Quotable: More on South Africa and Film
By Special Correspondent Arturo R. García
In reading the discussion about Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela, it’s interesting to note that South African actors have been protesting the casting of Jennifer Hudson in the title role of a biopic on Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.
“This decision must be reversed. It must be stopped now,” Oupa Lebogo, the union’s secretary-general, told The [UK] Times. The story also quoted a friend of Madikizela-Mandela’s, Udo Froese, as saying,: “There’s a lot of good local talent, why not use them? Winnie herself is not involved in this, and in no way has given any sort of green light.”
At a Dec. 5 press conference, actor John Kani and the Creative Workers Union of South Africa called for tighter regulations on foreign projects, and said the issue wasn’t Hudson personally, but a bigger problem:
“Every time there is a movie that tells a South African story, it is done by someone who must be taught the right way of pronouncing Sawubona. Enough it enough.”
He said if local actors were to be included in such films, they had to be given serious roles to play.
ANC Women’s League deputy president Nosipho Dorothy Ntwanambi said as a struggle veteran, she knew and understood why South African stories had to be portrayed by people who lived and knew them.
“One can’t read a book about our history and claim to know our way of living,” she said.
The Associated Press ran a story Monday quoting two more union officials upset with Hudson’s casting.
“It can’t happen that we want to develop our own Hollywood and yet bring in imports,” the union’s president Mabutho Sithole said in The Citizen newspaper.
“This decision must be reversed, it must be stopped now,” union secretary general Oupa Lebogo said in The Times. “If the matter doesn’t come up for discussion, we will push for a moratorium to be placed on the film.”
The Times also noted that both the film’s source material (the book Winnie Mandela: My Life) and director (Darrell J. Roodt) are local.
Another South African publication, the Daily Maverick, is concerned less about Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela in Invictus – which, the Huffington Post says, features an almost completely South African cast – than , but about how it holds up as a rugby film:
Can Graham Lindemann really demonstrate the awesomeness of Kobus’s arrival at a ruck? Can Rolf Fitschen throw a lineout ball as straight as Naka?
The answer, of course, is no. And because the answer is no, there’s likely to be much sniggering when the film gets released here this month. In fact, the sniggering has been gathering momentum for a while already – honestly, what was your first reaction when you heard that Matt Damon was cast as Francois Pienaar? Did you tell your mates that the guy was born for the role?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Afro-chan wrote:
Honestly, I too wondered the same thing about Morgan Freeman playing Mandela. It does strike me as a bit odd. Movies about Africa barely have any real Africans in them.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 9:15 am ¶
Wyatt wrote:
I wish Hollywood was a true risk taker when it comes to movies with PoC. However, I think the safest choices were made in regards to Freeman and Hudson. The movie producers wanted recognizible faces. Also, in my minds eye, and I may be wrong, howevr, it seems that Hollywood only deals with a handful of black actors and actresses anyway. That is, if you are not Morgan, Will, Denzel, Ty, Jennifer, Halle, and Beyonce then you probably will not get the payday advance.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 10:06 am ¶
Eva wrote:
@Wyatt, you’re correct. It’s all about money and connections in Hollywood. Freeman has worked with Clint Eastwood before, so Eastwood will more than likely cast him above other black actors. Also he has a name recognition and all producers want are tickets sold. Hollywood rarely takes risks at all. In the 1970’s there was a movie called ‘Hester Street’ about Jewish immigrants in NYC and I remember hearing the producers say how hard it was to make it and get a distributor for it.
It’s a shame that it seems no one wants to take a risk, I’m sure with a talented SA actor this movie could make money. There are plenty of stories of films made with little money that end up being blockbusters.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 11:34 am ¶
Queen B wrote:
I know that in the case of Morgan Freeman, Freeman claims that Nelson Mandela wanted Freeman to portray him in a movie. I was trying to think of a well known, recognizable black male actor in his 60s or 70s who could play Mandela and I could not come up with any names beside Morgan Freeman which is unfortunate.
I think it is sad that Hollywood is only willing to invest its money in a small group of black actors who have a record of box office success meanwhile people like Nicole Kidman can have box office flop after flop and are routinely cast as the lead.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶
Ms Sheeba wrote:
All actors have to start somewhere. There is a point in every actor’s life where they must make their screen debut. It’s how one gains recognition in the movie business. So if Hollywood refuses to give these talented unknowns some exposure how will other non american talent every in global. Besides, stories are more plausible when there is authenticity. Taye Diggs damn near killed “Drum” with that pseudo South African accent. For me, because I hear this accent every day and his lack of proper vocal charactherisation was clear.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 12:09 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
Can this outrage considered be on the same level as Germans’ annoyance at Tom Cruise for casting himself as a German in the film VALKYRIE, full of Americans (and some Brits) playing real-life German characters?
