Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Nomis1700 wrote:Anyway, you keep picking out what you say but neglect what I say about it being racist to cast black people in white peoples roles. Yes I said MLK is a bigger issue than Bond but that too (like this) is a movie role so it does matter.
My issue is that the one example you gave about black people being cast in white roles was about a fictional character.
While the real issue here is that white people are cast as black historical figures and are not fictional.
That's when racism is being brought in... not when fucking James Bond is played by a black dude.
And Hollywood has a history of casting white people to play black personalities or black historical figures.
Hence my point that your James Bond comparison makes no sense whatsoever in the context of Hollywood racism.
Last edited by RIFA on April 1st, 2015, 11:00 am, edited 3 times in total.
Seriously my mood is too fucked up to start arguing with you right now. I haven't seen Exodus and I didn't call this film outright racist, I was responding to SilverHeart and his nonsensical post. I'll repeat once again - I haven't seen Exodus, so I can't say if the movie's racist or not (although the backlash it garnered was funny indeed), but I did hear minority actors were only there for slave roles basically. Just because all Egyptians weren't black doesn't mean they could not have given more chances to actors/actresses of Egyptian/North African ancestry before filling the spots with people like Sigourney Weaver. There may have been white Egyptians, but not all white people look the same and I'm pretty sure most of them didn't look like Weaver.
Well someone posted a pic of the sphinx on set and you said that Exodus was already a racist film. You can say your mood it too fucked up to start arguing and yet you do.
You're a funny guy, I'll give you that. The general consensus (judging from people's opinions) of Exodus is that it's a pretty racist film. I didn't state that I THINK it is, merely because I haven't seen it. If ever do it, I'll be sure to come back and let you know what I think, even if no one gives a shit really.
Please do come back with your opinion about it once you've actually seen it then.
RIFA wrote:
Nomis1700 wrote:Anyway, you keep picking out what you say but neglect what I say about it being racist to cast black people in white peoples roles. Yes I said MLK is a bigger issue than Bond but that too (like this) is a movie role so it does matter.
My issue is that the one example you gave about black people being cast in white roles was about a fictional character.
While the real issue here is that white people are cast as black historical figures and are not fictional.
That's when racism is being brought in... not when fucking James Bond is played by a black dude.
And Hollywood has a history of casting white people to play black personalities or black historical figures.
Hence my point that your James Bond comparison makes no sense whatsoever in the context of Hollywood racism.
I think it does matter when it comes to a character like James Bond. The character has existed for so long, is white in the books and has always been played by a white actor. I have no clue why he suddenly should be played by a black actor, nor do I think Elba is right for the part anyway.
As for the historical figures, I think it matters less with the Egyptians, since they weren't even black anyway, and it's less about the color of their skin in the story than it is with a film about MLK. With Exodus, it was about religion, not skin color.
celibate wrote:The skin color or race of a character is irrelevant in the story of Exodus. It's a story about a nation of 2 brothers.
well considering Moses was Hebrew and Ramses was Egyptian, and considering the tension between the two peoples, race is at least slightly relevant
if that wasn't the case, then it would have been pointless to put both Bale and Edgerton in makeup
Thank you for your post, Cil.
What one has to realize is that the perception of Hebrew and Egyptian being 2 different races is a modern misunderstanding. Hebrews were not of a different race at the time of Exodus (hence why, after exodus, Moses reminds the Hebrews that they are the mixed offspring of 2 peoples, just like a lot of Egyptians would have been at the time). Hebrew was the equivalent of a social status at the time, a lower class, if you will. A kingdom of 2 brothers, same father and mother which after thousands of years fragmented into these 2 classes. So what happens in a nation where one brother has a political voice and representative and the other doesnt? A revolution. A leader must rise and assume the political leadership of the unheard voice.
This film really requires a write up, because too many misconceptions and cemented falsities have prevented audiences from gaining insight into the theatre that is unfolding on the screen.
You know, people wouldn't be so insistent on Elba playing Bond if studios actually invested in quality original material where people of colour had central roles. As it is, pop culture is basically monopolized by white characters.
I guess I always had the impression that Egyptians and Hebrews at that time belonged to different racial groups. If not, then I guess we've mistakenly characterized them differently throughout modern history.
