Trackbacks & Pings

1. Dead in the Midwest - del.icio.us bookmarks for 06-18-2007 on 18 Jun 2007 at 7:35 pm

   […] A Mighty Heart: Revealed at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture(tags: movies film race/ethnicity angelina_jolie racism blackface women politics history ) […]

2. Angelina Jolie in blackface for new film » Yemisi Blake's Blog on 24 Feb 2008 at 9:50 am

   […] been reading about this recently on a few blogs (paritcularly Racialicious) In her lastest film, ‘A Might Heart, Angelina plays Marianne Pearl in blackface. This has […]

Comments

1. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   LOL - Latoya and I got into a big IM fight about Angelina Jolie the other day. I don’t think it’s a huge secret that I am not a fan. But Latoya brought up some points that really challenged my views. But I still don’t like her.

   Anyway, I keep forgetting to post a link to this New Zealand Herald article I was quoted in recently: Shades of Blackface

   Carmen Van Kerckhove, who is of bi-racial heritage and is co-founding member of anti-racist training company New Demographic in New York City, says: “I would have liked to see the studio cast a woman of colour in the role. I don’t quite understand the rationale behind the studio’s decision to make Angelina Jolie look like she has African heritage.”

   Many suggested Thandie Newton would have been appropriate since she is a solid actress, has bi-racial heritage, and looks extremely similar to Marianne Pearl. Others have questioned if it was just Hollywood deciding once again to “go blackface.”

   Van Kerckhove says “I think that Hollywood is still oblivious to the fact that blackface, yellow face and brown face is offensive. Just this year we have seen Brian Dennehy play Kublai Khan (in the Hallmark Channel movie Marco Polo, Eddie Murphy play a Chinese man (Norbit), Nicolas Cage play Fu Manchu (Grindhouse). And I just read that Jessica Biel may play the Chinese character Chun Li in an upcoming movie remake of the videogame Street Fighter. Clearly Hollywood is not spending much time thinking this issue through.”

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 10:12 am ¶

2. gandalf mantooth wrote:

   View unchanged. Does it matter whether Mrs Pearl asked AJ to play the role? AJ can still say, “Uh, I dunno, might that not be seen as minstrelsy?” If I ask someone to stab me in the foot and said person is dumb enough to do it they can still go to jail, doesn’t matter if I said “please do!”

   Also, glossy mag puff pieces are always a sketchy source of information. I think one of these types of pieces is where we learned Will Smith turned down a scholarship to MIT.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 10:43 am ¶

3. Lyonside wrote:

   It doesn’t change anything for me. Call me a cynic, but I don’t trust many things placed in mainstream media before release of a film. of COURSE they’re going to say, “No, really,everything was on the up and up, we WANTED things this way” when you’re the one with the producing money or future career (or both) on the line.

   Now, in 20 years, lets have the same people (or others involved) come out with the real dirt, and I’m far more interested. Somewhere between the glossy press releases and the 20-20 hindsight dissections is the truth.

   Nothing takes away from the fact that this is a mainstream big budget movie, not a little independent. Therefore, intentional or not, the legacy of color-face hangs over it for me.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 10:49 am ¶

4. Mark N. wrote:

   While I do have a problem with Jolie taking this role, I’m not sure my closet is clean enough to be that open about it. This is mainly due to SCARFACE being one of my all time faves when that movie is basically a bunch of non-cubans acting berzerko with really phony accents.
   Also, knowing that J. Aniston could’ve gotten the role really freaks me out! I mean, would they have put David Schwimmer in as Daniel Pearl too?! As always, Hollywood continues to warp my fragile little mind.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 11:37 am ¶

5. trixnee wrote:

   I am totally okay with it! If my life story comes out whoever I choose to play me (a black woman) should be accepted by everyone. What if Hollywood wanted Thandie Newton and Marianne wanted Angelina? Wouldn’t it be cruel to do that to Marianne and ignore her wishes?

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 12:10 pm ¶

6. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   People can change Carmen!

   Good points all.

   Trixnee is right in one sense - if I had a movie about my life, I would want a say in who plays me.

   However, Gandalf makes a good point as well. Did no one stand up and go “hmmm…maybe not such a great idea?”

   I guess Lyonside may be right - we’ll have to wait for some director’s cut or a tell-all to see what kind of discussion really happened.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 12:28 pm ¶

7. Bianca Reagan wrote:

   I’m still not seeing the movie.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 12:40 pm ¶

8. Chris wrote:

   I don’t see any problem with Angelina Jolie playing Marianne Pearl in the film, especially if Marianne pick Jolie. The problem I have is decision to black face up Jolie for the film. From what I seen of Jolie in pictures of her appearance in the film the makeup looks unnatural.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 1:17 pm ¶

9. Stef wrote:

   It’s too bad that the creators didn’t envision this casting controversy taking place, because it has the potential to really overshaddow a movie that could have had a powerful, meaningful story.

   Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 1:52 pm ¶

10. LM wrote:

    My sense is that Marianne Pearl would be perplexed by this conversation, and as such I’m cool with AJ playing the role. (Probably won’t see the movie ’cause I just don’t see many, so I’ll read about how it actually plays, for example how AJ’s makeup looks.)

    My opinion hasn’t changed. I’d be aghast if AJ or another white actress were tabbed to play Shirley Chisholm or Oprah Winfrey or Sojourner Truth or Lena Horne or Whoopi Goldberg or Ann Fudge or Cathy Hughes or Lani Guinier or Ruth Simmons or Johnetta Coles or Zora Neale Hurston… but Marianne Pearl? If we hadn’t been talking about the casting of this movie, would we be talking about her racial background at all?

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 2:04 pm ¶

11. hoo_boy wrote:

    “Silly Americans. Don’t you know that racial casting’s for kids?” is probably what a culturally mixed Afro-European would think of a celebrity obsessed kibbiitz that tries to second guess the making of her story with her husband.

    On this score, I actually buy the line that Pearl sought Jolie for friendship, based on one simple piece of evidence: they kept the same circle of company.

    No offense to your chosen picks, but Jolie does good works. Her mental state and personal life may be wacky, but I don’t question her drive and commitment. So no other actress has that visibility and cred in that arena, and the box office to deliver as well given the subject matter.

    Pure and $imple: what were Newton’s and Berry’s last roles– by their own choices and how did they do? Tell them to fire their agents and get mo’ better exposure. Yes, it’s still a cracked system, but the last thing you’d want is race-only casting fragmentation too.

    And I personally find *most* biopics offensive as superficial, indulgent, tasteless, excessive, schmaltzy, numbing, inaccurate, etc. exercises but I will see this because I dig the director and like his track record on political themed dramas. Get over the makeup of the casting and rate the quality of the film…

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 3:45 pm ¶

12. FrancesM wrote:

    Okay while I’m not the worlds biggest Angelina fan I think if Mrs. Pearl wanted her character played by Angie than so be it. Her husband was murdered & I doubt she feels altogether that safe anymore & most likely wanted someone she feels close to & can trust to be involved in this story. While the make-up appears like it may be a bit much, I’m looking forward to actually seeing the film before I come to too many conclusions.

