An Essay on Whitewashing and the "Bankability" of Asian Stars

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. 

Playbill King and I Poll

So I thought I wrote a very nice and respectful email to the editors of Playbill.com, and I was rather disappointed that they didn't even respond to me.  Disappointing, to say the least. This is what I wrote:

Dear Andrew and Andrew, 

Can I please respectfully request that you remove the non-Asian suggestions for Broadway stars to play the King on your "King and I" poll?  Namely, Paulo Szot, Michael Cerveris, Raul Esparza and Hugh Panaro.  While I respect that these are reader suggestions and they are all very exciting and talented individuals, I do think it is irresponsible for Playbill to promote these suggestions. I regularly read your website and have a lot of respect for your content, and for you to condone, encourage, and promote these very offensive, yellowface suggestions seems misaligned with the usual integrity in your reporting. 

Playbill had at this opportunity to use its brand and reputation to educate its readers in racist practices and to promote a very under-represented minority, but in this opportunity has taken a step backwards.  The world of theatre is generally a very liberal place, and thus it has surprised and disappointed me that Playbill has fallen back into a very racist and antiquated stance on equality, hearkening back to the Jonathan Pryce casting in "Miss Saigon" 25 years ago, where Asians fought so hard for the right to play ourselves.  To question you even further, if this poll had been about the character Coalhouse in "Ragtime," would you have printed these four suggestions if they were suggested by readers?  Would you implicitly say it was okay in this day and age for actors to "black up?"  If so, then this "King and I" article is in line with what you promote, but then I'm afraid I have had very wrong notions of your website.  If not, then I implore you to take down those four suggestions immediately, and ideally apologize. 

If you have any other questions or concerns, I'm happy to discuss with you further. 

An Essay on "Color-Blind Casting"

An Essay on Color-Blind Casting

Introduction

I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I just wanted to put down some thoughts.  I don’t have a blog or much means of publishing it, so I don’t know who, if anyone, will see this, but it’s kind of cathartic for me.  Its intention is not to attack or to condemn or to complain, and as such I will not name specific names, although I definitely could, but rather to inform, educate, and question, ideally.

First of all, in writing this, the only real credibility I have is my experience and my opinions.  I’ve talked to a lot of people, I’ve argued with a lot of people, I’ve learned from a lot of people, but my thoughts are my thoughts, and you are welcome to disagree with them.  I am a minority actor based in the UK, and this is where most of my experiences and thoughts stem from.  I have an MA in Sociology from a very prestigious US university.  I can’t say a couple of courses and research papers on race and power gives me any more credibility in what I’m saying, but I do like to throw it out there to make myself sound more important.  

Second of all, I’m going to write this essay using White and Black as the foundation of my minority discussion.  Even though I might be talking exclusively about black actors, I think the points in this essay are applicable to all racial minorities in the entertainment industry, as well as women (white or otherwise).  I myself am an Asian actor and not a black actor, but I think it will just make it easier for people to understand if I use black actors to illustrate my points, and ‘black’ is faster to type than ‘minority.’  However, you could effectively replace “black” in this essay with “Asian” or “Latino” or “disabled” or “middle-aged female” (in which case “color” would be replaced by “gender” obviously), and hopefully the points will be just as relevant and salient.   

Definitions

Let me start by the definitions that I have come across for “Color-Blind Casting.” 

The one that seems to make the most sense in literal terms is also the one that I’ve heard almost exclusively from white people.  It goes something like this:

“We saw people of all colors, and we cast the best actor for the role.”  Often, this is a white actor.  More on that later.

The definition that I (and I imagine most minorities) use is more like this:

“We've taken a role that does not have an ethnicity specified, or that would ordinarily be played by a white actor, and have decided to cast a minority in it, thus having the audience watch this piece ‘blind’ to the actors’ colors.”

In this essay, I’m going to try and touch on a few points, including why I believe the latter definition above is the one that should be used, what my response is to many of the responses or excuses I get about not casting minorities, and what can be done, if anything, to ameliorate this situation.

