow)
Mo’Nique (2009, Precious)
Vera Farmiga (2009, Up In the Air)
Anna Kendrick (2009, Up In the Air)
Hailee Steinfeld (2010, True Grit)
Jacki Weaver (2010, Animal Kingdom)
Octavia Spencer (2011, The Help)
Jessica Chastain (2011, The Help)
Berenice Bejo (2011, The Artist)
Melissa McCarthy (2011, Bridesmaids)
Lupita N’yongo (2013, 12 Years a Slave)
Sally Hawkins (2013, Blue Jasmine)
June Squibb (2013, Nebraska)
Patricia Arquette (2014, Boyhood)
Alicia Vikander (2015, The Danish Girl)
Just looking at that list, you can probably
compare yourself anecdotally about the fate of white actresses vs. actresses of
color. But I’ve tried to do some sort of
comparison in terms of career trajectory pre-and-post so we can try and have
some sort of control. Unfortunately,
this is where it gets a bit anecdotal, because again, art vs. science.
So I’ve split actors now into those of color and
not. I’ve looked up their follow-up
Oscar nominations and films and their ages at the time of nomination. In my analysis I’ve noted the budget of their
nominated film as well as its gross, just to try and get the scope of that
piece if necessary.
White Actors:
Laura Linney, Naomi Watts, Felicity Huffman,
Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Melissa Leo, Carey Mulligan, Melissa Leo,
Jennifer Lawrence, Rooney Mara, Felicity Jones, Rosamund Pike, Brie Larson,
Marcia Gay Harden, Kate Hudson, Amy Adams, Abigail Breslin, Saiorse Ronan, Amy
Ryan, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Jacki Weaver, Jessica Chastain, Berenice
Bejo, Melissa McCarthy, Sally Hawkins, June Squibb, Patricia Arquette, Alicia
Vikander
Non-White Actors:
Keisha Castle-Hughes, Catalina Sandino Moreno,
Gabourey Sidibe, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Sophie Okonedo, Jennifer Hudson, Adriana
Barraza, Rinko Kikuchi, Viola Davis, Taraji P. Henson, Mo’Nique, Octavia
Spencer, Lupita N’yongo
Hailee Steinfeld is a tricky one as she’s one
quarter Filipino, but from an appearance perspective is not obviously ethnic. There may be similar others that have been
miscategorized, but to me, I’ve put them in the obvious categories.
Of course, we must also recognize that age in
Hollywood is a huge factor for women, so the career trajectory of the actresses
where the “breakthrough” was later in life will also be a huge issue, but we
can still compare white actresses and actresses of color in the same age
bracket. Furthermore, depending on when these first nominations are in the
2000’s, there will obviously be more opportunity for greater work the earlier
they were nominated (so for the 2014-2015 nominees, it’s hard to get much of a
gauge as to their career trajectories, but I’m pretty sure Brie Larson and
Alicia Vikander have things lined up). I don’t think it will make too much of a
difference though before the point is made.
In our group of young nominees, we can compare:
Keisha Castle-Hughes (13), Quevenzhane Wallis
(11), Abigail Breslin (10), Saiorse Ronan (13), and Hailee Steinfeld (14)
In our “ingénue” age-group, for lack of a better
world (okay, I could have said 20’s, sorry), we’ll compare:
Catalina Sandino Moreno (23), Ellen Page (20),
Carey Mulligan (24), Gabourey Sidibe (26), Jennifer Lawrence (20), Kate Hudson
(21), Jennifer Hudson (27), Rinko Kikuchi (25), Anna Kendrick (24), Jennifer
Hudson (27), Alicia Vikander (26)
In our 30’s group, we can look at:
Laura Linney (36), Naomi Watts (35), Marion
Cotillard (32), Sophie Okonedo (36), Amy Adams (31), Amy Ryan (39), Vera Farmiga (36),
Berenice Bejo (35), Jessica Chastain (34), Lupita N’yongo (30), Sally Hawkins
(37)
And in our 40+ group, we can look at:
Melissa Leo (48), Marcia Gay Harden (40), Shohreh Aghdashloo (51),
Virginia Madsen (43), Adriana Barraza (50), Mo’Nique (42), Jacki Weaver (63),
Octavia Spencer (41), Melissa McCarthy (41), Viola Davis (43), Patricia
Arquette (46), June Squibb (83)
I concede we have a small sample size, but in
each of these categories, for the most part, the main differentiator for me in
terms of success seems to be race. I’ve
made an Excel sheet looking at roles following Oscar nominations, follow-on
nominations, budgets of films and grosses of films they’ve starred in, but it’s
a lot of info. I’m not going to go into too much detail, but based on how much
you recognize their names, you can decide what their trajectories have been
like, and I’ll just post some interesting takeaways:
In the young nominees, Keisha Castle-Hughes
followed up her Oscar nomination with a bit part in Revenge of the Sith, where
she was unidentifiably covered in white make up (reminiscent of Lupita’s Star
Wars turn?). Saoirse Ronan has been
playing significant leading roles and was most recently nominated for a lead
actress Oscar in Brooklyn.