    One other thing on a silly “entertainment Tonight” kind of note-
    I think Ms. Jolie makes far more sense with Mr. Pitt that Ms. Anniston. You can’t “steal” someone who isn’t willing to go & to me Brad & Angie just look like they go together. Okay enough with the hollyweird gossip from me! Peace!
    ~F

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 4:01 pm ¶

13. Wendi Muse wrote:

    I understand both sides of the argument, but I think the questioning of whether or not Jolie should play Marianne Pearl is reminiscent of the *one-drop rule* double standard…in other words, people of color, as long as they are the same color pre-makeup can play each other, but whites cannot. If Thandie Newton were to play Mariane Pearl, there would still be a bit of racial/national inaccuracy considering that Newton is half Zimbawbean black and half white English. Halle Berry is also multiracial, but of half African-American and half white American heritage. Mariane Pearl is not of the same exact ethnic/national or even 100% racial background of these women. But Angelina Jolie has indigenous roots (her family has some Native American “blood” floating around) and could be considered N.A. if the one-drop rule applied to people other than those of African descent. Why do we apply it to some and not others?

    Why do we say that mixed women could play Mariane Pearl when they are not the same background? Why not even a French woman for that matter? Or a Cuban woman?

    Like I said, I totally understand where both sides are coming from. I mean if they couldn’t like an exact racial match for me Angelina wanted to play in a movie about my life, I’d be honored that my on-screen self were so attractive, even if she isn’t brown like me

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 4:06 pm ¶

14. Shawn wrote:

    I am more annoyed by the fact that the subtitle to Angelina article in Esquire is “She died for our sins.”

    The whole point of casting Angelina is name recognition and sales. Artistic merit is lost in Hollywood. The most important color on Hollywood canvas is and will always be green.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 4:13 pm ¶

15. Yori Kim wrote:

    I think that if Marianne pearl REALLY wanted Angelina Jolie to play her in the film, then I’m okay with it. What I dislike is that makeup she wears in the movie, because I don’t like black face. I can’t believe that Jennifer aniston was going to play Marianne Pearl though……she looks nothing like Marianne pearl! At least Angelina J looks a little bit similar to Marianne.
    I don’t think I’m going to watch the movie anyways.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 4:46 pm ¶

16. Z wrote:

    i’m not sure how i feel i would have preferred that the role go to a bi-racial actress known or unknown but i’ve heard reviews of the movie and apparently Jolie’s acting is what really carries the movie. and in the end i think it’s really more about the story than anything and who really brings it to life, if she does that than good for her.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 5:01 pm ¶

17. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    they kept the same circle of company.

    Huh? You mean they were connected by the strong bond of Brad Pitt’s abs?

    So no other actress has that visibility and cred in that arena, and the box office to deliver as well given the subject matter.

    So why isn’t Pacino playing Daniel Pearl? Why didn’t Eddie Murphy play Djmon Honsou’s role in the Spielberg thing . . . whatever it was called.

    I think most of us can grasp the obvious bits about the realities of getting a movie made. On that score, casting AJ makes this a studio film, casting Newton makes this an indie w/ high prestige value, and casting Berry makes it a TV movie produced by Oprah. You want a movie to get made the way you want to make it, there are ways besides casting a highly photographed actress to play the lead. That it’s being made this way is a function of some very famous people being interested in the story. Had they not been, we might well be looking at #’s 2 and 3.
    I suppose you’d be making the same argument if Aniston had been cast . . .

    Well I guess ur right dum Amerikkkanz r 2 obsessd w teh racial issues 2c reality. Ur rite race blind casting rulez! Will Smith in The Bob Barker Story!

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 5:15 pm ¶

18. HighJive wrote:

    I’ve always had a problem with Angelina Jolie playing Lara Croft. Croft was originally a video game heroine. That role should have gone to a cartoon character, not a human.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 5:43 pm ¶

19. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Well if they ever make a biopic about my life, I want to be played by Paris Hilton. The resemblance is uncanny, don’t you think?

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 6:06 pm ¶

20. Mina wrote:

    “Also, knowing that J. Aniston could’ve gotten the role really freaks me out!”

    Yeah, it kinda reminds me of when Placido Domingo played Othello.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 8:26 pm ¶

21. hoo_boy wrote:

    Gandolf: Yeah, really impossible that a French-born Afro-Cuban-Dutch Buddhist female globetrotting journalist philanthropist mother with family troubles who’s similarly outspoken on international peace and social justice issues would have anything in common with the couple. Pretty shocking

    Because Pacino was too busy mugging up the screen with his creepy old self in the overly slick vain Ocean’s Thirteen Ghosts of Scooby Doo We Stink or Wot *with* Pitt “stop me please I’m a family man now”, to have lent the same indie insider credibility that Futterman does for a role that requires being in the background most of the time in flashback

    Because for “Amistad”, Spielberg wanted a fresh African face, consistent with his historical films in which no then-major stars were the leads, Honsou as an internationally recognized fashion model and novice actor had the presence and stature to pull it off, and Murphy didn’t have a major dramatic screen role to his credit before 1997.

    Would indeed make the same argument for Aniston, considering she’s *Greek*-American, not simply the catch-all “White”, and at least has a better reputation with her indie dramatic roles than her big budget ones. Since she’s not French more interesting cultural implications as well to argue, but can’t penetrate the skin, huh?

    All this makeup stuff, dang, just as stupid as the “Nose” controversy from “The Hours”. Jolie gives me the creeps, but I’m at least going to wait wait until the movie comes out, then go harsh on her after if it sucks.

    I’m still asking what in the hell has Halle done from me lately after the Oscars? There’s been “Swordfish”, “Die Another Day”, two “X-Men” flicks, “Gothika”, “Catwoman”, a damn “Robots” cartoon, and geebus “Perfect Stranger”?!? So “Their Eyes Were Watching God” was on TV, OK, but I got to ask: who in the hell actually *saw*.these? In the theater? By choice? At full price? My point exactly…

    More to the point, though, to be fair, at least 3-4 of her flicks *do* involve some interracial activity (sex included), so it does prove her viability there.

    But if her only $creen $ucce$$ of late involved electrical currents shooting out of her body (no comment) and an ironic SNL hosting stint with Britney Spears some years back (double no comment), and you don’t see her hanging out doing all the chummy stuff with the other crazy Hollywood folks, you aren’t going to get the roles. She can get back with Billy Bob Thornton– I hear he’s free again, that might help…

    And yeah man, Will Smith did do the Bob Barker story. It was called “The Legend of Bagger Vance”…

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 8:41 pm ¶

22. S wrote:

    LOL! Carmen you are crazy!

    IF Pearl requested Jolie, that’s her right. I still don’t like it, considering that other women of color (who have been robbed of parts) could play that part.

    I would want to be played by a medium brown or dark skinned woman. I am medium brown and I am tired of black parts being given to obviously HALF black women at such high rates. I am happy that they get parts, but it’s bad enough that there are few parts for us. I think it’s a double standard that half black/white women are given a lot or most of black women’s roles but VERY FEW seem to be given white roles. And now that there is a part that may best suit some of the half black women…it is given to Jolie without contest.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 8:49 pm ¶

23. Ananse wrote:

    Ryan Gosling will “interpret” a character loosely based upon me, through dramatic recreations of episodes based mostly in fact… but Forest Whitaker’s directing.