I’m also going to make the very big assumption that everyone in the industry is in a position where they actually WANT to increase or promote diversity in the entertainment industry.  If this is not the case, then effectively you’re a neo-Nazi and will probably leave terrible comments at the end of this piece, and I don’t care about you.

The Bad Definition

Firstly, let me talk about why I think the first definition of “color-blind casting” is bogus.  Again, I’m going to talk in terms of black actors.

In order for one to make this statement, someone would have had to see all black actors that could have been suitable for the part and all white actors that would have been suitable for the part.  However, this does not happen, because it’s just not possible.  I can guarantee you that when casting for a role, you’ll always be able to find a black actor who is better than the white actor you cast, or a white actor that is better than the black actor you cast, because there are really good black actors and really good white actors.  Now it’s a possibility that because of the size of the role or the budget you had to offer, Chiwetel Ejiofor was not available, but then the excuse would not be, ‘we saw all and picked the best.’ 

What happens with this definition then, is it seems to simply be giving the white producer/director/casting director/decision-maker (and remember, this definition I’ve only really heard from white people) some peace of mind or an excuse to legitimize the casting of a white actor over a black actor.

I will also say that this method of ‘Color-Blind Casting’ will often result in casting the white actors over the black actors (which we might realize is antithetical to the second definition, as the second definition is an attempt to provide opportunities black actors otherwise would not have).  My arguments are as follows.

a) The Level Playing Field

Let me say this. In the acting world, it is not a level playing field for white and black actors.  If you’re taking two actors of different races, their experiences are probably going to be vastly different.  This whole “Color-Blind Casting” (definition 2) thing is a relatively recent phenomenon, and so black actors have for the most part only been playing parts specifically written for black people.  Firstly, there are not very many of these, and secondly, they are not very complex or deep (If you’re thinking “there are great parts for black actors” remember to think about all the other minorities, and women over forty).  So while the white actor with an equally long career has been playing Hamlet and leads at the big theatres, the black actor is playing drug dealers and bit parts, and maybe some big roles at some of the progressive fringe theatres.  I can tell you this from experience: the more you work, the better you get. 

Not only does experience build skill/technique/confidence, it’s also something that is considered in hiring.  People like hiring people with experience.  So in “Color-Blind Casting” (definition 1), the white actor is likely to be hired.  Unfortunately, by not hiring the less experienced black actor, you are denying the opportunity for him to grow, and thus perpetuating this problem (more on this later).

b) White People Are Making the Decision

People are not blind to race.  They just aren’t.  The only people who say this are white people who are trying to not be racist.  Race is actually a pretty visible and characteristic thing.  So when casting, “best for the part” becomes rather subjective.  I will say, the best actor for a black part is a black actor.  If you decide to change the race of the character, that’s another problem, which we’ll talk about later as well.  However, the ‘best actor for the part’ for a race-non-specific role is not, as hard as someone may try to be, blind to race.  Now here is where I might get a little controversial, and I know completely that there are people who do not fall under this bucket.  In fact, you might think you are (and you might not be in reality).  People are generally more comfortable with what they’re familiar with, and thus white decision-makers are more likely to default to white actors, while black decision-makers are more likely to be stronger advocates of minority actors.  There’s this great book called “Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” by Beverly Daniel Tatum.  You’re kind of just used to what you’re used to.  It’s not a bad thing necessarily, but it’s something I think people should be aware of, and a lot of white people aren’t (and some non-white people).  A lot of white people haven’t had to struggle in the way a minority has, and thus don’t feel as strongly about advocating minorities (Don’t get me wrong, a lot of white people have, and a lot of white people who haven’t do feel strongly).  Regardless, I would argue a white casting panel may be more comfortable (or subconsciously inclined to) casting a white person given the choice between white and black.  The white casting panel? That’s another issue as well, that perhaps we can talk about later.

Thus, by definition 1 of “Color-Blind Casting,” I might argue that more whites are getting cast over blacks, and this ‘progressive trend’ might thus be the reason why we’ve seen a drop in diversity in recent years on the BBC.   