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
BUT to tell everyone the truth, I am glad Jennifer Hudson got casted in a meaty role.
It’s so rare for Black women (or Black men) to get meaty, strong, interesting roles in “art” or “serious” films.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 12:30 pm ¶
blaqbird wrote:
But the thing I keep coming back to is this: what’s the market for this movie? Is it aimed at American audiences? If that’s the case, then of course they’re going to find an American to play the part. It’s just like with any other international film industry. They’re going to cast their own in order to sell the film. You won’t see Angelina Jolie in a Bollywood film; they’ll cast a recognizable Indian actress to play the role becaue they aren’t selling it to Americans.
Am I oversimplifying it? I’d really like to know if there’s way more to it than that.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶
deathblossom wrote:
Even if they were going to cast their own, they could have searched to find someone better than Jennifer Hudson. She’s a terrible actress. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a picture of her with her mouth closed. It ruins every scene she’s in.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
@blaqbird:
actually, Bollywood would probably try to lure in an actress like Angelina Jolie. They’ve been casting and using WHITE actors from Hollywood in Bolly flicks for a long time,
Only recently have they started casting black celebrities (like Mike Tyson and Snoop Dogg) in Bolly-crap films.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 3:12 pm ¶
metal mickey wrote:
I don’t understand the responses here. According to people on another thread, it is racist if international audiences are not interested in seeing movies about black American issues made for a black American audience. Yet, it is perfectly okay for black Americans to portray a South African icon and mangle the accents. Most of the commenters on the site have a definite black American bias (because they are black themselves) and are blissfully unaware of it.
Also, to continue on an issue mentioned on the Morgan Freeman thread, I as a POC from mainland Europe do not consider black Americans to be Africans. Just as I do not consider white Americans of Italian, Greek or German origin to be Europeans. I am actually a bit miffed that these born and bred Americans are called ‘Europeans’ by other Americans but people like me, who are born and bred in Europe, are not considered Europeans because we are not white enough or whatever.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 4:30 pm ¶
Ulysses not yet home wrote:
Virtually all culturally specific movies when made by those not of the culture, look ridiculous to members of that culture. The culture can be national, ethnic, or sport. People who grew up to make movies rarely had equal participation in football, basketball, track AND film making. I personally have always found portrayals of inner city basketball particularly galling (i.e. Lawrence Hilton Jacobs’ less than Special Olympics quality jumpshot in “Cooley High” is my personal low water mark) As stated by blaqbird, decision of who to cast in what roles, is driven by economic considerations of the who their audience might be. Anyone is free to film their vision of any historical event of their choosing.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶
Westerly wrote:
Blaqbird wrote:
“You won’t see Angelina Jolie in a Bollywood film; they’ll cast a recognizable Indian actress to play the role becaue they aren’t selling it to Americans.”
???
Not to mention that Angelina Jolie would suck in a Bollywood film. Hard. She probably wouldn’t be familiar with the conventions and even if she were no doubt she’d stumble and choke all over the elaborate song and dance routines for one thing. Not her industry, not her culture, so why even bring this up as point of comparison?
Musing about hypothetically importing Angelina Jolie over into a film and cultural environment that she’s probably clueless about and has no connection to whatsoever is *completely different* from considering the shocking idea of allowing local South African actors to act in a historic South African story (which most will have lived through) set in South Africa.
It’s apples and oranges.
Furthermore Bollywood films aren’t solely sold to and watched by Indians (they are hugely popular throughout Asia, particularly Indonesia), anymore than Hollywood films are exclusively made for American viewership and consumption (although do I ever wish that *most* American films would never venture beyond their shores, instead of merrily exporting and propagating their particular brand of racism and sexism.)
But if you are going to have such a narrow view of things – American Hollywood = American Actors = American Audience (as if no-one in the whole of South Africa is going to see the film) then at least be consistent.
Why not ALSO demand an American setting/location and, oh an American STORY about American people if that’s your frame of reference?
And I am completely in sympathy with John Kwani’s observation that:
“Every time there is a movie that tells a South African story, it is done by someone who must be taught the right way of pronouncing Sawubona. Enough it enough.”
I’m not African OR African-American but sign me up as one black person who is tired of watching African-Americans clumsily impersonate Africans and people from the Caribbean. (They never sound or behave like these people because y’know they’re not.) I’m also sick and tired of the rather insulting suggestion that there aren’t any good/suitable actors which necessitates Americans stepping in to the rescue.
And like Metal Mickey, I find it incredibly ironic that posters are complacently trotting out the old capitalist justifications – name/face recognition = more money etc. – the same arguments that studios use to justify shutting AAs out of roles while consistently awarding them to ‘better known’ or ‘more talented’ or (allegedly) ‘more appealing’ white actors.