    Book was decent, I may check out film on DVD. Don’t have a problem with the casting choice on this one. Other international and indie films have my immediate interest and need my $$$ more.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 9:15 pm ¶

24. lunanoire wrote:

    I agree w/ S. As a black woman, I am amazed at the # of mixed people I see in the media portraying black women. Even though I am from CA, where mixing is more common, sometimes I wonder- where do they find these people? For example- mixed black people rarely have blue eyes, but you see a couple of them in the media.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 9:34 pm ¶

25. neil wrote:

    Hi . New here, but I thought people would like this:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19265190/site/newsweek/

    An excerpt from a recent Newsweek interview with Mis Pearl

    …..What was your reaction when she said she wanted to play you?

    She didn’t ask me. I asked her.

    Really?

    We had talked a lot and shared a lot of things. We had known each other for about a year, and I just felt that she understood my heart. That is what I wanted. I thought, “If somebody is going to play me, I don’t care that she looks like me.” It’s about something much more important. I asked her because I trusted her.

    Speaking of skin color, there was a lot of uproar about Angelina playing you because she’s white. Some people think a woman of color should have played you.

    I am Cuban, but I’m also Dutch. Should a Dutch person play me? It’s not about skin color, it’s about how a person behaves that matters. Aren’t we past this?
    ……

    She seems offended by the controversy.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 10:45 pm ¶

26. Meg wrote:

    We’re all talking about skin colour though, just the same as hollywood decision makers - we don’t necessarily want someone with the same ethnic background as Pearl, we just don’t want Jolie because her skin colour is wrong and they shouldn’t have addressed it through blackface. The argument Jolie’s not right cos she was essentially in black face I agree with and if you’re going for skin tone then use a different actress. But if she’d been left to do the role without the wierd makeup then I probably wouldn’t care so much since Marianne Pearl asked for her. Pearl lost a husband i don’t know that i can blame her for not being tapped into the politics of colour in the hollywood arena.

    Hollywood is superficial and will cast based on a name to open the box office and looks. Keanu Reeves maybe wouldn’t be accepted in a biracial role because (lack of talent aside :P) in the eyes of a test audience he doesn’t looked mixed enough - who knows? I know for sure i’d never get cast as a eurasian since not enough ppl can correctly place my racial background. I imagine even from the tone of some comments on here that there may be ppl who wouldn’t be happy with Halle Berry portraying african american women because she is “only half” - regardless of whether Berry IDs herself as african american or biracial; producers of a film (any film) might think that using halle berry in a “white” role with a white husband and mixed kids (or someone who, shock-horror is biracial!) as a political statement that distracts from a film’s plot, etc etc , and the argument goes on and on. But it’s all back to how someone else sees them, not their actual identiy or ethnic background, and what studios expect will attract the most viewers.

    Posted 18 Jun 2007 at 11:58 pm ¶

27. Mark N. wrote:

    Mina: That’s a really good point re: Othello. In regards to Aniston taking the role though, I was more down on her acting chops as opposed to her race being an issue. I always thought her serious indie film work is way overrated. Given this is a race/pop culture forum not a movie geek forum, I probably should’ve left that alone and avoided the cheap Friends-related (unsuccessful) punchline. Cheers.

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 6:07 am ¶

28. Lyonside wrote:

    “It’s not about skin color”

    YES! In which case, WHY THE FAKE TAN?

    Why not portray Mrs. Pearle in the skin she’s in? Wouldn’t it be just as accurate a portrayal?

    My gut reaction is to the colorism at work - hire a white actor (or in this case, have the actor intrinsically involved in production etc.), but make sure that they color their skin for “accuracy.” The hell?

    Watch, next someone is going to call Jolie “edgy” for portraying a non-white (or rather a non-majority-white) woman.

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 6:44 am ¶

29. nsekuye wrote:

    angelina on the “controversy”:

    “I know that people are frustrated at the lack of great roles [for people of color], but I think they’ve picked the wrong example here,” Jolie says.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263097/site/newsweek/page/0/

    still don’t like her, and still not seeing anything she makes.

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 8:12 am ¶

30. Winn wrote:

    I have great respect for Marianne Pearl’s right to approve the person who portrays her on film, especially such a life-altering, transformative event in her life. I respect that her view on race is distinguished by the fact that she is European, not American. I respect that neither Thandie Newton nor Halle Berry have the exact racial admixture of Marianne Pearl. But what the apologists don’t respect is the fact that in telling this story, the producers and Marianne Pearl herself have transformed it from a personal story to a universal story, and therefore the racial implications go beyond Ms. Pearl’s personal relationship with Jolie. Quite frankly, the story, in all its facets, is bigger than she is. I’ve seen an early screening of “A Mighty Heart” for critics. I ceased being a fan of Angelina Jolie long ago. I think she is sincere in her beliefs and desire to help those less fortunate, and that she is serious and informed about some issues. But before we anoint her as a saint, let’s remember her primary job is as an actress. On that score, although she does an adequate job in the film, her very persona overwhelms the role. It is nearly impossible to see the film and see Marianne Pearl instead of Angelina Jolie, especially Angelina Jolie in a distracting tan and bizarre wig. From a filmgoing and narrative standpoint, this is a fundamental flaw and damaging to the film. Perhaps a little less fidelity to Ms. Pearl’s personal ties and a little more cognizance of how best to tell this story would have resulted in a lead actor who did not have to have their skin color altered and whose performance did not get overshadowed by her outsize personality.

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 10:40 am ¶

31. dnA wrote:

    A recent review said that Jolie’s star power obscured the actual point of the film.

    I believe it was in the Washington post…

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 1:12 pm ¶

32. Atena wrote:

    Very well put, Winn. Your comment articulates the contradictions nicely. Thanks!

    Atena

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 3:13 pm ¶

33. Mina wrote:

    “Mina: That’s a really good point re: Othello.”

    I made a good point? Aww, thanks.

    I just thought the idea of Aniston playing Pearl was weird, like the way I thought it was weird when I saw Domingo in blackface in one of my parents’ opera videotape catalogs. Mom and Dad guessed it was because opera casting tends to be all about the voices but I still thought “c’mon, aren’t there any black tenors?”

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 6:50 pm ¶

34. Kimberly Major wrote:

    I self identify as African American and my mother is a Creole of color, her ancestors from Louisiana. Angelina Jolie’s mother’s family is also from Louisiana and reported to be Creole. In a recent Parade Magazine article, Jolie spoke of her mother’s Native American heritage but going by “lookism” as a teenager, Jolie looked biracial. Could she be “passing?” I dunno….just throwing that out there and so possibly, her playing Pearl was not a big deal to her.