Did you disagree with these points and my disapproval of Definition 1?  Look at your hands. You’re probably white.

The Excuses

I contend that race is always a choice.  When a theatre production or a TV show or a film has an all-white cast, this decision had to have been made somewhere along the way.  Someone, somewhere, has decided not to cast minorities.  I don’t like to see all-white casts, because I think they’re out of place in today’s diverse society.  However, they happen all the time, especially in the UK.  When confronted with this, a lot of ‘excuses’ come up.  I want to address a few of these.  We’ve already talked about “Color-Blind Casting” (definition 1) and how “I don’t see color” and “I saw people of color but chose a white person” just doesn’t fly in my mind.  I will say here, that if “Color-Blind Casting” (definition 1) actually works towards the benefit of a black actor in a lead role, then I’m okay with it working in the same production in the opposite way for a minor role (for instance, if you cast a black actor over a white actor in a lead that was race non-specific, and then cast a white actor over a black actor in a supporting role, great! You’ve diversified your cast!).  My main beef is with productions with no minorities in it at all, namely all-white casts.  You might be confused and think that what I’ve said above isn’t the most ‘fair’ way to do something and that you’re biasing opportunities for black actors.  And yes, yes I am.  I am advocating that bias because there are so few opportunities for black actors, and decisions have to actively be made to include more black actors, giving them opportunity they don’t ordinarily have.  The following responses are some that I get ordinarily, generally from white people who have somehow come up with an all-white cast.

a)    I saw everyone of that race

And I call BS.  Because you didn’t.  There are a lot of actors out there, and you didn’t have the time.  Potentially you saw everyone you knew, or everyone that the casting director could bring in.  In which case, I would say that you need to know more people.  It is difficult, because while we exist, there are not very many parts out there for you to see us in (see the Catch-22 that is forming?).  If you saw everyone you knew and there was no one right, especially for a race-specific role (or a role that someone has decided should be a minority), then you need to keep looking and you need to realize your shortcomings and try to find more actors of that race in the future.

I will concede; this is difficult.  When casting for a play, we resolved to have a black actor for a certain part.  We saw many black actors, and then a white actor who came in for a white part fit the part so well and we cast him.  We had exhausted the casting director’s and our own knowledge of black actors, and time was running out, so we cast a white actor.  Think, even I, who decided on a whim to write a little essay about race and am now on word 1950 and not finished, couldn’t cast a minority when I wanted to.  I understand how hard it is, but be honest about it.  Don’t say there was no one right for it, because there is.  You didn’t see everyone.  There just was some sort of a limitation on it, and now you know where your limitations lie, and you can try to do something about it.  It’s okay.  Just be honest and aware about it.

What I do find absolutely terrible though, is giving up finding someone and then changing the race of the character.  Granted, this is not as bad as not changing the race of the character and casting a white actor in blackface, but it still seems like an unfortunate situation.  To take a rare part that some noble, glorious writer has actually written for a minority and to take that opportunity away and give it to a white man seems to me particularly heinous.  Just to clarify in my story above, yes it is that heinous, but in my defense, it is slightly less heinous, as the part was originally intended for a white man, and I was trying to play the part of the noble, glorious producer and give the part to a black man, and failed.  However, by changing the race of a character that was created to provide opportunity seems particularly damaging because here you are denying the opportunity for growth.  As I said above, you will likely find a better white actor, but again, actors grow with experience, and you just had an opportunity to help an actor grow that was specifically intended for that actor, and by denying it, you are simply ‘keeping the black man down.’  I realize I’ve started using ‘you.’  I’m not attacking you directly, it’s just a general term for anyone making this excuse or in this situation, even me.

b) It’s a period piece.