We’ve all heard these arguments before: They’re big names, brand recognition, audiences will identify more etc. All of which most us recognise as code for “white audiences want to see their own, that’s what they like and that’s what makes money.”
If you have a problem with that line of ‘logic’ (and I certainly do) then how does it suddenly become *okay*, when if we replace white with African-American and then extend the same logic?
I’m actually appalled.
What is going on here is a transferred, displaced colonial practice that African-Americans collude with. Since African Americans can’t buy, beg, steal or borrow half-way decent roles in their own home country – because of a frankly racist film industry – they shop for them overseas, and get the opportunities for the kinds of roles that they can’t get in America – but at the expense of ‘other’ blacks and at the expense of struggling, burgeoning film industries outside of the States that are trying to develop their own talent.
Hollywood ‘buys’ an African setting and takes an African story while dispensing with actual African people, choosing instead to place African-Americans at the centre. And this happens time and time again.
And if that isn’t a colonial trope – Africa as backdrop, Africa as setting, Africa as a useful resource for Western consumption – then I don’t know what is.
Sure, it would be great it Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Hudson could get more opportunities at home. I’m also not suggesting that African-Americans shouldn’t have the opportunity for roles outside of the States or non-American roles. Just that they shouldn’t be the only blacks who do. (Let’s face it, it doesn’t work the other way. How many Africans, West Indians, people of West Indian descent, or black South Americans get roles in Hollywood?)
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of African-Americans being positioned in film as some-kind of mythical, default ‘every-black’ or ‘universal black’ to the detriment of the rest of us.
Other black nations (and the existing talent in those nations) shouldn’t have to foot the bill for America’s racism.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 7:29 pm ¶
DigitalCoyote wrote:
“There’s a lot of good local talent, why not use them? Winnie herself is not involved in this, and in no way has given any sort of green light.”
Funny thing about that: being the subject of a book doesn’t mean you automatically have rights to the story laid down on paper. The source material was written by Anne Marie du Preez Bezdrob. I imagine that the author or her publisher sold the film rights to the highest bidder. Therefore, Mr. Froese’s complaint about the lack of Ms. Madikizela-Mandela’s involvement or approval is moot. Could the producers have used local talent? Probably, but they have the final say over who goes in to the film they are making and are not obligated to ask her how she feels about it nor do they have to have the approval of her country’s acting guild.
The union officials calling for the casting to be changed and threatening to push for a moratorium might shoot themselves in the foot. Film makers may not want to come to South Africa to film (or use local talent) if shooting there is such a hassle. A moratorium in South Africa doesn’t mean they won’t move the shoot elsewhere; films use “stand-in” locations all the time.
How is South Africa going to “regulate foreign projects” if production companies never set foot there? Does this mean the union wants a minimum number of natives involved if a film is shot there? Would that apply only to “South African” stories? Are they prepared for possible retaliation from foreign guild associations and their respective countries?
If ensuring that South African stories are done by South Africans is that important to the local unions, maybe they ought to try buying these stories as a group? They might get them for lower prices if they play up how their “authenticity” would make a film production more “meaningful” (which Ms. Ntwanambi is essentially arguing) -before- the rights are sold to someone outside of their country or with no interest in casting their actors in prominent roles.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 7:31 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
Talking to my South African family about it, they’re all fairly resigned to the mangling of the South African accent by foreigners, but are pretty stoked that Morgan Freeman’s in it. They’re white, and I think they are approaching it from a “Look at the important, respected actor who’s been chosen to play our national hero!” direction (It’s not like they picked some random schlub no one has ever heard of). Yes, it would be nice to see Mandela played by a local, but it’s made up for by the international profile the film has received as a result of Freeman’s casting and the fact that most of the rest of the cast is local. Would Invictus have been given so much attention if it starred two South African unknowns? Isn’t it important that this story be brought to the world? And it’s a positive story, too.
I think my relations see it as a time that was of immense national pride, and that it’s good it’s being brought to the rest of the world.
My uncle’s main concern was that Americans couldn’t possibly really understand how important rugby, and this particular period in rugby, was to the country. “They canawt pawsibbly understawnd the Bawks…” God I love that accent. I guess we’ll see how it goes on the screen.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 9:06 pm ¶
sourapples wrote:
I think this has been said before on a similar posting but are African American actors playing Africans different from American actors, black or white, playing European charcters or vice versa? There doesn’t seem to be an issue when that happens.
There are several Black British actors that have acted as African Americans in movies (Idris Elba, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sophie Okonedo) and they were received very well in their roles. Maybe I’m wrong but I wouldn’t expect an American made film to have foreign actors even if the movie has foreign characters.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 10:12 pm ¶
blaqbird wrote:
@ Westerly:
I was playing devil’s advocate. Maybe I should’ve stated that to avoid sarcasm and attitude. I understand that the Bollywood film industry is different, and I apologize for using Jolie as a reference. Maybe I should’ve said Mindy Kaling instead.
