By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why Jordan Peele is Unlikely to Cast White Lead: 'I've Seen That Movie'

psychicscubadiver on 27 March 2019

On one hand if the stories he wants to tell require a black lead I have no problem with it. Certain stories require certain people as the lead. A historical drama about vikings requires a white lead, for example.

On the other hand this statement sure as hell wouldn't fly if the races were reversed. Plus, the whole 'bland white guy' narrative is reductive and absolute bullshit. This idea that adding 'diversity' automatically makes things better rather than judging a movie on its own merits is pure nonsense. Kill Bill and Alien featured women as action leads and they were brilliant. But we're supposed to applaud a mediocre superhero movie like Captain Marvel purely because the lead is a woman? The idea that Black Panther was the first black superhero to get a major motion picture when Wesley Snipes did it literally twenty years ago with Blade? The whole thing is ridiculous.



Around the Network
thismeintiel on 27 March 2019

The thing is Peele can do whatever he wants with his films. However, it is complete BS for him to just say no to a white lead EVER. And I don't mean he has to ever make a movie with a white lead, but why the Hell does he need to come out and say it, pushing this identity politics crap. And yea, to just come out and say you aren't going to is racist, if it is also racist for a white director to say he isn't going to make a movie with a black/Asian/etc. lead because that is not what he wants to do. Either you say its fine for everyone to say/do those things, or no one can.



 

DonFerrari on 27 March 2019
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, let's go on those warped arguments that have same situation but different interpretation to basically summarizes that it's only racism when it's against black, it is only prejudice if not on white male cis religious person.

Because you don't understand context and circumstance.  You're the guy that would ask, "Why don't we have White History Month and where is the White Music Channel?"

You can't get past the fact that racism is a contextual thing.  You want the strictest, most 'black and white' interpretation of what racism is but that's not how it works and you can't understand that.  Maybe it's too complex of a concept for you.  Maybe the nuances, context, functions, etc...are too difficult for you to grasp.  Or maybe you could grasp them but don't want to because you want to feel outraged, indignity, and anger for a perceived attack on you for simply being you. 

KLXVER said:

No. Some of us just don't think everything about race is racism.

Correct.  It's not.  But some either think it is or want to be so they can feel justified by their own racism.

EndOfTolerance said:

The phrase "white dude" seems to be used almost exclusively by people looking to demean or attack whites. These people will never say "white man", always "white dude", even though they will always say "woman" when talking about, for example, feminist issues. I suppose it's because "dude" has a less respectful connotation than "man", but it's striking how unfailingly they will conform to this word choice. I personally now just write off anyone I see or hear talking this way, they have nothing of value to add to my life.

That's a reach, dude.  Calling a guy a white dude doesn't, hasn't and unlikely will ever have a racial connotation to it. 

And what are they supposed to say for a women, "dudette?

I guess this may be like the 10th or 100th time you call me dumb. I don't even know why I even take the time to reply to you.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

thismeintiel on 27 March 2019
EndOfTolerance said:

The phrase "white dude" seems to be used almost exclusively by people looking to demean or attack whites. These people will never say "white man", always "white dude", even though they will always say "woman" when talking about, for example, feminist issues. I suppose it's because "dude" has a less respectful connotation than "man", but it's striking how unfailingly they will conform to this word choice. I personally now just write off anyone I see or hear talking this way, they have nothing of value to add to my life.

Yep.  Brie Larson said the same thing about "white dudes" who were critics and gave A Wrinkle in Time bad reviews, saying the dumbest thing ever that "the movie wasn't made for them."  That's strange that some one would take a novel written by a white woman, cast 3 big characters with white actors, yet it was only for POC?  I guess just because the director was black that means it was a black movie?  How racist is that?  Very, I would say. 

Not sure why they thought it was such a big deal to prove that, yes, black directors can make shitty films, too.



 

thismeintiel on 27 March 2019
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, let's go on those warped arguments that have same situation but different interpretation to basically summarizes that it's only racism when it's against black, it is only prejudice if not on white male cis religious person.

