https://screenrant.com/oscars-best-picture-inclusion-standards-richard-dreyfuss-response/
Richard Dreyfuss, best known for his role in Jaws, does not like the inclusion standards set to go into effect for the Oscars starting in 2024.
He makes an excellent point. An actor should be able to play anyone.
shareI disagree with part of what he says (I don't think white actors should be playing Blackface characters, no matter how 'brilliantly' Sir Laurence Olivier once did it, and in theory I will always prefer a Jewish character to be played by a *Jewish* actor, even though 'Jewface' is *not quite* as toxic and problematic as Blackface), but I generally disagree with the other part (I have a problem with the quota qualification for Oscar contention; I think it's the wrong way to tackle a genuine issue, and I'd actually prefer a quota for studio investment in movies over a quota for Oscar contention, because the latter effectively, and stupidly, asks us to *ignore* films that already exist, whereas my solution is to ensure that ONLY movies that pass that quota are made in the first place).
shareYou want to end racism? Stop treating other people differently. Let anyone play anyone in an acting role is a start.
share☝️
shareThere's a difference between a colour-blind role that can be played by *anyone* and hiring a white person to play a specifically Black character etc.
shareRacist.
shareExplain to me why I'm a 'racist'?
shareYou want to end racism? Stop treating other people differently. Let anyone play anyone in an acting role is a start.
shareBut people *are* different. We're shaped by different experiences and societal expectations. I'm not sure we can entirely ignore them. And 'Blackface' has a long and toxic tradition which we should avoid under all circumstances.
Besides, why would you cast a white actor in a Black part, unless it was to make a particular point?
And by having different standards, say forbidding white actors to play black characters but allowing (even encouraging) the reverse, then you'll create a new toxic tradition.
share'Whiteface' isn't really a thing. That said, as a matter of taste, I prefer white actors to play white characters and Black actors to play Black characters. However, I'm not sure what examples you're relying on here of Black actors playing 'white people'. The only one I can think of is Hamilton, and that was done intentionally for expressionistic reasons (which I'd hope that Richard Dreyfuss as a champion of artistic expression, would appreciate). The Little Mermaid doesn't count, for example, because Halle Bailey isn't playing a white character. She's playing a version of the titular character who happens to be a Black-skinned mermaid.
shareA white actor without makeup playing a nominally black character, say Luke Cage, isn't blackface. Nobody is talking about whiteface or blackface. The issue is simply actors of one race playing characters of another. Racially disparate rules in areas like this one obviously breeds resentment, which will only grow over time and unnecessarily create an ugly issue. Allow it across the board (my recommendation as well as Dreyfuss's) or forbid it across the board (dumb but fair). If you're saying that the mere white/black race swapping is toxic only in one direction because of the history of blackface, irrespective of whether blackface is being employed, then I reject that. If the attitude is that white people offended by disparate rules should just shut up and get over it, then I offer that same reply about blackface. Time to move on and shut up about that concern if it's not directly relevant to a particular situation, such as a white guy playing Luke Cage or Harry Belafonte without blackface makeup, assuming it's generally considered acceptable for black actors playing historically white characters.
shareI think the argument is two-fold here; firstly, there has hitherto been a lack of Black representation onscreen, so when a white actor plays a character that has traditionally been portrayed as Black in most other media, it comes across as the appropriation of a part that should go to a Black actor (i.e. it's denying them a role in an industry which has not historically been supportive to them), and secondly, some characters, like Black Panther and even to some extent Luke Cage, are intrinsically Black, and speak of the Black experience, in a way that would be diluted were such a role to be race-swapped in favour of a white depiction/actor.
But, like I say, I personally prefer Black characters to be portrayed by Black actors and white characters to be portrayed by white actors. However, going back to my previous example, there is nothing intrinsically 'white' or 'Black,' about a fictional/mythical non-human character like The Little Mermaid.
Lack of black representation is over. Done. If anything, I think a good argument can be made that they're now overrepresented. And whether some character or other is "intrinsically" of a specific race is purely subjective, most especially if you're allowing unidirectional race swapping for historical figures. Further, given Hollywood's willingness to "update" characters in significant ways, it's not out of bounds that a new Caucasian Luke Cage derives his motivation from, say, inner-city poverty, which can affect anyone.
shareDefine a colorblind role? Are you speaking like Superman? I think almost all roles are non-colorblind based on their origin story but I guess the mantle of the title can be passed down to another. If we're talking about history then yeah I would agree. The only time I would allow a different colored actor to play another is if they're REALLY good at it (ie: RDJ in Tropic Thunder).
shareDreyfuss has no problem with inclusion. He has a problem with race and sex-orientation quotas being applied to art.
As for "Othello", there has always been a tradition of the Moor being played by white, as well as black actors. It has never been intended as any kind of slur or denigration of black people.
Minstrels are a long tradition. Should we keep that one too?
share