And there is plenty of that in the UK.  I understand that a period piece can specify race, and I understand that white should be and is sometimes specified.  While theatre seems to be more forgiving for “Color-Blind Casting” (definition 2) and having minorities in traditionally white roles, film and television tend to maintain the race reality of the history a bit more.  My qualm thus does not lie so much with the casting, but why these pieces continue to be created in such high numbers?  If we’re trying to promote diversity (again, assuming we are), why keep creating work that specifies only white people?  Don’t get me wrong, I love Downton as much as the next old white lady, but for every period piece, can’t someone write or create or commission a minority-driven piece?  Of course, we do run into the obstacle of a lack of minority writers, but that is probably content for another essay. 

c) But audiences want them! They don’t want to see minorities!

I get this surprisingly too often.  Frankly, I find it insulting to the audiences to assume that they don’t want to see diversity reflected in the things they watch.  If this is the case, isn’t it all the more exciting to be able to educate them about the existence of minorities?  And if they hate minorities, is this the audience you really want to be targeting?

In terms of theatre audiences, I believe that, in the words of “Field of Dreams,” ‘if you build it, they will come.’ Right now, people don’t think there are black audiences because they don’t see them.  However, chances are high that black audiences don’t want to see all-white ensemble pieces on white topics.  If you create a production with a diverse cast, I would like to think that a diverse audience would come and support it.  I personally try (in theory) to avoid pieces that don’t reflect the racial make up of society, and I have a very high tolerance for theatre.  I can’t say for certain that current audiences would be accepting of diversity, or that diverse shows will definitely bring in diverse audiences (though in my experience, they have), but I think the case that I make is backed with the same evidence that those who argue that the current audiences don’t want diversity or diverse audiences won’t come to the theatre: pure conjecture.

d) So, You Just Want Rampant Tokenism?

Perhaps ‘tokenism’ sounds bad, but I’ve come to realize that for now, the answer is YES.  Just cast us, in any token role if you have to.  While no actor wants to be cast solely because of his race, it’s better to have the opportunity and grow.  I’ve heard it from many quite high profile directors and casting directors that they avoid casting minorities in small roles because it seems like tokenism.  Thus, in some twisted way to protect minorities, they just don’t cast them. 

If we can’t get our starts as the ‘token’ minority in an otherwise all-white show – the policeman, the best friend, maybe even the stereotype – then we’re not going to get the opportunity or the experience at all.  Goodness knows the opportunities for minority leads are few and far between, and only one actor will land that role.  Thus, cast us for the sake of casting a minority to diversify your cast. I am sure that the actor cast in the role will be happy for it, and if that actor keeps landing those roles, eventually he/she will grow to become a better actor and land better roles.  Let there be quotas and tokens, because as of now, it’s the only way we’re able to get in.

So what do we do about it?

So what can be done?  To put it bluntly, there needs to be decision-makers who actively choose to cast minorities.  It can’t be left to “Color-Blind Casting” (definition 1), and in fact, if that’s the standing definition, I would say the term needs to be eradicated completely.  Rather, the casting needs to be “Color-Conscious.”  Some decision-maker - whether it is the writer, the producer, the director, the casting director - needs to make the decision that they want a role to be played by a minority, or a woman, or a disabled person, and then they need to make it happen, because that’s the only way it will.  The tricky thing is, right now, there are very few people in that position of power who seem to be willing to make that decision.  I would say ‘take that risk,’ but it doesn’t seem like a risk in any way to me.  People seem to say that they want to increase diversity, so they should be able to actively do something about it if they want it.  I guess it’s about increasing awareness, or just finding an advocate who will actually do it. 

I’ve done what I can.  I’ve started a production company to specifically create opportunities and cast consciously for race and gender.  But my (currently relatively) small productions aren’t going to move the needle dramatically.  The television producers of the big channels, the artistic directors of the big theatres, the directors of big films, they need to be convinced and make the effort.  I’d like to think they’d all think that diversity is important and advocate it, so they need to actually make that change.

Generationally, it seems that the younger or up and coming generation are the ones who are the most open to non-traditional race and gender casting.  So if we wait long enough, the current conservative power will retire and be replaced by the rising generation, but I don’t really want to wait 20 years.  So we just need to get these powerful people conscious and active now.  Any ideas on how to make that happen?