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

His films revolve around the life experience of black families/individuals, so I see no problem with what he said. He can choose to do that. He is delivering great films, with fantastic cast and promoting representation. All is well as far as im concerned.



Around the Network

These threads kill me. Some people on this site understand racism, but those people are, predictably, in the minority.



Add me on Xbox Live: TopCat8

RolStoppable said:
DonFerrari said:

You'll beat the same point trying to say same thing is or isn't racism 'depending on the context' when it isn't.

So if you want to call one racism, you have to call the other. 

Let's go over a couple of examples.

It makes me happy to read about car accidents where white people died, because the less white people on this planet, the better.
It makes me happy to read about car accidents where black people died, because the less black people on this planet, the better.

In the above example we can see that both versions of the statement are equally bad and equally racist.

I am not going to cast a white male lead for my movies, because there is already an abundance of movies with white male leads.
I am not going to cast a black male lead for my movies, because there is already an abundance of movies with black male leads.

In the above example we can notice a significant difference. The first statement's reasoning is objectively true while the second statement's reasoning is objectively false. The probable reason why someone made the second statement with its headscratching reasoning is that the true reason needed to be covered up; said true reason would be racism, because if there was an actual good reason to not cast black male leads, then that reason would have been mentioned instead of the nonsensical reason that was provided.

It is not only possible to call only one of two very similar statements racist, it's actually the only logical thing to do.

Nicely written Rol.

I was going to post something similar to that.

If things change and white male in the lead role becomes a rarity, then there should be no problem in saying something like that, but as of now it would just be crazy.

This is not really about skin color, its about doing something to differiate from the grey mass and not doing the same old thing that everyone else is doing. And to those that really like to be offended by everything, may I remind you that if I understood correctly there was also the word male in Jordan Peele´s statement (although for some reason that was left out from the name of the topic).

So he is a "racist" and a "man-hater feminist" :P



TopCat8 said:
These threads kill me. Some people on this site understand racism, but those people are, predictably, in the minority.

Well to be fair, in these hyper sensitive times, its quite difficult for many to really understand what racism is.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

You'll beat the same point trying to say same thing is or isn't racism 'depending on the context' when it isn't.

So if you want to call one racism, you have to call the other. 

Because its not racism.  As I stated, you took one statement out of context to support your opinion ignoring everything else.  Anyone can take a statement out of context and make it appear to be something else.  People do this all the time and it appears here you are trying to do the same thing.  

Case in point, if I stated "I hate white people who hate black people".  You would be the person that take the part "He said He hates white people" and form a conversation on just that part trying to make a point.

I love how much you assume.

And also love that you are ignoring the very fact that the point is on media coverage with great excuses of "it isn't that he doesn't like white people, he even worked with them before". All which would be considered irrelevant if he was a white person talking against black.



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

Because its not racism.  As I stated, you took one statement out of context to support your opinion ignoring everything else.  Anyone can take a statement out of context and make it appear to be something else.  People do this all the time and it appears here you are trying to do the same thing.  

Case in point, if I stated "I hate white people who hate black people".  You would be the person that take the part "He said He hates white people" and form a conversation on just that part trying to make a point.

I love how much you assume.

And also love that you are ignoring the very fact that the point is on media coverage with great excuses of "it isn't that he doesn't like white people, he even worked with them before". All which would be considered irrelevant if he was a white person talking against black.

No body cares about if he likes white people, has a wife that is white or a mother.  Your point was that if someone white made the same statements they would be considered racist.  Rol pretty much took your example and showed how putting both into context does not prove your point.  Throwing other junk into the argument doesn't make your opinion any stronger, it just muddies the conversation.

You are not trying to show that the writer example or description of the comment has a fallacy.  You specifically stated if a white male said the same thing it would be considered racist.

The thing is, the point and agenda you created this tread for doesn't fit.  You took one statement out of context and used it to prove a point which if all you are going to do is take one excerpt from an entire conversation and build a case of reverse racism then this probably wasn't the best example you could find.



Soundwave said:

90% of actors cast in Hollywood films are white. It's about time other directors and other ethnicities of actors get a freaking chance. 90% of the audience for movies is not white by any means not even in the US.

All he's saying is one group has been way over-represented and we've seen their story told 5000+ different times. And both Us and obviously Get Out still had prominent roles for white people.

How many movie roles do white people need? 95%? 97%? 98%? 

For some people, ANY representation is over representation. Note how heated things get politically when a genre movie starring a woman or a minority becomes a blockbuster. Example: All the people that claimed they were attacked at Black Panther showings.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

I love how much you assume.

And also love that you are ignoring the very fact that the point is on media coverage with great excuses of "it isn't that he doesn't like white people, he even worked with them before". All which would be considered irrelevant if he was a white person talking against black.

No body cares about if he likes white people, has a wife that is white or a mother.  Your point was that if someone white made the same statements they would be considered racist.  Rol pretty much took your example and showed how putting both into context does not prove your point.  Throwing other junk into the argument doesn't make your opinion any stronger, it just muddies the conversation.

You are not trying to show that the writer example or description of the comment has a fallacy.  You specifically stated if a white male said the same thing it would be considered racist.

The thing is, the point and agenda you created this tread for doesn't fit.  You took one statement out of context and used it to prove a point which if all you are going to do is take one excerpt from an entire conversation and build a case of reverse racism then this probably wasn't the best example you could find.

Nobody cares? Funny, that was the reasoning the article writer gave to say Jordan isn't racist.



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

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. 



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