In the 40+ group, the follow up projects for
Melissa Leo and Jacki Weaver (while they may not be household names) were
subsequent Oscar nominations/wins, and Melissa McCarthy is what she is
now. On the other hand, Shohreh
Aghdashloo got to play Dr. Kavita Rao in X-Men: The Last Stand, but otherwise
pretty much moved to television. Adriana Barraza followed up her nomination
with an episode in CSI: Miami and ER, although she is in Thor.
My major comparison is the 20’s group. Carey
Mulligan, Jennifer Lawrence, and Anna Kendrick are probably three of today’s
buzziest stars. I think it’s a difficult
case to make that Jennifer Lawrence became “bankable” in WINTER’S BONE, which
grossed $6.5M, but rather when she was put into X-Men and The Hunger
Games. Someone made the decision to put
her in a major franchise, and this made her bankable. Why did no one do this for Rinko Kikuchi (Pacific Rim came seven years later)? Or
Catalina Sandino Moreno? I feel like people might push back with the language
issue, but then you look at Marion Cotillard and Lea Seydoux after their
‘breakouts’ and they ended up in Inception and as a Bond girl, respectively.
Max Landis, one is not put into a franchise because one is bankable, one is
made bankable by being put into a franchise, which seems to only happen when
one is white.
Just for kicks, it’s worth noting that:
Octavia Spencer, Jessica Chastain, and Melissa
McCarthy were nominated for the first time in the same year, and Octavia
Spencer won. That’s enough on that
point.
I would say the comparable career trajectory for
an actress of color above might be Viola Davis, who followed up her Oscar
nomination in Doubt with one in The Help (playing…the help), but has mostly
since made her name on TV rather than film.
Suicide Squad may change this, although it seems to be capitalizing on
her Emmy wins rather than giving her a huge opportunity for being young and
white (as, say Margot Robbie is getting).
Movies can’t get made without a bankable star
Even though I’ve already touched on this point,
I want to just follow up with some data to examine Max Landis’s assertion
again. If Hollywood can’t make movies without a bankable star, then one would
expect that all the most expensive (non-continuation on franchise) movies that
have been made have a “bankable” star.
Furthermore, one would expect that the most successful movies would be
led by at least a “bankable” star, because that would justify that “bankable”
stars make bankable movies.
To try and judge this, I’ll look at two things:
- Most expensive movies made and who their stars are
2 - highest grossing movies in a year and who their stars are
Expensive movies
Here is a list from Wikipedia of the 25 most
expensive productions, unadjusted for inflation:
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
(2011)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007)
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
John Carter (2012)
Tangled (2010)
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Spectre (2015)
Avatar (2009)
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
The Lone Ranger (2013)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
(2006)
Man of Steel (2013)
The Avengers (2012)
Men In Black 3 (2012)
Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)
Battleship (2012)
King Kong (2005)
Superman Returns (2006)
If I remove anything that was a sequel in a
franchise, since we can assume those greenlights came from the previous installment
(as much as I don’t want to remove Ben Barnes in Prince Caspian to illustrate
this point) and animated movies, we’re left with:
John Carter,
Avatar,
The Lone Ranger,
Man of Steel,
Oz the Great and Powerful,
Battleship,
King Kong
And just because that list is really short, I’m
going to keep picking more out from the Wikipedia list that fulfil this
criteria.
Titanic,
2012,
Green Lantern,
Guardians of the Galaxy,
World War Z,
Jack the Giant Slayer,
The Golden Compass,
Pacific Rim,
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch
and The Wardrobe
Tomorrowland
Okay, first of all it might be noting that
spending a lot on a movie seems like generally a bad idea, unless you’re James
Cameron. But secondly, it seems like
Hollywood is happy to do it as long as they have a white male leading the
movie, regardless of how well known they are.
Let’s look at the idea that these movies could
only be made with a bankable star in the lead.
John Carter – Taylor Kitsch
Avatar – Sam Worthington
The Lone Ranger – Johnny Depp
Man of Steel – Henry Cavill
Oz the Great and Powerful – James Franco
Battleship – Taylor Kitsch
King Kong – Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien
Brody
Titanic – Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet
2012- John Cusack
Green Lantern – Ryan Reynolds
Guardians of the Galaxy – Chris Pratt
World War Z – Brad Pitt
Jack the Giant Slayer – Nicholas Hoult
The Golden Compass – Dakota Blue Richards
Pacific Rim – Charlie Hunnam
Chronicles of Narnia – William Moseley, et al
Tomorrowland – Britt Robertson
At the times their respective films were made, I
would probably say that the only films with “bankable” stars were The Lone
Ranger, Oz the Great and Powerful, King Kong, 2012, and World War Z. So 5/17 films. And clearly all these big budget movies were
worth making with a white actor at the helm, regardless of how much it cost
(saying nothing of the quality of the end product). I've also tried to note the main lead of the film, even though films like The Golden Compass and Tomorrowland had more "bankable" stars like Nicole Kidman and George Clooney more central in their marketing. These seem relevant in the "unbankable star" category though, because I think it's very reasonable to cast an unknown Asian lead in Ghost in the Shell and a more "bankable" supporting character.