    Posted 19 Jun 2007 at 10:43 pm ¶

35. Gandalf Mantooth wrote:

    Othello is never a good point. We always give “the Bard” a pass because the play is so damned old. However, think of any major production of the play, and tell me when you saw a White man running about the stage (or on film) in dark make-up.

    neil’s article alerts us to the possibility that Mrs Pearl, as accomplished as she is, seems to confuse ethnicity and national origin. Surely she knows there are “Black” Cubans who face discrimination and African descent Dutch who face the same. So yeah, it is possible a “Dutch” could play her.

    back to hoo_boy, the literalist
    You want to point out AJ’s box office success and convieniently ignore HB’s? You really want to type with straight fingers that most people saw the X-Men movies on DVD? How many people saw Sky Captain at all? What did AJ do after her Oscar? Their track records are pretty similar. Bone Collector? Come on.

    In spite of her pretentions, AJ is not a bad actress. Not right for this role.

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 2:36 am ¶

36. Luke Pharma wrote:

    For whatever it’s worth, I just want to ask why no one here or elsewhere actually has given any focus to the choice of Dan Futterman as Pearl.

    A risky, but savvy, choice to have a Jew playing the role of a murdered Jew and filming on location in politically dangerous locations. Isn’t this story is just as much Daniel Pearl’s, and isn’t the film’s success how well/convincing the Futterman-Jolie storyline works?

    It is a shame that the Post covers this angle *nearly a year* ago without more discussion:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081201065.html

    versus the motivations into an actress’ appearance for a role with which the subject of the portrayal herself doesn’t take issue.

    I take one exception with Winn’s otherwise cogent explanation: it was *always* a universal story from the time it actually unfolded: implicating nations, media outlets, families, etc. It was cruel, random, and directed personally, but it was never a personal story, and never meant to be. Therefore, the story needs a personality that can carry it on that level.

    I can quibble on artistic differences and merit, but I’d like to judge the work for itself, and not be– for lack of a better word– prejudiced in my opinion simply because of the personality, the makeup, etc. If it’s good, if it works, so be it. If it doesn’t, then it will fall down in its tracks.

    As for the “Gandalf vs. hoo_boy” show: It would be a shame if MSNBC didn’t grant you the airtime in the post-Imus landscape. I’m enjoying and learning much from you and others.

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 3:24 pm ¶

37. hoo_boy wrote:

    WDAJ literally? Action Adventure (”Gone in Sixty Seconds”, “Lara Croft”, “Mr & Mrs. Smith”); Crime Drama (”Taking Lives”, “Original Sin”); Historical (”Alexander”); Weird Fantasy/Sci Fi duds (”Life or Something Like It”, “Sky Captain”); Cartoon(”Shark Tale”); Global Political Intrigue (”Beyond Borders”, “Good Shepherd”, “The Fever”)…

    Note the pattern: most of the films basically suck (formula studio crap), did mixed box office in the US, but all did better overseas and had progressively higher profile co-stars. She had a good agent, made smart choices (especially with Shark Tale which had Will Smith).

    The Tomb Raider stuff is right when she started to clean up her personal act (mostly) and stop acting like a sexholic brat and do something unselfish through the UN High Commisioner on Refugees which is where she gained credibility in international policy circles.

    See, the better argument y’all should’ve been using for Thandie was:

    (a) she’s friends with the British film celeb circus more than American, so that makes her a more credible “international” actress

    (b) she friends with TomKat after her Tom scenes in MI:II with made her lose the Lucy Liu role in Charlie’s Angels so she’s owed a *big* one

    (c) she had that thankless role on ER with Noah Wyle followed by…

    (d) that thankless role in Oscar-winning “Crash” where there’s a gratuitous interracial cop and feel scene with, um, cop Matt Dillon

    (e) she’s got a social conscience on children’s and environmental issues (though the latter somewhat belatedly and reactively under social pressure).

    As for Halle? Well Eric Benét and the car accident, etc… ? I keep saying she needs to dump her agent and publicist and get a better one that will get her away from the crap and steer her towards the quality good public stuff and roles.

    I noticed something here, very interesting, again n the rush to push Berry, Newton, etc. no one said: “not the Alba”. Why is it that these were the only two names y’all could thing off– as long as it wasn’t Jolie– when the author and woman who lived her own story wanted who she felt was most appropriate after refusing all the traditional studio default choices? By tossing out “BerryNewton” every time “Jolie” comes up from now on, you’ll only be doing the same thing the studios do when they throw out “Alba” as their default choice for a role. How is that not different?

    I want her and women of all races to succeed, not the least because she’s nearly 10 years older than Jolie and Newton. Older women of *all* races face a hard time– unless you’re Streep or Close (ugh!). Indie films thankfully are beating the big studios. If only more women of color were involved, actively sought, taking control etc. Indie still means alternative still means “white 90s whiny grainy what-not etc” More stories and styles, that is changing.

    Yes Hollywood sucks, but “Hollywood” is also in a heap of trouble too– the old system has been broke so long the old arguments of “not enough quality roles for us colored folks” isn’t going to cut it. Why do you think “the system” has been stealing from and looking to other markets for its success for the past few years? It’s so fragmented and broken, it’s the fragmentation that allows new opportunities and reinvention if people stopped playing into the same old mindset.

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 4:27 pm ¶

38. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Personally I would have loved to see Sophie Okenedo land this role. She would have been amazing.

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 4:59 pm ¶

39. Ananse wrote:

    Not that it matters, but Okenedo’s also an African Jew who does theater more than films, so there’s your cred.

    Chatting these and other fine underheralded actresses up for their lesser known work(Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Kimberly Elise, etc.) more and more each time a film comes out– rather than simply trashing and bashing the studios big budget stuff would seem to help build their quotient and buzz and position them in the minds of more filmmakers who otherwise wouldn’t think or look their way, no?

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 5:24 pm ¶

40. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    On the cross-racial/cross-ethnic casting, we shouldn’t forget Jessica Alba as the blond-haired, blue-eyed Susan Storm/Richards. I don’t think they touched up her skin color, but they certainly disguised some ethnically-associated characteristics. Should we call that white-face? I don’t think this raises exactly the same issues because some of these ethnic/racial issues aren’t symmetrical, but it’s worth including in the mix when discussing this larger phenomenon.

    The thing that hangs me up with this particular case is that what was originally offensive about blackface was the stereotypical facial features and mannerisms that went along with it. It wasn’t the mere adoption of a darker skin color. That’s become associated with the original, and when someone does it it does remind people of the classic blackface and thus offends, but I still think it’s worth distinguishing between something lik,e this and something like these ghetto parties, which are much more minstrelsy and classic blackface. I’m sure some will still insist that this kind of blackface is wrong, but surely it’s not in the same category as the more blatant examples of the classic kind of blackface.

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 6:53 pm ¶

41. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    One other thing occurred to me that I forgot to include in the previous comment. Jolie’s portrayal is supposed to be sympathetic and favorable. I suppose it’s possible it won’t turn out that way, but that’s at least the intent. Classic blackface was purely to make fun of black people, and these new ghetto parties do the same thing. So that’s another thing that makes this at least not as bad.