But let’s get one thing clear: Bollywood films are made for the Indian, Asian, East-Asian audience. They’re not making them for Americans. Of course they are definitely appreciated by an international audience, but let’s not act like they’re not made for a specific audience.
It’s also the same with American films. Execs first and foremost target a movie for American consumption, then only after it is filmed, edited, scored, it is marketed to the international industries. Period. There’s no debating that.
When it comes down to it, it’s all about money. I don’t know about other film industries in other countries, but here in US it’s all about the money. If you can make $$, then you’re probably gonna get cast. They don’t care (much) if you’re black or white.
Take Will Smith; he’s definitely the exception to the rule. He’s black, and he’s one of the highest paid actors right now. Why? Because he brings in the big bucks.
When people see Morgan Freeman, they automatically want to see his movies. He’s a fantastic actor. One of the best. Is it fair that African actors suffer the consequence of that? No, not at all. I for one would love to see a South African woman play Mandela’s wife. But let’s be real: it’s Jennifer Hudson. She already has an audience from American Idol and Dreamgirls. Plus, she won the Oscar for Dreamgirls so execs know who she is and are comfortable putting her in the film.
I hate to sound terrible, but that is the state of our film industry. It isn’t fair and it isn’t right. Hollywood execs don’t like to take chances…especially on new Black faces. As an aspiring actress, I pray that things get better in 2010.
As far as AA going to other countries to try to “beg, borrow, or steal” a part in international films? Eh, it’s a practice that’s done by actors of any race/ethnicity/culture/whathaveyou. And it’s been happening for a long time. Asian actors and directors come to the states in order to gain bigger fanbase and hopefully get better roles. Sometimes it works, other times not so much. Look up John Woo to know what I’m talking about.
I could go on and on with performers who have come here looking for bigger and better. But I won’t. You can do that research on your own time.
“they shop for them overseas, and get the opportunities for the kinds of roles that they can’t get in America – but at the expense of ‘other’ blacks and at the expense of struggling, burgeoning film industries outside of the States that are trying to develop their own talent.”
This is something that I have struggled with for a very long time, and I just don’t really know what to think about it. Should AA actors not take a role because they know they are taking it away from another actor? Honestly, the choice isn’t as easy as one may think.
I kinda have my opinion, but I’d like to know what others think.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 10:13 pm ¶
Orville wrote:
I like Jennifer Hudson but I think the South African actors have a valid argument.
I can just imagine how outraged South Africans are that African Americans are taking roles meant for African actors.
I think this is obviously about Hollywood making money. The studio believes Hudson can bring in an audience.
First, Hudson is not a serious actress she won the Oscar for Dreamgirls for her singing. I think Hudson won the Oscar due to politics. I also do not believe Hudson has the talent to pull off a serious dramatic performance. I am not convinced Hudson has paid her dues and proven she can r
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 10:55 pm ¶
Barbara B. wrote:
“How many Africans, West Indians, people of West Indian descent, or black South Americans get roles in Hollywood?)”
Quite a few, actually. But they’re usually playing African-Americans which offends ME. Hollywood doesn’t distinguish between black actors. Black Latinos, Africans, British, and West Indians often play Af-Ams in Hollywood. As long as the actor looks and can sound like an Af-Am it doesn’t make any difference to the casting directors. Those are roles that could have gone to Af-Ams. Particularly as they’re American productions.
I agree that it’s pretty ridiculous to hire Americans actors to play nationalities that they have no hope of doing convincingly. If it was up to me no American actor would ever play a foreign role because they mostly suck. It’s like they don’t even try to get the accent right.
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 11:26 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
The problem is this: people that haven’t been exposed to other cultures (i.e. LIVED in them) or haven’t been the foreigner can’t see what is so obvious – how ridiculous it looks and sounds when people not of a culture (black-Americans playing Africans, or white-Americans playing South Africans, or Chinese playing Japanese – “Memoirs of a Geisha”) try to portray it. It always comes off silly, if you know what you’re looking for.
So – for those that don’t understand the problem, go out and watch “Sukiyaki Western Django.” Imagine that the film was portraying one of your culture’s greatest heroes, and that the characters portrayed were supposed to be natural English speakers, etc.
THAT’S what it feels like every time this happens in a Hollywood movie for the people of the culture being depicted erroneously. Make a little more sense now?
