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'

Ljink96 on 28 March 2019
BanjoPickles said:
I may catch a written beating by saying this, but I don't see why what he's saying is a problem. He's absolutely right. The white lead trope has been done, and will continue to be done. I look at films the same way that I look at books: the auteur/author should be able to write what they wish without scrutiny. There are native American authors who have written amazing historical books--fiction, non-fiction, and everything in-between--centered around the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1892 (Fool's Crow), the mass integration of natives as they were tricked into selling their reservations in exchange for cramped apartments in the big cities (Roofwalker). People should write/film/record what they feel closest to, what haunts them, and what compels them to do their best work.

I don't see a racist statement. I see an artist discussing his process.

One of the only users who has hit the nail on the head. 



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 28 March 2019
Mandalore76 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.

I didn't get that sense from any of his interviews regarding "Us".  

“It’s important to me that we can tell black stories without it being about race,” Peele says. “I realized I had never seen a horror movie of this kind, where there’s an African-American family at the center that just is. After you get over the initial realization that you’re watching a black family in a horror film, you’re just watching a movie. You’re just watching people. I feel like it proves a very valid and different point than Get Out, which is, not everything is about race."

Errr ... what? I think you're either missing the point, or you didn't read what you quoted very well. 

Yes, Jordan Peele is saying in that interview that the point is that black families are families just like any other. But if the point of the film is that not everything is about race, how are you going to indicate that with white actors? Peele's point is that he's using black families to show that they're normal people and that race isn't everything ... which ... he couldn't do unless the family was black. Do you see why your own quote contradicts and actually proves my point? 

Just read it:

“I realized I had never seen a horror movie of this kind, where there’s an African-American family at the center that just is."

"After you get over the initial realization that you’re watching a black family in a horror film, you’re just watching a movie. You’re just watching people."

"I feel like it proves a very valid and different point than Get Out, which is, not everything is about race."

This is a very ironic case of dismantling a point by using the point against itself. By deliberately using a black group, Peele comments on the idea that black groups are different from white groups. This is a powerful point because the family is black, if this was a white family there wouldn't be a point to it because everyone takes for granted that that's the case. In fact, I'm not even sure how you read that quote and thought "Us is not about the experience of black people", since the quote literally talks about how the experience of a black family is similar to the experience of a normal family. Did I say said experiences had to be totally related to nothing but facing bigotry or racism? I don't believe I did. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 28 March 2019

d21lewis on 28 March 2019

I'm sure somebody had mentioned this but Jordan Peele is biracial. His mom is white. I have a hard time thinking he hates half of who he is. There's even footage of black comedians saying (admittedly insane) things like Key & Peele aren't black enough" or "They got where they are by pandering to the white audience".

I don't know his mindset but I just don't believe he's racist. In fact, I think he married a white lady.



Carl on 28 March 2019
RolStoppable said:
On the notion of "I've seen that movie," it got me thinking of those cop buddy movies or whatever that specific subgenre is called. The most commonly used trope is that one cop works by the rules and the other cop is more the crazy type, constantly badgering the law-abiding cop. These movies have been done with two white male leads, but conscious efforts to not cast two white males have led to classics such as the Lethal Weapon series and the Beverly Hills Cop series. These two prominent examples distributed the two roles in an opposite manner: Lethal Weapon has the honorable black detective and the crazy white guy while Beverly Hills Cop has the rule-obedient white detective and the improvising black guy.

Good examples that worked without while males are Rush Hour and The Heat. Movies that were all the better because of conscious efforts to use people who are not white males. White males in lead roles have been dominant in Hollywood's history and it was not a sexist-driven decision to make The Heat with women. Likewise, there's no racist motivation to cast black people for lead roles. Casting something other than white males leads to changes in personalities and backgrounds of characters, so even the "same old, same old" can be made interesting again, if the writers make something out of the cast and don't do it for the sole sake of diversity.

If a white director had said the same thing about not casting black people, it would be racist, because the reason given is nonsensical. But pointing out that white males in lead roles is the norm and that there's a desire to divert from the norm to create more interesting movies, that's not racist.

I wanted to come back and explain why exactly DonFerrari was missing the point, but this just about covers everything that needs to be said, so I'll bump it for those who skip to the end of a thread.

Good job Rol.



                            

Immersiveunreality on 28 March 2019
RJ_Sizzle said:
Darwinianevolution said:
"Peele's statements shouldn't be misconstrued as segregative, because he has worked with white creatives before."

Isn't that the equivalent of someone saying they are not racist because they have black friends? A periodist should know to write smarter than this. XD

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.

What makes his films socially conscious?



Around the Network
Alara317 on 28 March 2019
RJTM1991 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_films_of_the_2010s

I personally don't have an issue with Jordan's comments, let him make what he wants. I just hope that there's no shitstorm when a white director says the same thing about a white lead.