    Posted 20 Jun 2007 at 6:56 pm ¶

42. merq wrote:

    1. This is the first time I can say in all honesty that I totally agree with you, Jeremy Pierce.

    2. This frightens me.

    3. How come you weren’t offering these absolute condemnations in the initial “Ghetto Party” discussions? I remember you offering up some weird/lame rationale. I guess my question is, why do you only attack an obviously reprehensible racial incident only when defending one that is somewhat reprehensible to others?

    Posted 21 Jun 2007 at 6:52 am ¶

43. RCG wrote:

    Women of color don’t get the opportunities
    that white women in Hollywood get and they never have. White actress or don’t speak out about racism past and present because the industry is so competitive and racism benefits them. The artistic choices a woman of color makes depends on what she is OFFERED within the industry.

    Posted 21 Jun 2007 at 7:35 am ¶

44. Angela wrote:

    Kimberly Major–I think it is funny that only NOW, with this role, everyone keeps bringing up AJ’s ethnic background ( “She’s part Iroquois!”, “her mother is French!”) when prior to this movie, everyone just said “she has lips like a black woman” (and she gets her lips from her Czech-German dad, btw).

    I don’t think she is “passing” since her mother is French-Canadian and being Creole doesn’t solely mean those of afro-french-spanish descent. That word is being tossed around incorrectly because of Beyonce.

    Posted 21 Jun 2007 at 2:03 pm ¶

45. daisy wrote:

    Here’s a link to the NY Times review by Manohla Dargis:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/movies/22migh.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

    It also photos of Jolie. Her skin doesn’t look all that dark. If there’s make-up, it’s subtle.

    It’s a very positive review.

    Posted 21 Jun 2007 at 6:59 pm ¶

46. Vina wrote:

    Mrs. Pearl is half Dutch-Jewish, part Chinese-Cuban, and part Hispanic-black-Cuban. Why focus so much on just the black portion? It would be just as ‘accurate’ for a white or East Asian actress to play her as a black one. Given that she’s half white, one could even argue that it would be MOST ‘accurate’ to pick a white or mostly white actress.

    Rather silly though, restricting roles based on race.

    Posted 21 Jun 2007 at 8:31 pm ¶

47. Lyonside wrote:

    >Rather silly though, restricting roles based on race.

    I’m still hung up on the skin color issue - if race of the actress or the portrayed is not an issue, then DON’T COLOR YOUR SKIN. It’s a weird issue.

    I’m also not moved by the “what about a cartoon character portrayal” argument. It’s a biopic of a living person, not a send-up of a cartoon character.

    Posted 21 Jun 2007 at 10:26 pm ¶

48. michelle wrote:

    The following was taken off the web….

    While there is so much of humdrum around with Halle Berry playing the role of a white woman in her up-coming movie Class Act. Halle Berry is supposed to play a real character Tierney cahill - a sixth-grade teacher who lets her students convince her to run for Congress in 2000, but only if they’ll help her run her campaign.

    “At first it was,’Too bad it can’t be Halle’,” explains Goldsmith-Thomas, who first learned of Class Act while making the upcoming Perfect Stranger with Berry. “And then it was, ‘Why can’t it be Halle?’”he adds,

    When Tierney Cahill, who in reality is married to a black man and has biracial children, came to know that Halle Berry is going to play her on screen. She had just one word for it ‘FANTASTIC’.

    Whoever thought an actor’s talent could be measured by his skin color!!!

    So…while I have an inherent problem with a white woman playing a woman of color (I’m a Black woman in America, and a lot of you out there feel me) I am really glad that there is a Black woman who is getting a crack at something even though the character was originally white.

    I just want to note, however, that the director’s first comment was “Too bad it can’t be Halle…” Hmmm, interesting first thought.

    Lastly, as a Black woman in America, I would just like to say that while Black America is currently in a state of emergency if you will, I resent anyone who says that we just sit around talking about what was done to us and not what we can do about it now. I think that Black people have shown an enormous amount of resolve, resilence, forgiveness, strength and courage in the face a terrible circumstances.

    So please be very clear about who we are and what we have been through as Black people before you talk about us with such a lack of understanding and compassion.

    Posted 22 Jun 2007 at 11:32 pm ¶

49. upRIVER wrote:

    ‘My Happiness is True Revenge’

    Mariane Pearl on life since the murder of her husband, reporter Daniel Pearl, and the movie her story inspired.

    Web Exclusive
    By Sean Smith
    Newsweek
    June 17, 2007 - “A Mighty Heart,” starring Angelina Jolie, is based on the best-selling book by Mariane Pearl about the murder of her husband, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, by Al Qaeda members in Karachi, Pakistan, in early 2002. The movie details Mariane’s struggle-with the help of Journal editors, Pakistan counterterrorism experts, FBI agents and others-to unravel the terrorist network and find Danny. Much in Mariane’s life has changed since then, including the birth of their son, Adam, who is now 5 years old. The film opens June 22. Pearl spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Sean Smith from her home in Paris about the film, her friendship with Jolie, the politics of terror, and the true meaning of revenge. Excerpts:

    NEWSWEEK: Were you prepared for the huge response to your book when it was published in 2003?
    Mariane Pearl: Well, it wasn’t something I was writing to be successful, so I had no expectations. It was so personal, I didn’t know if it was something people would want to read. But I think you touch people’s hearts if you’re writing from that place within yourself.

    Often people write books about painful experiences to find a sense of closure. Was that your objective?
    When I started writing this book I was still pregnant, so it was kind of an emergency for me. I knew I had to write it for my son, Adam, and for Danny. But it felt like I had just came out of hell and now I had to go back in. I’ve never tried to really “heal.” I was more preoccupied with how to un-break my life and how to answer what had happened to me.

    In March, the federal government released a statement from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, claiming, in graphic detail, that he personally killed Danny. How did you react to that?
    [Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales called to tell me that he was releasing [the confession] to the press, and I told him, “This is just PR.”

    Because Gonzales was under investigation for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys?
    Right. Gonzales was in trouble, and he was trying to look like he was doing a good job with terrorism, and that’s the only reason he released it when he did, and I told him so. This was not news. [Mohammad] had been saying that for a long time. I felt very sad because someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammad can have a gruesome, graphic description of a murder and every [media outlet] is going to pick it up.

    What did you do?
    I wrote a statement and sent it, but this is a repeated struggle. All you can do to oppose what [Mohammad] does-or what Gonzales does, for that matter-is show dignity. Dignity is the opposition.

    Why did you want to have a film made of “A Mighty Heart”?
    I didn’t want to do a movie. I just didn’t think it was right. It took me a while to agree to meet some studio producers.

    Why?
    The only way I was going to do a movie was if someone understood why I wrote this book in the first place. I was also worried that Danny would be turned into a saint, or that everything was going to be oversimplified. I see how people deal with issues related to terrorism, and it’s very hard for people to embrace complexity. And, when I started meeting with producers, my fears were confirmed. One told me, “This is a great political thriller.” I thought, “No way.”

    Brad Pitt ended up producing it. How was your meeting with him different?
    First of all, we were contemporaries. He understood that this was a serious time in history and that we all needed to do something about that. And he had actually read the book, and he understood why I wrote it. We had the same intention.