Posted 14 Dec 2009 at 11:52 pm ¶
misa wrote:
well, who’s paying for it? if the south africans are then obviously they get to decide. if not, they should just be quiet because they are not paying for this. if it’s so important to tell the story of winnie mandela they way they see fit, they should raise the money and do as they please. nobody is stopping them.
but they could do worse than to have jennifer hudson play her. winnie should be honored.
finally, if we start breaking roles down like this, how far do take it?
there are several africans playing black americans in movies. maybe they should not be allowed to be in american movies, especially those focusing on black americans.
but who is african anyway? do you have to be born in africa? can you be raised in england and still be african?
did anybody have a problem with kate blanchett playing queen elizabeth?
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 12:22 am ¶
ashlynn wrote:
As I said in the previous related post, I don’t mind if an African American can take on the role of another Black person of a different nationality if they can do it well.
That said, I have to say that it sounds like there are a lot of South Africans who are frustrated, and rightfully so. But see, as African Americans and other minorities have learned(to some degree), we will continue to push for change, we will continue to fight for artistic inclusion…but it won’t happen overnight. So in the meantime, we will do what we need to do anyway: create an industry for us, by us, and support that industry, when we feel it is of artistic merit, as much as we can. Say what you will about the content and quality of his work, but Tyler Perry knew Hollywood wouldn’t be knocking down his door for Madea, so he built his own studio and did it for himself. Katheryn Bigelow knew she wasn’t going to get the real deal Hollywood backing for The Hurt Locker, so she did it for herself. Lee Daniel knew major studios weren’t even going to sniff at Precious, so he did what he had to do…to do it for himself. I know South Africa’s tired of having to look to Black America, but in this case, it would be beneficial to take a page out of our book.
DO IT YOURSELF.
Let’s face it: if the venerable Morgan Freeman ain’t gonna get that accent down-pat, then get your best and brightest together and get cracking. Write scripts, get funding. Build your own studio. Promote films written by South Africans, with South Africans making up the majority of the cast and crew. If a film is good, people WILL take notice. Groaning about Jennifer Hudson being cast as one of the great women in history won’t change much, because she’s going to be a box-office draw, and that’s how Hollywood works. For now, at least…we’re working on it.
But I have to add this: re the Black American Versus All Other Blacks of Different Nationalities Debate: Seriously? United we Stand, ya know? You scratch our back, we scratch yours? Honestly though- it feels really weird to read a lot of these comments, in that it’s nauseatingly similar to the whole Dark Skin vs. “Redbone” debate, to Black South Americans vs. European South Americans debate…in other words, picking and choosing what makes someone a “legitimate” something or the other.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 3:49 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
These posts make me want to burn my dashiki.
When CCH Pounder, Sophie Okenedo, Akosua Busia or Thandie Newton, just to name a few, came to the states from their various countries to play Black American people in MAJOR projects, Black Americans applauded. Because Black Americans see themselves as a part of large diaspora of Blackness/Africaness. Due to our story of displacement, we claim Africa, and any other African based culture on the globe. Imagine my surprise to find out that we are not welcome. The posts on this thread and the other one about Mr. Freeman were largely about how we are not African and blah, blah, blah. We have been welcoming our brothers and sisters from across the oceans for years. And little did we know that the welcome was NOT mutual.
One poster said
“What is going on here is a transferred, displaced colonial practice that African-Americans collude with. Since African Americans can’t buy, beg, steal or borrow half-way decent roles in their own home country – because of a frankly racist film industry – they shop for them overseas, and get the opportunities for the kinds of roles that they can’t get in America – but at the expense of ‘other’ blacks and at the expense of struggling, burgeoning film industries outside of the States that are trying to develop their own talent.”
The above quote has no basis in fact or reality. Black American actors do not steal parts from qualified Africans. The two films that we have mentioned were both AMERICAN productions, financed by AMERICAN dollars. The STORIES and CHARACTERS are South African, but the films ARE NOT SOUTH AFRICAN productions. Trust, Morgan Freeman didn’t fly to South African and audition for the movie!!!!! Come on! I don’t know ANY Black American actors who have gone to Africa or even Europe to try and “break” in and “steal” acting jobs from Africans. What? Really? This is just absurd! Name ONE Black American who has gone to another country, auditioned and then booked a job that could have gone to an African person. I can name several of the reverse.
Wow, just wow.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 4:27 am ¶
Nandipha wrote:
@ Westerly … Oh that was brilliantly put. As a South African, I could not have said it better. You articulated what I was feeling. Thank You.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 5:08 am ¶
Ishtar wrote:
@ Westerly, Metal Mickey & CVT
I’m so glad you get it. Thank you for your comments.
I did a tally of internationally distributed films set in and about South Africa and guess what? I couldn’t find one that had a South African actor in the lead role. Not one. At best, South Africans had supporting roles.
As much as I understand the commercial considerations, I, as a South African, am sick to death of seeing important South African icons always being portrayed by non-South Africans.
Other South Africans can, and do, disagree with me and that’s ok. But count me in with the group that, just for a change, would like to see a South African actor in the lead role in an international film about South Africa.