Because you don't understand context and circumstance.  You're the guy that would ask, "Why don't we have White History Month and where is the White Music Channel?"

You can't get past the fact that racism is a contextual thing.  You want the strictest, most 'black and white' interpretation of what racism is but that's not how it works and you can't understand that.  Maybe it's too complex of a concept for you.  Maybe the nuances, context, functions, etc...are too difficult for you to grasp.  Or maybe you could grasp them but don't want to because you want to feel outraged, indignity, and anger for a perceived attack on you for simply being you. 

KLXVER said:

No. Some of us just don't think everything about race is racism.

Correct.  It's not.  But some either think it is or want to be so they can feel justified by their own racism.

EndOfTolerance said:

The phrase "white dude" seems to be used almost exclusively by people looking to demean or attack whites. These people will never say "white man", always "white dude", even though they will always say "woman" when talking about, for example, feminist issues. I suppose it's because "dude" has a less respectful connotation than "man", but it's striking how unfailingly they will conform to this word choice. I personally now just write off anyone I see or hear talking this way, they have nothing of value to add to my life.

That's a reach, dude.  Calling a guy a white dude doesn't, hasn't and unlikely will ever have a racial connotation to it. 

And what are they supposed to say for a women, "dudette?

Yea, no.  Racism is not contextual.  You either are or you are not.  And there are no double standards.  If you say any phrase, but it would be considered racist if you inserted ANY other race, what you just said was racist.  It doesn't make it ok just because you have white as the race.  You can come up with some BS explanation, but that doesn't stop what you just said as being racist.

As for white dudes, it's not the simple fact that they just say it.  Its the extreme contempt in their voices when they say do say it.

SpokenTruth said:
thismeintiel said:
The thing is Peele can do whatever he wants with his films. However, it is complete BS for him to just say no to a white lead EVER. And I don't mean he has to ever make a movie with a white lead, but why the Hell does he need to come out and say it, pushing this identity politics crap. And yea, to just come out and say you aren't going to is racist, if it is also racist for a white director to say he isn't going to make a movie with a black/Asian/etc. lead because that is not what he wants to do. Either you say its fine for everyone to say/do those things, or no one can.

Because he was asked at a Q & A session at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater about casting and the kind of films he makes.

He didn't just walk up to a reporter and randomly blurt out, "I won't hire white dudes for the lead in my films."

And that's a dumb way to answer it.  To completely piss on the idea by saying, "I've seen that (white dude) movie before."  Again, if a white director said, "I don't really think I'll ever have a black lead in my films, as I've seen plenty of black dudes as the lead in movies recently," that guy probably wouldn't have a job in the near future.  Or be bullied off of social media with cries of racism.  And that is a completely BS double standard. 

A MUCH better answer would have been to say, "The stories I want to tell at the moment kinda require a certain type of lead, one that I relate mostly to.  But, we'll see what the future brings."



 

Around the Network
MrWayne on 27 March 2019
DonFerrari said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
It really just sounds like white leads are not suited for the roles he's trying to create, I'm pretty sure Get Out and US are about the experience of black people, at least thematically.

Yes, sure. And if someone said he wouldn't ever hire anyone that isn't white because it wouldn't fit the type of story he wants to tell, there would be 0 calls of racism right?

Just like that game that passed during medieval Bohemia and had one reviewer complaining of the lack of black people and that he had one history researcher confirm to him that there was a possibility that could have been a black person in that area.

Or just like a recent preview of Days Gone that started complaining that the lead was a white gruffy male.

RJ_Sizzle said:

His wife and mother are white. It's nothing against you, personally. He's just making socially conscious films with minority leads like a lot of non-white filmmakers have made a career out of before.

Funny you say that, because in Brazil we have a president that his father in law is black and his best friend also is black, but is called racist. The VP is from black and indigenous heritage, and was claimed to be racist because he joked that his grandson is prettier because his skin was lighter.