Now given the success of these films, these might be in opposition to my point,
potentially making the argument why using a non-bankable star means your film
is destined for failure (although many of those starry ones were arguably worse), since a lot of these seemed like pretty big flops
(although given how recent many of these films are, they still seem to be happy
to take this risk with an unknown white male star), so perhaps what we should
be noting is film grosses.
Under Max Landis’s logic, one would expect that
the most successful movies should therefore only have bankable stars in it,
because Hollywood must believe that a movie must have a ‘bankable’ star in it
to be successful.
This is getting to be kind of a lot of lists, so
I’m just going to look at Box Office Mojo for the last two years of worldwide
box office grosses that again, are neither animated nor a sequel of a franchise,
and pull out qualifying films from the top 25 or so.
2015:
The Martian - Matt Damon
Fifty Shades of Grey – Jamie Dornan and Dakota
Fanning
Cinderella – Lily James
The Revenant – Leonardo DiCaprio
Ant-Man – Paul Rudd
San Andreas – Dwayne Johnson
Kingsman: The Secret Service – Taron Egerton
2014:
Guardians of the Galaxy – Chris Pratt
Maleficent – Angelina Jolie
Interstellar – Matthew McConaughey
American Sniper – Bradley Cooper
Godzilla – Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles – Megan Fox
Lucy – Scarlett Johansson
Edge of Tomorrow – Tom Cruise
Gone Girl – Rosamund Pike
Noah – Russell Crowe
The Maze Runner – Dylan O’Brien
I mean, for half of these films, can we consider
the star bankable? In 2015, Fifty Shades of Grey and Cinderella picked non-bankable stars for
a known story, potentially creating bankable stars (which I feel like they
could have done for Ghost in the Shell),
and Taron Egerton doesn’t seem very bankable (you might argue Colin Firth, is
more bankable, in which case I say again, great, cast a supporting bankable star in Ghost in the Shell and make an Asian lead). Paul Rudd and Dwayne Johnson are questionable
as bankable (again, this is subjective), but we see that nearly half of these top-grossing films did not have a non-bankable star, so based on the evidence,
how does Hollywood decide that bankable stars are the only way to assure that
the film will make money?
In 2014, we have a similar breakdown, where I’d
say Chris Pratt, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Megan Fox, Rosamund Pike, and Dylan O’Brien weren’t
“bankable” at the time their film came out, and by most things I’ve read, Lucy was what determined Scarlett
Johansson’s bankability, so she wasn’t considered “bankable” before then. I realize this might be a bit off, since
Megan Fox was in Transformers, and
Aaron Taylor-Johnson was Kick-Ass,
which were pretty big, so maybe it’s my subjectivity that makes me think that
they’re not particularly “bankable.” It
still doesn’t make a particularly strong case for the correlation that a film
needs to have a "bankable" star to make money.
In many cases, doesn’t the success of the film
make the white lead bankable, especially when the source material is known or
when the material is Marvel? So why
can’t Hollywood do that with Ghost in the
Shell or Dr. Strange? Would the successful
films with a relatively unknown white actor have done just as well with an
unknown non-white lead? We see films
like Life of Pi, Slumdog Millionaire, and The
Jungle Book, and it seems like it should be fine if the movie’s good. But now I’m getting anecdotal, because
there’s just not that much evidence to make much of a point with non-white
leads.
Conclusion
After all this, what can I conclude? It seems to
me that Hollywood IS willing to make expensive movies with non-bankable stars,
as long as they are white, and someone decides they want them to become
bankable. And the success of the film
doesn’t necessarily depend on how “bankable” the film star is, as those
defending whitewashing are arguing. So I just want to say to Max Landis and
every other person who says I don’t know how Hollywood works and they can’t
cast minorities as leads because the movies can’t get made because those actors
aren’t “bankable” enough: no, that’s not the case. It’s because they’re not white enough. It seems that YOU don’t know how Hollywood
works, and I should explain to you that it’s just an institutionally racist
bubble, and while you as an individual are probably (hopefully) not racist, you’re
just making the excuses that continue to perpetuate the whitewashing of
minorities and reinforce the blatant institutional racism that undoubtedly
exists. That’s how Hollywood works.
As an extra takeaway, it kind of seems like if a
movie is good, regardless of who your star is or how much money you spend on
it, it’s going to do well. And if the
film is not good, no matter how much you spend on it, it’s probably not going
to do as well. Rocket science. So if they just concentrate on making Ghost in the Shell good, then they
shouldn’t have to cast a “bankable” white actress. If they make it good,
they’ll make a new bankable Asian star. The source material is known, liked,
and popular, so do the filmmakers not have confidence that their team can make
a good movie? Or maybe it’s just the institutional racism.