See, therein lies a bit of a problem. 

Like others have said in this thread, context is key and 'white male' leads are so overrepresented that doing so (excluding minorities) would be seen as oppressive. Because it is. It's kind of like the 'always punch up, never punch down' concept of comedy. You can tease and belittle and trivialize the plight of those in power and that's okay but you can't do or say the same things to those who have historically been repressed or otherwise subjugated. 

It's why we have a gay pride parade but can't have a straight pride parade. 

It's why we have black history month but don't have a white history month. 

It's why we have women's days but not men's days. 

In a perfect world, it would be equally as racist (or not racist) to say "I only want to make films featuring black/white casts and crews. But we don't live in a perfect world, we live in a flawed world with centuries of history informing what is and isn't acceptable. Saying "I want to represent the black community because I've seen enough white material in my life" is fine, but the opposite is oppression. If you can't see that, then you really do need to - and I hate saying this - check your privilege. On the surface and without any qualifiers the two statements are equal, but history makes them unequal just like how in the past women and men, black folks and white folks, gays and straights, have not been considered equal. 

And until we live in a world where people of all genders, races, sexes, orientations, ethnic backgrounds, skin colours, religion, or any other qualifier are treated with utmost, infallible equality, it will continue to be okay to push for minority inclusion but NOT okay to push for more majority representation. Sure, the LAW may consider these things equal, but in practice, they are not. you, and everyone else in this thread, really need to factor that in before you resort to 'reductio ad absurium' in order to try to make things sound crazy by reducing them to their most simplistic variants. 



Heavenly_King on 28 March 2019
DonFerrari said:

Mod Edit:

While both films are considered horror movies, they are considered black films, as well, due to the cast Peele uses, and he doesn't intend to buck this trend because he feels those kinds of movies with white leads have been done to death.

"I don't see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie. Not that I don't like white dudes," he said at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in East Hollywood. "But I've seen that movie."

"It really is one of the best greatest pieces of this story, feeling like we are in this time [where] a renaissance has happened and proven the myths about representation in the industry are false," he added.

Peele made it clear that the opportunity to bring black people to a mainstream audience was simply one that he had to maximize because diversity wasn't prevalent in Hollywood in the past. "The way I look at it. I get to cast black people in my movies," he said. "I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, 'I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.' And they say yes."

https://www.cbr.com/us-jordan-peele-white-lead-future-casting/

-

Once again we have one of those cases that if any director was saying he wouldn't hire someone based on gender, color, religion, etc we would have had severe backlash. That is, if the target of the segregation weren't white male.

Don't know when they think doing more segregation will solve current one or diminish prejudice.

I concur with you.



Open World-Survival-Game Days Gone

HylianSwordsman on 28 March 2019
Otter said:
HylianSwordsman said:
I'm not all that upset, as like others have said, it's one guy and there are no shortage of people writing from a white perspective, but I resent the idea that anyone could possibly have heard every white story before. It's not his casting choices that bothers me, or even his reasoning, so much as the way he frames that reasoning. All he had to say was "there are a lot more stories to be told from non-white perspectives that haven't been told yet and that's my focus right now." Instead he claims that any story that could be told from a white perspective is something he's "seen before". That's so dismissive it's just...nasty. Like, it's not a threat to me in any way, but it's still just a nasty thing to say when you really think about it. White people have nothing left to add to society, no more stories to tell. If you're white, he's got your whole story figured out. He's heard it before, so don't bother telling him. That's what that statement says. And I don't think it's all that crazy to suggest that that's a pretty mean thing to say, and furthermore a person's whole experience isn't summed up with a race and a gender, so he's just wrong to think he's seen it all.

Lol. Guys we're all too intelligent to hang on this point as if its meant to be taken literally. When he says he's "seen that movie" before he's obviously not saying that all movies with white leads are the same. He's saying they're 98% of hollywood and overly abundant, so why would he contribute towards that when he is one of the few black directors who can secure a budget behind his movies and cast black leads which is uncommon unless your name is Denzel, Will Smith or Kevin Hart.

Even if the movie he's making isn't from a racial perspective it still makes a difference to job opportunities and representation. Lupita probably hasn't offered a lead in a horror film until now because she wouldn't be what many white directors would imagine as a heroine in that genre. Her biggest hollywood break before black panther (where they're forced to cast black people) is voicing an alien in star wars. 