I am actually so disheartened by most of the commentary out there on the interwebs. I should stop reading but I suppose the occasional comment like the ones from Westerly, Metal Mickey and CVT are what keeps me coming back.
For now however, I’m genuinely sad that fine actors such as John Kani are not given the opportunities they so richly deserve.
One more comment on this topic:
A few days ago I was listening to a local talk radio station and exactly this was under discussion. I missed part of it so I didn’t catch the caller’s name.
The caller said he was involved in the Shaka Zulu miniseries done back in the 80s. Because the series was targeted at international as well as local audiences it was decided to opt for an American actor to play the role of Shaka. He had the difficult task of persuading Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi (leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party and basically political leader of the Zulus at that time) that a foreigner would have to play the role of the revered Shaka, because of commercial considerations.
Incredibly, they then came across Henry Cele, who went on to play a magnificent Shaka. To this day, we remember Henry Cele for that role. He didn’t just play Shaka – he WAS Shaka. I can still picture him in the role.
It occurred to me as I listened to this man that their automatic first choice was an American. It didn’t occur to them that a black South African actor could be so good that it didn’t matter that he was some unknown local. They pretty much found Cele by accident.
Who knows how many Celes are out there, if people would just look and then give them a chance?
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 7:59 am ¶
Medusa wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the “You have to cast big names to make money” argument is utter bullshit? Slumdog Millionaire, anyone?
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 8:15 am ¶
blaqbird wrote:
@ Medusa:
Of course there’s an exception to every rule. I absolutely loved Slumdog Millionaire, and the only person I recognized was Irrfan Khan.
But honestly, casting big names usually brings in the money. It’s seriously difficult for Hollywood execs to go a different way with casting…even though movies like Slumdog Millionaire, Juno, and Precious prove that casting relatively unknowns can produce an amazing outcome.
@sourapples:
“There are several Black British actors that have acted as African Americans in movies (Idris Elba, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sophie Okonedo) and they were received very well in their roles.”
Exactly. As an AA, I’ve never had a problem w/Idris, Chiwetel, and Sophie being cast in American roles. I think they are fantastic actors and deserve all the praise and recognition they receive. But that’s just me. I can’t speak for all Black people. And I honestly don’t know how Black actors feel about them playing American characters when they are British.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 10:52 am ¶
mieko wrote:
Accents can be learned with proper training. Yes, it is the first thing people notice when you’re doing it wrong. But if someone can act, and the studio can get them a good dialect coach, accent should be a secondary thing.
This is in no way saying that with accents being equal, a foreign actor can do better than a domestic one (I’m speaking in terms of the setting of the film, not domestic=US). I’m saying that matters of one’s current accent should be taken out of the discussion of who should or shouldn’t get the role.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 11:41 am ¶
Celeste wrote:
I agree that casting the correct nationality and race is generally the best policy. However it can’t be a one-way street where anyone can play an American but Americans can only play Americans. Also, it should apply equally to *all races* not just blacks. I think the best solution is probably somewhere in the middle where we have a lot more South Africans playing South African roles, etc but it’s not some hard and fast rule that would exclude non-identical nationality actors from roles. Wasn’t Denzel in a movie about Steven Beiko? Did he have a decent accent? I don’t remember.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 12:23 pm ¶
mieko wrote:
Agree with Celeste. And I don’t know about Denzel.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 2:08 pm ¶
Nubiah wrote:
if Malcom X was played by an african, I don’t think some will react the same way,
how many of those(There are several Black British actors that have acted as African Americans in movies (Idris Elba, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sophie Okonedo) and they were received very well in their roles) have played a Black American icon?????????? none of them
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 6:22 pm ¶
shemari wrote:
@Medusa – I’m tired of that same argument too. It’s simply defending the status quo.
If lesser known minority actors never get cast in major roles, how will this trend ever change? We’ll always end up with token Morgan Freeman’s, Will Smith’s, etc.
There is no problem with them casting unknown (and sometimes untalented) White actors and actresses in big name movies.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 7:23 pm ¶
shemari wrote:
To those saying that Idris Elba, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sophie Okonedo have played African-Americans, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges.
Because really, I think the beef here is with important African figures being played by non-Africans e.g. Morgan Freeman playing Mandela, Forrest Whittaker playing Idi Amin, Denzel Washington playing Stephen Biko.
If any of the above African or Black British actors have been used to portray any historical African-American figures, then that’s another story.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 7:40 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
@ Shemari: That’s a good point but does any other country’s movie industry borrow so heavily from the rest of the world for story lines? It’s hard for me to even imagine a South African movie maker wanting to make a MLK movie with a South African actor butchering the accent.
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 9:54 pm ¶
blaqbird wrote:
@shemari
it’s not really apples and oranges. so are you saying it only matters if the person being portrayed is an icon or prominent leader in African/African-American communities?