    Do you feel you and Angelina have shaped each other’s worldviews?
    We have very passionate conversations. [Laughs.] I always learn from her, and I never walk out of a conversation with Angie without learning something. She doesn’t acknowledge borders so much, and neither do I. It’s a voluntary view of the world. She’s capable of respecting other cultures while remaining herself.

    What was your reaction when she said she wanted to play you?
    She didn’t ask me. I asked her.

    Really?
    We had talked a lot and shared a lot of things. We had known each other for about a year, and I just felt that she understood my heart. That is what I wanted. I thought, “If somebody is going to play me, I don’t care that she looks like me.” It’s about something much more important. I asked her because I trusted her.

    When she was preparing to play you, what kinds of questions did she ask?
    We had very open-heart talks. We talked about our relationships with our mothers. Everything that was important to me I told her, so it was very intense. But she didn’t ask me about anything that’s in the book, anything she didn’t need to ask me about. She was very protective that way. When she started shooting the film, though, I decided not to go to the set, so she was on her own a lot. The other actors got to talk to their real-life counterparts more.

    Why did you not want to go on set?
    I felt it would probably be harder for her if I was around, and it would be difficult for me. I absolutely had no desire to control anything. When I decided to trust them, I trusted them entirely.

    Angelina said she had a tough time perfecting your accent.
    [Laughs.] She said, “I love you, but your accent drives me crazy!” I’m not even aware of all the difficulties she went through, and that’s not having to do with skin color or accent. To be friends with someone and then have to embody the most difficult thing in her life, that’s not easy.

    Speaking of skin color, there was a lot of uproar about Angelina playing you because she’s white. Some people think a woman of color should have played you.
    I am Cuban, but I’m also Dutch. Should a Dutch person play me? It’s not about skin color, it’s about how a person behaves that matters. Aren’t we past this?

    It’s ironic that this film hit that particular nerve, considering that it’s so much about cross-cultural unity. You had so many different races of people helping you search for Danny after he was kidnapped.
    To me, it’s a story about Danny being held by extremely intolerant people, and yet we, in that house in Pakistan-Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim-came together to find him. It’s as if two visions of the world were fighting each other. That’s how I see it. That’s how I wrote it. So yes, it’s way deeper than the color of your skin.

    We talk about the “war on terror” a lot since 9/11. Are we fighting the right battle? Has your view of how we should fight terrorism changed?
    That’s a complex question, and there are two layers to it. One is political, which is complicated and depressing. With politics and governments there are always compromises. It’s just not clean. The second layer is personal. Terrorism is a psychological weapon, even though it uses physical means. It stops you from claiming the world as your own. It stops you from relating to other people. It creates fear and hatred. The only way to fight terrorists, as a citizen, is to deny them those emotions. That is the only thing terrorists don’t expect. Everything else they expect: retaliation, bombing, attacks. All of that is exactly what they want. Deny them fear, and they lose. I know that requires a lot of self-control, but if we don’t exercise self-control, I don’t think you can secure any kind of peace.

    Yes, but how do you get the average person to see that?
    I’m not saying everybody has got to start understanding that. It’s about the incarnation of that attitude. I write a column for Glamour magazine and I travel the world and write about people who are doing exactly that. I have to say, a lot of them are women-ordinary women, who are role models. It just takes one person, one leader, to do that, and it has the power to make people think.

    It’s a pretty noble reaction to terrorism, especially considering what happened to you.
    I’m not saying this because I’m a nice person. [Laughs.] It’s not forgiveness that motivates me. It’s revenge. Terrorists expect retaliation. It’s very easy to want to hurt someone who has hurt you. The one thing they’re not expecting is my happiness. That’s true revenge. And when I see Adam, and I see how happy he is, I think, “I’m winning.” But it’s not like happiness is something worry-free. I’m in a battle here. A world vision shaped by people who don’t want you to claim the world as your own can squelch the purpose of an entire life. Confronting AIDS in Africa or poverty in India, and when you see children suffer-it’s hard emotionally-but that’s your work as a human being. How could I live all this time without having any idea that it was going on? I’m more afraid of being in a bubble than I am of wide-open spaces.

    What was it like for you to see this film for the first time?
    Very difficult. It’s very, very close to my experience, so it’s difficult for me to be objective. But what I can feel is the respect and the friendship that I have felt from everyone involved in the movie, from day one. I was right to have trusted them.

    With the book, and now the movie, you have to keep talking about this period of your life. After five years, does some part of you want to put it on a shelf and move on?
    It’s not that I enjoy talking about what happened to Danny. I don’t like to be thrown back into the most difficult moments of our story. But that’s not my story with him. I married him, and we had a really beautiful relationship, and we have a beautiful son. So I have much more than his death in my life. I knew that the way he was killed could hijack the person he was. My victory, I think, is that Danny is present, in a lively way, in my life and in Adam’s.

    You were five months pregnant with him when Danny was kidnapped. Adam is five years old now. What’s he like?
    He’s great! [Laughs.] I’m not claiming any objectivity. He looks a lot like Danny. He has the same sense of humor, the same sense of joy, and he’s a very wise little boy. Danny was very serious about being silly, and Adam is very silly.

    I heard that Brad and Angelina’s daughter, Zahara, has a crush on him.
    [Laughs.] Definitely. Which is really cool, because I love Z. They look very cute together. It’s perfect.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19265190/site/newsweek/page/0/

    Posted 01 Jul 2007 at 12:08 am ¶

50. Anonymous wrote:

    The fact that this choice of actor is being questioned and the term “black face” is being thrown around shows the inherent racism of the United States’ concept of race and color. Ms. Pearl is not “black,” she is sort of a tan color, and there has been no indication ever that she considers herself to be “black”. She is a multi-ethnic woman, who almost certainly is more European than anything else, and to even use the word black face shows your enforcing of the U.S. one drop rule-oh, she has some african ancestry, therefore she is black. Should african actors and actresses be prohibited from portraying african american charachters because the latter have some european blood? Should Forest Whitaker not have been allowed to play Idi Amin because 1) he certainly has some white blood, and 2) He clearly had to wear darkening make-up to make him look more african? I think it is time for you to look in the mirror and check out the inherent prejudices that you have from living in the USA. In the rest of the world, having some african ancestry does not make you black. Stop forcing your prejudices on Ms. Pearl and Angelina Jolie.

    Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:30 pm ¶

51. starrica wrote:

    She’s multi-racial…not soley black or soley white. I think that the role should go to a fellow multi-racial person. Race is a sensitive issue and I believe that it always will be. Distorting facts and covering up underlying issues won’t do anything [positive for race relations. These are FACTS. I could understand just a little bit if this was a fictional movie, but it’s not. If this is supposed to be a nonfictional/autobiogrpahy, then why choose actors and actresses whom are furthest away from the facts? There are hundreds (literally) of multi-racial actresses this role could have gone to. One of them would have played Ms. Pearl just as fine as Ms. Jolie. That’s another thing….Earlier it was said that Jennifer Aniston was a potential actress in that role…now THAT is scary. I couldn’t think of a person further away to play her. That goes to show you right there that Ms. Jolie’s casting in the movie had NOTHING to do with her acting, it had to do with whom she knew. One of the ONLY reasons why Ms. Jolie is portraying Marianne is because her husband is the man behind the scenes. So what if she had spoken to Ms. Pearl about it. I don’t care if she agrees with it or not. It’s minstrel black face. It is what it is.

    Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶

52. Uwantege wrote:

    Ok so I dont really know how to feel about this now - now that it seems that it was Mariane who asked Angelina Jolie to play her in the movie.

    All I’m thinking is that Mariane’s own preference of who was to play her is peripheral and somewhat irrelevant to the whole contoversy> I dont mean this in the sense that her opinion doesn matter (it does, and so I’ll respect it and maybe see the movie), but in the sense that the people who create the movie should be making more critical and culturally sensitive judgements about who they cast and how it will be interpreted by others. So, if you are making an American movie with hollywood actors and the majority of people who will be watching that film will be in the United States, then it’s about time to be a little more racially sensitive in terms of casting. Not to mention the fact that it seems no one is questioning the impact of “real life” blockbuster films on the collective imagination and the way in which people will “see” mariane pearl for years after this movie is released. Instead of understanding herself and her identity as that of afro-cuban heritage, people (the vast majority of whom had no idea who she was before the film, in the US anyway) will not have a vision of her as such, but instead will be visualizing angelina jolie in her place, and will not be conscious of what she actually looks like and of her mixed heritage. Which bothers me also because I am convinced that her mixedness - afrocuban/dutch and raised in France has lent dimension to the way she sees the world and what happened to her husband and therefore is a crucial contributor to her perspective on things. She’s really an amazing woman with a unique perspective and I am sure that her multicultural identity has shaped her experiences and her story. Unfortunately, hardly anyone in the audience will remember her this way because of the way Angelina’s image (and all the baggage that goes along with it) will be superimposed upon Mariane’s. Gee, I wonder who will stand out in the collective memory.

    Side note: Let’s not pretend that the issue of race or skin color or cultural heritage or whatever you want to call it doesnt exist in Europe. Anyone who has spent a good chunk of time there as a non-white person or who has non-white family there knows for a fact that skin color and cultural difference does indeed matter. Less than it does in the US, but it still plays a role in society. Hint: think of european immigration issues of late…france maybe. Or the netherlands…

    And to be a bit of a realistic, cynic bitch, movies are not made for the people they are based on. Hollywood has time and again usurped personal memoirs and historical accounts to serve its own purposes (read: $$$) - dont even get me started on Hotel Rwanda - but now all of a sudden the industry pretends to be true to Mariane to sidestep the racial controversy. Additonally, let’s think about this - movies are made significant by the volume of people who watch them, and the way in which people relate to the stories and to the characters who portray their respective parts. Essentially, it is the extent to which people can identify with the film and its characters that constitutes a truly successful film. A lot of this “relating” occurs visually, and it saddens me that there will be millions of mixed and black viewers out there who will NOT be relating to Mariane as a culturally and racially mixed woman, but as a white woman, thanks to the (albeit very pretty) face of Angelina Jolie.

    So, really what upsets me isnt so much the racial politics or the question of Mariane’s own opinion, but the way in which Angelina’s portrayal will funadmentally change the way that the film is received, understood, and interpreted by audiences internationally.

    Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 1:45 pm ¶

53. Gunfighter wrote:

    Egad.

    Movies… especially big-budget, studio pieces are made to make money.

    Making money almost alwaays requires a star to sell tickets.

    Halle Berry is a good looking lady who, Oscar or no, has a questionable track record at the box office.

    Thandie Newtown, who is beautiful and talented, would have been a good chocie… BUT… would Newton have resonated with the target demographic?

    Movies are mad for an audience. There is a target age, gender, and ethnicity for every movie and television show made.

    Personally, I’m not in the demographic that this film is made for, I am a 43 year old black man with a blue collar job (I’m a cop)… they didn’t make this movie for me, and whether Halle Berry (ugh), Thandie Newton, or someone of acceptable race/ethnicity wouldn’t change a thing.

    I suspect that this tempest in a teapot ove Jolie in the starring role, won’t make a dime’s worth of difference in the money that this film makes.

    Cheers,

    GF

    Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 4:32 pm ¶

54. starrica wrote:

    To the ANONYMOUS #50 COMMENT.

    Ms. Pearle IS Black. What are us multi racials supposed to call ourselves…nothing? We’re human too. It doesn’t matter if she is full Black or a quarter Black, in addition to being Dutch, Ms. Pearl is BLACK woman., but she is also a Dutch woman. She is no more Dutch that she is Black and vice versa. If most people saw her, they would think that she is a full Black woman. I hate when people whom don’t understand anything about being multiracial make these ridiculous claims of “well, they are half breeds”, or “they are only a little (insert race here)”. It doesn’t matter. It also does not matter what she race she considers herself. She is what she is.

    Posted 02 Jul 2007 at 5:08 pm ¶

55. Ed wrote:

    From my pale skinned perspective, I don’t understand the Jolie angst very well. Ms. Pearle is an amazing woman, however. She took on what happened to her face on. What a brave human being.

    It saddens me that we have caused ourselves to even think this way. I accept it is the case, but where does it get us? Pride? Is that more important that the definitions that separate us?

    For my part, I am the result of at least two European haplogroups (UK, Sweden, Germany, France) and probably Native American and African American.

    Basically 250 years of American history and thousands of contributors to my genes.

    I do not want to be categorized or judged or stereotyped because I have pink skin and grey eyes.

    Granted I accept what I am and how I’m seen and what I can and cannot know about being a person of color. But someday, somehow, we as a people and a species need to get past this.

    My two best friends as a teenager were American black and German and Korean and American Euro-mutt. We rarely talked about race in a negative light. We had grown up in a community where it was normal to be of mixed race. I’ve always thought of it as a hopeful preview of the future. Maybe once America is no longer majority “white…”

    Posted 03 Jul 2007 at 11:35 pm ¶

56. Akilah Russell wrote:

    What if Thandie Newton was tapped to play the young Eleanor Roosevelt? Any objections?

    Posted 06 Jul 2007 at 10:09 am ¶

57. RCG wrote:

    Color blind casting should be a two way street but obviously it isn’t. Who can’t SEE the absence of women of color in film past and present ? White men run the industry and they choose women with the same skin color as themselves. Very few directors or producers have the insight or desire to look outside the box. You’ll never see white actresses (or actors) in this industry address racism because they benefit by having less competition.

    Posted 06 Jul 2007 at 12:28 pm ¶

58. michelle wrote:

    Thank you RCG! And thank you Akilah!

    Ed, I would love to get past “this”. The only way for our American/Western society to really move forward is to begin to dismantle all vestiges of institutionalized racism. Hollywood is one place where racism and discrimination have never been challenged. The only reason there are no Black women who can open a film the way Angelina Jolie can open a film is because Black women have not been given the chance. Now, Black women who have fall into very specific types/categories/stereotypes been given some opportunities, i.e. Queen Latifah and Whoopi Goldberg. And GF you are so right. But Halle, to date, is one of perhaps four Black women throughout the course of film history who have been given the chance to be seen as a classic leading lady. One Black woman gets an opportunity and her failure is seen as proof that Black women are not current, or able to command the legions of people it takes to prove that they are legitimate box office gold. However, many more White women (Gretchen Mol, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kate Hudson, etc.) have failed to rise to the occasion and no one ever says that White women can’t open movies.

