![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 3rd, 2019 12:10 am The problem isn't really that people are playing roles that they're not 'qualified' to play. The problem is that actors of color are substantially less sought out than white actors, substantially less chosen in 'colorblind casting', substantially less likely to snag recurring roles or main parts or franchise deals. They're less likely to become a big part of any piece of media, or a part of many pieces of media. They're less likely to become famous or at least broadly recognized, less likely to have voice in what roles they play even if they are famous. This is true of disabled actors too, and visibly queer actors, and women...all marginalized groups have similar problems in implicit bias, and acting is one of the domains in which protected groups have no legal standing to claim discrimination.
So like, this is a problem. And another big problem is of course that these roles are less likely to occur, less likely to be portrayed well, less likely to be advertised and get popular, etc.
People keep acting like keeping poc roles for poc and trans roles for trans people and disabled roles for disabled people is about something adding 'depth' or some kind of verisimilitude to the part, but the argument historically has only been to defend people's right to work even though they were part of marginalized groups and had less access to that. Because here's the thing:
Actors don't get a say over the script. So the actor can be as marginalized as you want, but unless there's a reason that the writer/director/showrunner/whoever is willing to listen to them specifically, the role isn't going to be any less bigoted and the story isn't going to be any more diverse, representative, progressive, etc. In fact, a cis person playing a trans role is more likely to be listened to about something being transphobic than a trans person in the same spot, same with white people, abled people, men, etc. This is well established fact, and it's something activists have tried to utilize in the past, to various degrees of success. Point being: an ally is a lot more likely to influence the role positively than an actual marginalized person. (If it's just a liberal universal character, it doesn't really matter who plays it, and in that case a white person who's read as nonwhite is substantially more beneficial than a white passing poc, because more people can look at the screen and see someone who looks like them, whereas everyone can find someone who looks like a white person typically does.)
Yeah, we need to cast more marginalized actors. Yeah, we need to create more marginalized characters. Yeah, we need to listen to more marginalized voices. But reifying identities in ever more specific buckets that require one-to-one matching to be considered 'ethical' is not helping any of those three things.
So like, this is a problem. And another big problem is of course that these roles are less likely to occur, less likely to be portrayed well, less likely to be advertised and get popular, etc.
People keep acting like keeping poc roles for poc and trans roles for trans people and disabled roles for disabled people is about something adding 'depth' or some kind of verisimilitude to the part, but the argument historically has only been to defend people's right to work even though they were part of marginalized groups and had less access to that. Because here's the thing:
Actors don't get a say over the script. So the actor can be as marginalized as you want, but unless there's a reason that the writer/director/showrunner/whoever is willing to listen to them specifically, the role isn't going to be any less bigoted and the story isn't going to be any more diverse, representative, progressive, etc. In fact, a cis person playing a trans role is more likely to be listened to about something being transphobic than a trans person in the same spot, same with white people, abled people, men, etc. This is well established fact, and it's something activists have tried to utilize in the past, to various degrees of success. Point being: an ally is a lot more likely to influence the role positively than an actual marginalized person. (If it's just a liberal universal character, it doesn't really matter who plays it, and in that case a white person who's read as nonwhite is substantially more beneficial than a white passing poc, because more people can look at the screen and see someone who looks like them, whereas everyone can find someone who looks like a white person typically does.)
Yeah, we need to cast more marginalized actors. Yeah, we need to create more marginalized characters. Yeah, we need to listen to more marginalized voices. But reifying identities in ever more specific buckets that require one-to-one matching to be considered 'ethical' is not helping any of those three things.