Posted 15 Dec 2009 at 11:59 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
I agree with blaqbird.
Shemari said, “To those saying that Idris Elba, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Sophie Okonedo have played African-Americans, I think you’re comparing apples and oranges. If any of the above African or Black British actors have been used to portray any historical African-American figures, then that’s another story.”
Akosua Busia played Nettie, and while she is not a real person, Nettie is a very important icon within Black literature.
Chiwetel Ejiofor played a very real character, Dewey Hughes who was an icon perhaps not to all of Black American, but certainly to people living in D.C.
Idris Elba was in the ground breaking “The Wire”, and while he didn’t play a real character, the show and his character are quite iconic. He was also featured on the cover of Essence as one of the sexiest and greatest actors on the planet. Clearly we claim him as our own.
Eamonn Walker played Howlin Wolf in “Cadillac Records”. He is British. Also, I don’t know if Howlin Wolf is iconic enough, but he is a famous Black American Blues musician.
Thandie Newton played Beloved in “Beloved” an iconic character in Black American fiction. She too played Sally Hemings. She also played Condelezza Rice, again a complicated but very real and famous and important Black woman. The first Black Secretary of State.
Carmen Ejogo played Coretta Scott King in the HBO movie “Boycott”. Coretta Scott King is a very iconic Black American woman. She also played Sally Hemings, a slightly less famous but no less real Black American woman.
I think the real issue is that there has never been any sort of uproar over the matter. I don’t recall any Racialicious articles about it, nothing in Essence, Jet or Ebony, no protests, nothing on Oprah, no field negro posts about it, nothing.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 2:09 am ¶
Michael wrote:
As someone stated above, these films are AMERICAN PRODUCTIONS FINANCED BY HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS. The only reason a film about Winnie or Nelson Mandela would be financed and greenlit by a studio, is if they have a high profile stars attached. Like it or not, Jennifer Hudson and Morgan Freeman bring a certain prestige and attention to the films. Would native South African actors be more authentic? Perhaps, but it’s highly unlikely that they would put audiences in theater seats. Fact.
As far as having a convincing accent goes, who cares? Most americans have no clue what a legit accent from South Africa sounds like, and couldn’t care less. No one is gonna be sitting in a theater picking apart Morgan Freeman’ s dodgy pronunciation….and if it was perfect, people still would find something to complain about.
I agree about the perception that all black people are interchangeable, needs to change, but some of the comments here border on the ridiculous. You would think they cast Meryl Streep and Robert Duvall to play Winnie and Nelson. Black actors should be able to play any character from the diaspora (real or imagined), as long as they can deliver the goods. It is called ACTING.
White Americans play Europeans all the time, and Brit actors often play American characters more than Brit ones. Should they stop that? Cate Blanchett wouldn’t have a career if she was limited to only playing Aussie roles.
If South Africans are so upset about Jennifer Hudson, then they should make their own multi-million dollar Winnie Mandela film. Good luck with that.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 3:03 am ¶
DigitalCoyote wrote:
@DIMA: I think they were more offended by his religion and busted perm. The accent might have been minor since the other actors playing Germans still sounded English (but they did try).
@blaqbird:
I think that’s the argument now:
1. Black Americans shouldn’t “take” roles from Africans or European Africans, especially those “meant” for them.
2. Black Americans “can’t buy, beg, steal or borrow half-way decent roles in their own home country.” See also: #1.
3. It’s (still) okay for non-American blacks or Africans to play Americans because they “need” the work. (Or, by another poster’s logic, “can’t buy, beg, steal or borrow half-way decent roles in their own home country.”) The “universal” black trope that they are tired of seeing is okay in this case.
4. Black Americans are still inauthentic (looks, accents, mannerisms). Nevermind the reverse may be true for non-American actors. See also: #3.
5. Pointing out that foreign blacks or Africans play black Americans doesn’t count because the people they play aren’t important.
6. Pointing out the realities of movie making (IE the differences between a characterization and a real person, who makes the decisions about casting, money influences, etc.) makes black Americans colonized.
7. Instead of blaming the people actually in charge of the decisions made about each movies (financiers, producers, studios), we blame black Americans.
8. By disagreeing or pointing out potential pitfalls in arguments, we “don’t get it.”
Extra credit: To “understand,” we have to should watch a movie where the Japanese are doing Americans/Europeans doing Japanese stories (Yojimbo, 7 Samurai) as a hybrid of both Western and Japanese ideas. Substituting a famous person or story in this context will drive it all home.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 11:30 am ¶
shemari wrote:
@blaqbird – Not ONLY, but I think it’s important to make that distinction.