    And what about large franchise movies where casting really could be arbitrary? You could put women of color in very visible roles in Spider-Man 3, Transformers, Lord of the Rings, Terminator, etc. and I would like to assert that it would not make a noticble difference in the box office returns. All three installments of the Matrix franchise made significant box office returns and the last two movies featured women of color in many roles. The Matrix films are the only films in the past decade that have featured such a diverse cast, and number of visible roles for Black women, without being labeled a “Black” movie. I don’t think anyone can overlook that fact. Simply put, Hollywood movies do not necessarily suffer for casting Black women, yet that is the excuse they use when asked about the lack of diversity in American film.

    I respect Marianne Pearl and Angelina Jolie for their social activism. I don’t want to weigh in on whether or not MP is Black, because what is more important is what she is not, a White woman. This movie was an opportunity for change, for action. It was an opportunity to fight the white supremacist and sexist notion that White women are worth more than Black women or any other woman of color. It is ironic that two women who are fighting for social change and justice let a crucial moment slip through their fingers.

    BTW, Upriver thanks for getting us the detailed article.

    Posted 08 Jul 2007 at 1:32 am ¶

59. michelle wrote:

    FYI….

    There is a movie called “Slow Burn” which someone was talking about tonight, actually. I have not seen it, although I saw the trailer on IMDB. It is starring Jolene Blalock (formerly T’Pol on Star Trek) as a woman of color, more specifically, half-black, half-white (can someone please inform me of what the proper term for this particular “mixture” is, I honestly don’t know and I am tired of being unintentionally insulting). I will admit to not knowing (beyond a shawdow of a doubt) what her racial background is and I will admit to not knowing the plot of this movie. But, for all intents and purposes, Jolene Blalock is a White woman who is playing a woman of color in a movie. Just thought that I would throw that out there.

    http://imdb.com/name/nm0086883/bio

    Don’t know how to do the link thing yet.

    Posted 09 Jul 2007 at 2:06 am ¶

60. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Michelle, apparently Blalock is actually mixed. We discussed the (god-awful looking) Slow Burn on this thread.

    Posted 09 Jul 2007 at 6:47 am ¶

61. michelle wrote:

    Carmen…

    Thanks for the info, I appreciate you not letting me go on and on about it without knowing the facts, so to speak.

    Posted 09 Jul 2007 at 2:49 pm ¶

62. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Hey it was news to me too.

    Posted 09 Jul 2007 at 3:34 pm ¶

63. Jojo wrote:

    Although I agree her casting did take the role away from a plethera of black actresses, (some named, others not), at the same time an actor’s role is to play characters other than themselves. Actors act. They wear costumes, change their body mass, change their accent, their hair color, etc.

    I’m not sure this is so different from Julia Roberts’ (attempted) Irish accent in Mary Riley, or the casting of two Chinese actresses (of which Gong Li) to play Japanese characters in “Memoires of a Geisha.” And don’t forget Tom Hanks portraying an Iranian in “The Terminal” or Jack Black playing a Mexican in “Nacho Libre.” If you want to go further, how about Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal (both assumed to be straight) playing gay men in “Brokeback Mountain”? Or Jamie-Lynn Seigler (a Jew) playing Meadow Soprano (a Christian) in the series “The Sopranos”? Or Sacha Baron Cohen (a Jew) playing a Jew-fearing Kazakh in “Borat”?

    In fact, you could come up with a hundred examples such as these. If you want total accuracy, it would have been necessary to find not a black actress, as suggested, but an Afro-Cuban-Dutch actress (preferrably in the exact genetic percentages as Ms. Pearl). Otherwise, putting a black actress (or Cuban, why not?) would also be a misrepresentation of the character portrayed. Add this to the fact that Marianne herself selected (or at least agreed with) Jolie as the lead actress, and the argument quickly loses steam.

    Worse, this takes away from the true meaning and message of this film. A journalist was kidnapped and killed while reporting. Powerful governments were helpless to save him. This film has both personal and societal implications that instantly become lost in this controversy. This film is meant to provoke discussion, but of a different kind.

    Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 7:15 am ¶

64. michelle wrote:

    I would imagine that this discussion is similar to the debate over affirmative action.

    The frustration that I have is that most of the people who are posting about this who feel that there is nothing inherently problematic with a White woman playing a woman of color, are right, in theory.

    But in practice, the bigger issue is about opportunity. There is a movie called Evening, that is being hailed as brilliant in part because it features some of the best actresses of our time. They are all White. What Black actresses belong in the category of Meryl Streep and Vanessa Redgrave? Halle Berry and Angela Bassett do not live in the same strata as Meryl Streep. Sophie Okenedo has not been given a fraction of the opportunities to display what seems to be a considerable talent. I would hazard to say that there are no Black actresses who have been given the same playing field as White actresses to showcase what could be an enormous talent.

    The reason why this causes me heartache on a very personal level is because I know that there are doors that are firmly closed to Black women. I know that there is a correlation between the casting of a Mighty Heart and the lack of Black women who are able to reside in the pantheon of “great actresses”.

    And in America, Asian people have definately come together as a whole, and many, while they are Chinese or Japanese, see themselves as Asian as well. Since “Memoirs of a Geisha” gave Asian actresses exposure in American mainstream cinema, I don’t think that is an equal comparison. Chinese film, Indian film and Japanese film are all very succesful and offer many avenues for Japanese, Chinese and Indian people to work in film and more importantly control the images of their people and culture that are broadcast throughout the world. The same can be said for Mexican cinema.

    There are plenty of gay men in Hollywood in positions of power, same with Christians and Jews. Again, Black women don’t occupy the same space as gays, Christians or Jews when it comes to controlling images or creating opportunities.

    Sacha Cohen is a completely different animal altogether. He is a performance artist, not really an actor in this particular context, and Borat is a character that he invented, like most of his characters. He didn’t take away an opportunity from the millions of Kazakhistani actors who are waiting for their big break. Also, some of the people of Kazakhstan were very upset about his on screen portrayal.

    Marianne Pearl’s decision to have AJ play her in a movie is, unfortunately, of no consequence within the context institutionalized racism in America. If they wanted the issues of the movie to resonate with everyone, they should not have allienated anyone, namely some (maybe many) Black women who feel that there is still a struggle for equality and justice in this county.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 12:04 am ¶

65. Gregory wrote:

    Personally, I think that Thandie Newton would have been a better choice instead of Ms. Jolie. Ms. Newton is biracial herself and that would have given the film more credibility.

    Hollywood still hasn’t learned its lessons from the past and need a wakeup call in how it depicts other races and ethnicities.

    The 1915 film “Birth of A Nation” is responsible for the bad racial stereotypes in the films of the past and present. Hollywood really has a long way to go and so does America.

    Posted 30 Jul 2007 at 7:57 am ¶

Post a Comment