Do you realise that you behave exactly the same way as that idiot who said Kingdom Come: Deliverance is white supremacist propaganda?

Creative freedom is one of the most important things in an artform therefore it is good that directors get the opportunity to hire an all black, white, asian or completely diverse cast if they really want to.

And btw you can be an advocate for creative freedom and still criticize a work of art that was made with a lot of creative freedom, when it's boring. (With Days Gone that wasn't even the case, the author liked the carakter)



Runa216 on 27 March 2019

You've got to be kidding me.

You out yourself to be racist by declaring your intent to 'not tolerate people from the middle east', so I call you racist and that ends up getting a thread derailed and eventually locked. Then, you, as the 'I'm not racist you just don't understand' martyr, post about how terrible and racist a director is because he chose to not make films featuring white leads.

I'm pretty sure you are definitely racist.

Also, bit of a life lesson for ya: art is not dictated by your entitlement. If an artist chooses to make movies or games or TV shows or illustrations or novels or songs for one specific demographic or subculture, THAT IS THEIR prerogative. It's not racist to say "I chose to make black films featuring black casts because I feel that race is underrepresented", but it is TOTALLY a symptom of racist ideals to assign bigoty to art made with a goal in mind.

It's pretty disgusting that people like you are so quick to call someone racist for wanting to represent their culture but are probably completely okay with movies that regularly depict folks from the middle east as the villains. I mean, I know you wouldn't have a problem with that because you LITERALLY declared your intent to 'not tolerate people from the middle east'.

Get over yourself. Stop being such an entitled brat. You are not owed all art to cater to your tastes and if you don't understand that artists who have something to say might not actually cater to your needs...you might be an easily offended snowflake.

❌BANNED: Flaming ~ CGI

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 27 March 2019

My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

jason1637 on 27 March 2019

wrong post



jason1637 on 27 March 2019
DonFerrari said:
jason1637 said:

But there are not a lot of black people in leadership roles so that would make no sense.

Would still be chosing based on skin color. One very clear situation of segreggation, prejudice and yes racism.

Yeah he is picking based on skin color but thats because he wants his films to be different than most hollywood films, and he wants to give other non white people a chance. Its not segregation because there will still be white actors but they just wont be leads. Also its not racism because the guy likes white people.



thismeintiel on 27 March 2019
SpokenTruth said:
thismeintiel said:

Yep.  Brie Larson said the same thing about "white dudes" who were critics and gave A Wrinkle in Time bad reviews, saying the dumbest thing ever that "the movie wasn't made for them."  That's strange that some one would take a novel written by a white woman, cast 3 big characters with white actors, yet it was only for POC?  I guess just because the director was black that means it was a black movie?  How racist is that?  Very, I would say. 

Not sure why they thought it was such a big deal to prove that, yes, black directors can make shitty films, too.

She said it wasn't targeted for the older, white male critic crowd.  And it wasn't.  However, the movie is considered a 'love letter to women of color' and with only 2.5% of accredited film critics being women of color, that's going to skew. Her point was that the field of critics is unfavorably balanced toward a specific demographic and that harms films that are targeted for different audiences.

That doesn't mean a person of a different target audience can't enjoy the film but they may not be able to associate with the same way as the target audience can.  For the non-target audience critic, the film might be an 80.  For the target audience, it might be a 90. 

That film should have been targeted at everyone.  To steal a story from a novel that had nothing to do with pushing "women of color" and was for anyone to enjoy, then turn it into that (as well as a shitty movie, period), does not help "women of color."  Of course, I don't know how the movie even got that across, considering 3 of the bigger characters were white.  I guess it failed on all accounts.

But, again, you are singling out white males and that is ok for you.  Would it be just as ok if the makeup was mostly black males?  I'm going to guess the answer is no, that wouldn't be ok.  Again, it doesn't stop the targeting from being racist, just because white is the race you are targeting.  Really, if they want to be represented, they need to pursue those careers, not expect those critics to materialize because some people think that every field, even ones that minorities don't pursue, needs to be diverse.