Idris Elba played American Stringer Bell in the “Wire.” Who’s to say that there isn’t/wasn’t a real life Stringer Bell who had roots in England? Immigrants come here all the time and participate in the good and bad of American society. Sometimes they look and sound like regular Black Americans.
Ice Cube made a movie, “Dangerous Ground”, where he played a South African. I don’t think there was much grumbling from South Africans about that movie.
Having an American play Nelson or Winnie Mandela is very different.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 11:59 am ¶
shemari wrote:
@Celeste – I don’t mind American film makers using storylines from different countries. I’ve learned a lot about other countries’ history that way, particularly Africa. However, I hate the idea that anything from America is better or more palatable (by using American actors) than what anyone else could make.
Maybe the best solution is for American companies is to invest in film makers in other countries to develop and market their own movies.
Also, I recognize that South Africa, Nigeria, hell Africa in general have a lot of negative stereotypes that many there want to overcome. I think being able to tell their own stories or at least having native Africans playing larger roles in telling their stories will go a long way toward accomplishing that.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 12:15 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
@DigitalCoyote: I love your lists, they crack me up. I’m waiting for a non-African American person to say that non-AA blacks shouldn’t play AA roles as often as they do and that hasn’t happened in either discussion thread. I understand that AA’s have *some* western priviledge but it obviously isn’t *that* overwhelming to non-AA black actors since they are able to get so many roles in American movies.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶
blaqbird wrote:
@Shemari–
So basically you don’t mind if AA play insignificant South African/African roles just as long as they don’t mess with the important people…..hmmm k.
@Michelle–
I completely agree with your assessment of Black actors from other countries being welcomed with open arms. It’s sad that we’re rejected by people we consider family just because of our American-ness or whatever. I think most AA actors are seriously happy and enthusiastic about the fact that their fellow Black actors are actually working and hopefully making a difference in the way Hollywood sees actors of color.
I think the solution is to meet somewhere in the middle, but I don’t see that happening in the near future. Especially since studios are struggling to pull themselves out debt and reinvigorating the film industry.
Posted 16 Dec 2009 at 11:38 pm ¶
CVT wrote:
This comment thread is long dead, but I just can’t help but add one bit:
If Freeman did it WELL, I don’t think it would be such a problem for folks here. That’s why – for those black British actors that played Americans and did it WELL, nobody’s complaining. But what if a British actor played an American, but didn’t even sound American? Then it would be an issue, and rightfully so – because that’s when you’d be saying “black folks are interchangeable, who cares?”
The point is that he did NOT do it well. His accent sucks, and he’s not believable. Therefore, it’s insulting to people of that country and culture. Period.
If MLK was played by a British guy and had a vague British accent . . . THAT’S the point – not just where he’s from, but the job done.
Posted 23 Dec 2009 at 6:57 am ¶
nick wrote:
On the other hand, what if the value of the film trumps the (understandable) grumblings about accents/origins etc.
I have a saffa friend who can’t stand Leo DiCaprio in Blood Diamonds because of his atrocious accent. I, on the other hand, wasn’t bothered by it because (in all honesty) it didn’t sound that bad.
Plus I knew full well that DiCaprio is an American.
The story was more important. The film was more important.
Thoughts?
Posted 25 Dec 2009 at 7:49 pm ¶
blaqbird wrote:
@CVT
I kinda see your point, but I don’t think it’s completely valid.
I personally don’t believe Black folks here care much if a Black British person is portraying an American…even if s/he does mess up the accent. But let’s be real: British actors/actresses actually don’t have much difficulty using an “American” accent because they’ve been exposed to American television and have picked up on the way that we speak. Where as we haven’t been exposed to television programs from other countries hardly at all. The only program from the UK I remember watching regularly was Mr. Bean. But that’s a whole other conversation.
Aside from that I wouldn’t have an issue with say, Chiwetel Ejiofor protraying MLK, Jr. if he got his accent and intonation correct. So you are correct in that assertion, but if Ejiofor was playing just a normal Black character (like he did in “Melinda & Melinda”) I don’t care at all. He’s a great actor. Period.
But what I think most people commenting took issue with was that Freeman playing Mandela instead of casting a South African actor. I’d like to know this: If Freeman did the accent perfectly, would people still have this issue?
Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
LittleBee wrote:
I just saw Invictus tonight and I have another beef with the movie. Where were all the Indian people at? There was one token brown guy presenting a slide show in a business suit, but the rest of the movie played out like a binary of black and white. There are a ton of Asians in South Africa, but they definitely were not at all represented. If there was some historical reason as to why there were no brown people in this movie, someone please fill me in because I’m totally bewildered. Also, Mandela’s accent did in fact suck, it was a lengthy movie for what it was and in my opinion the plot was severely lacking. In conclusion, save your hard earned dollars.
Posted 29 Dec 2009 at 11:47 pm ¶