Is Roland's Race Really that Important? (Book Spoilers Inside)

Followed, of course, by "Oh look there's my pathetic little shadow again, and it managed to form a post all by itself."

The man in black fled across the desert and the gunslinger followed.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I don't think Elba can personify Roland as written.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that. No one gets in a tizzy over someone who thinks that a particular actor does not have the skill or the right kind of skill to emulate an established literary character. After all, tastes differ.

It is when others insinuate or outright state that a black man cannot play a character because their whiteness is somehow "critical" or "important" - despite the texts in question showing that it never defines the character's personality or opportunities in life - that I, personally, take objection to.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply share

add reply

formatting help

As if anyone who disagrees with the casting is just a prejudice honkey mofah themselves, right?

That's not my point at all. I can agree to disagree with someone such as yourself who states their case clearly and concisely, someone who uses logic and reasoning to come to their conclusion. But there does seem to be a contingent out there that is bound and determined to label the choice of Idris Elba as Identity Politics or being about SJWs. And I just don't think that's the case.

Yes, I've posted a lot about this, but I do so because it's something I feel strongly about. My background is in theatre, coming from a school that strongly promoted color-blind casting. Not as a way to promote social issues, but as a way to find the best actor for the part. I admit, I myself was taken aback when they announced Elba at first. But I started to think about it, about all the roles I had seen him in, and I started to see in him as an actor what the producers and creative team says they saw in him.

I just really don't think this has ANYTHING to do with Identity Politics and everything to do with who they felt was the best fit for the role. If the films had been made 30 years - hell if they'd made them 10 years ago I would have thrown a fit if Eastwood wasn't cast or at least considered. But we've kind of moved past the point where that is a viable option, and most of the white actors who fit the bill, from Vigo Mortenson to Javier Bardem just don't fit the bill. Some of the white actors I would consider were people who were never in the running, such as Josh Holloway. Matthew McConahey maybe could got either way as Roland or the Man in Black but I do see him more as Walter than the Gunslinger.

Part of the reason I made this post a general discussion, is because the few people I have posed this question to, have not seen fit to answer it, so I wanted to get a wider view of what the board in general feels, not just the few people I aimed the question at.

It's just that this post is nearly identical to others in the last week

Actually, I am citing some very potent moments in the book wherein Roland's race plays absolutely no part to the story at hand. What I'm doing by bringing this up is to show that there are many, many, MANY moments within the book where race, color, etc. has nothing to do with the Gunslinger's actions.

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply share

add reply

formatting help

More to my last point, the people that get to me on this board (our arachnid friend aside) are the ones who seem so set on what Roland should be, who have such little imagination for being a "reader of books." Who assume that their way is the correct and only acceptable vision. Who refuse to accept that each Constant Reader has his or her own idea, mental picture of what the books would/should look like on screen.

And often when you press these people for specific examples, they offer none beyond "Roland was written as white." They don't engage in other posts on the board to discuss favorite moments from the books, they don't offer any knowledge of the books they supposedly love except to stick to this one point that has to do with the look, color, race - all surface details in Roland's case given that the world he comes from seems to place no value on the color of one's skin.

When you try to articulate the difference between changing Roland's race and, say, why it's important to still keep Susannah's race intact for story and character purposes, they dismiss this point, scoff at it, refuse to see or even try to understand the distinction, calling one a SJW or studio shill. This is what I'm trying to fight against in my original post, to show my familiarity with the subject, and to illuminate the many scenes wherein Roland's race has absolutely no bearing.

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My dear Captain, it's not only his race that leads me to my conclusion of Elba being wrong for Roland. I realise I tend to write too much, but I believe I did post that his skin color being a minor issue (still an issue, I guess). It's all the changes I'm hearing about or seeing. So many tweaks and changes beg the question *why*? Are all these changes making the story better? If not, why changes at all?

And no matter what anyone says, I don't think Elba was the best choice for Roland out of actors that they were considering. Will Elba do a bad job? No, he's good enough of an actor. Will he make the best Roland out of those available? I just can't see that being the case.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Woah, Storm! Woah, please don't be like that. Let's go to a calm place now.

Okay, I want to be clear about this: I have NO problem with people voicing a different opinion so long as they do so in a respectful way. I have never called anyone on this board a racist because they don't agree with Idris Elba. Some people just don't like the man, some people don't like a black man playing a role written for a white man, and some people very well may be racist... HOWEVER, when people pose their arguments the way you often do, dude, I get it. And I so appreciate that you're willing to give this a movie a fair shake. That's better than most people who disagree with the casting are giving it.

The attacks start when people get downright condescending. I mean, some people are so against the casting they start calling the people who are okay with it all sorts of insulting things. That's not okay. But I can't remember once patting someone on the back for being progressive. Is it nice talking to people with shared opinions? Of course it is. But it's never been like, "Oh, you are so awesome because you can accept a black man as Roland!" At least for me it hasn't. If I have ever given you that vibe, I apologize. But please, let's be calm again?

I respect your opinion. I honestly do. I just don't share it. And that's okay. Ugh, how many times have I said those words on these boards, lol? Good times.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

So ridiculously wrong.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Hey man I can dig what you're puttin' down. Dig it very well, say true.

And that's where the difference of opinion comes in. I never really saw Roland as wraith-like. For me I always felt like the Angel of Death from Preacher, if you know the comics, was a good approximation of what Roland would be like. In fact I always suspected the creators - Ennis and Dillon, if it do ya - based the character on Roland.

If you know the character of Death he's much like a force of nature, drawn perhaps a little taller than Roland and looking gaunt and thin, but he'd be a wall of stone if you ran into him. Yes in the desert and nearer the end of the tale Roland is described as gaunt and even sickly as the Dry Twist sets in. But in my ideal sweet spot - which is him becoming healthier near the end of DotT and on into Wizard and Glass Roland seems much healthier and stronger, especially with his Tet surrounding him.

And this here is my point - I'm sure every Constant Reader has yet a different image in mind when they read. There was never going to be an actor aside from Eastwood which might satisfy all/most of the fans. I'm sure the film team recognized this and tried a different approach of finding inner qualities. Now, I realize we don't agree on Elba being the actor to convey all that but one thing about Idris I feel is hard to deny is that he has the kind of gaze that could bore into your soul - at least I feel there are a number of glamor photos and even scenes where this aspect is on display. And I seem to recall a number of passages relating to Roland's steely gaze.

But it's more than that, there is an ephemeral quality to Elba's presence in most of his films, and seeing him in the black leather duster, his arms folded over with the guns - it may not be exactly my mind's picture of old Tall, Dark and Ugly, but something about it sure feels RIGHT. It really makes me excited for the film.

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply share

add reply

formatting help

All very true, Mr. Seaworth. I lost track of how many times these same points were made here, a long time ago.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Nein.

reply share

add reply

formatting help



I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply share

add reply

formatting help