If that's what he's saying, then why didn't he go right out and say that? As others have said, it's an objectively true fact that white people are overrepresented in Hollywood movies. So you can just say that out right, you don't have to cover it up by wording the statement like he did. Wording it like he did literally states the first bolded statement, but does not say the second bolded statement, at least not directly, however it does suggest it. If he had said "I'm not casting a white lead because I want to focus on telling black stories" no one would question it and it could be taken at face value without worrying about any divisive undertones. There'd still be the white identity types that would grate at anyone making a story not about them, but fuck them. On the other hand, when he words it the way he actually did, there's more being said between the lines, and it only serves to divide. It's unnecessary.

I haven't seen his movies, but I've heard good things, and I don't actually care if a creator includes more black cast or characters to create new dynamics or bring new perspectives, so I might go see it if I have some spare time and cash. Sounds like "Us" has a pretty widespread appeal and an interesting concept, so that one in particular I might see, especially if it ever ends up on Netflix. But as for the statement that started this thread, yeah, I find it a bit obnoxious. I think a lot of people in the thread are overblowing things into a movement to oppress white people (lol), but I do think that just because as a cultural group white people aren't oppressed doesn't mean that some basic sensitivity in wording is called for so as not to suggest the wrong thing. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm actually in favor of political correctness, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Jordan to reconsider how he worded this and for him and the left intelligentsia to not dismiss the feelings of people who feel that this statement dismisses them.



Machiavellian on 28 March 2019
HylianSwordsman said:
Otter said:

Lol. Guys we're all too intelligent to hang on this point as if its meant to be taken literally. When he says he's "seen that movie" before he's obviously not saying that all movies with white leads are the same. He's saying they're 98% of hollywood and overly abundant, so why would he contribute towards that when he is one of the few black directors who can secure a budget behind his movies and cast black leads which is uncommon unless your name is Denzel, Will Smith or Kevin Hart.

Even if the movie he's making isn't from a racial perspective it still makes a difference to job opportunities and representation. Lupita probably hasn't offered a lead in a horror film until now because she wouldn't be what many white directors would imagine as a heroine in that genre. Her biggest hollywood break before black panther (where they're forced to cast black people) is voicing an alien in star wars. 

If that's what he's saying, then why didn't he go right out and say that? As others have said, it's an objectively true fact that white people are overrepresented in Hollywood movies. So you can just say that out right, you don't have to cover it up by wording the statement like he did. Wording it like he did literally states the first bolded statement, but does not say the second bolded statement, at least not directly, however it does suggest it. If he had said "I'm not casting a white lead because I want to focus on telling black stories" no one would question it and it could be taken at face value without worrying about any divisive undertones. There'd still be the white identity types that would grate at anyone making a story not about them, but fuck them. On the other hand, when he words it the way he actually did, there's more being said between the lines, and it only serves to divide. It's unnecessary.

I haven't seen his movies, but I've heard good things, and I don't actually care if a creator includes more black cast or characters to create new dynamics or bring new perspectives, so I might go see it if I have some spare time and cash. Sounds like "Us" has a pretty widespread appeal and an interesting concept, so that one in particular I might see, especially if it ever ends up on Netflix. But as for the statement that started this thread, yeah, I find it a bit obnoxious. I think a lot of people in the thread are overblowing things into a movement to oppress white people (lol), but I do think that just because as a cultural group white people aren't oppressed doesn't mean that some basic sensitivity in wording is called for so as not to suggest the wrong thing. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm actually in favor of political correctness, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Jordan to reconsider how he worded this and for him and the left intelligentsia to not dismiss the feelings of people who feel that this statement dismisses them.

My question to you is did you read the article and see all of his responses or did you get upset over the blurb the OP added to the thread and only focused on that part.  First, Peel is a comedian, and when throwing a off hand joke in text verbiage does not always come across the same way.  Another point is that you have to take in everything a person says not pick and choose the parts you want to isolate.  This is why context is always king when reading something people say. 

People will take a statement like this "I hate white people who hate black people" and only focus on the part where the person said "I hate white people".  They will isolate just that part and ignore the rest just like this whole thread.  This is why people get triggered so much in threads like this because people post only the part they want to isolate to form a narrative dismissing everything else.



vivster on 28 March 2019
Torillian said:
sugenis said:

I don't fully think you understand what disproportionately being represented means. A population that makes up the majority; are going to be the ones most represented, that's just logic, that's math. Being overrepresented is when a population that makes up about 13% of the population dominates entire mediums. That's when it's disproportionate. Anyway on the subject of Us, the movie is not about race at all. Did people even watch it?

That's fun, because I'm not sure you know what disproportionately means. If whites make up 61% of the population but make up 86% of the leading roles in film than they are disproportionately represented. Now that doesn't sound like a big difference if but from the minority perspective that's the difference between having 39% of the roles if it were proportionate to 14%, a massive drop. 

Here's a report on the proportion of leads by race compared to the general population: 

https://socialsciences.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/UCLA-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2018-2-27-18.pdf

What do demographics of the general population have to do with target audiences?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.