According to statistics retrieved by the US Consesus Bureau, about 77.7% of the United States population is white. 13.3% consist of African Americans, who make up the largest minority group in the United States (maybe that accounts for their representation on film and in TV... aren't they the largest minority group represented?).
We have to defend Hollywood here. More than 350 white actresses have been nominated for Best Actor and Actress in the Oscars compared to only 21 blacks. Although the ratios may not add up exactly, they are pretty close...
So yes. The majority of America is white, so the majority of Hollywood, naturally, is white. If entertainment seeks to appeal to the majority, represent "reality" so its audiences can relate to what they see on TV to what happens in life, than obviously this has to be the case.
But does this excuse the fact that this "white majority" is perfect, normal, and void of any stereotypes compared with the minorities? Does this happen only in entertainment or in real life as well?
California, the technological capital of the world, one of the most diverse states in the United States, and the home of Hollywood, the entertainment capital of the Untied States (in addition to New York), have radically different demographics. 42.3% are white, 37.6% are Hispanic, and 7.2% are black as of 2010. The rest under 7.2% consist of a wide range of ethnic minorities. To those of us who live here, what do WE see in our daily lives? Do we think that's accurate? Do you have a few more white and hispanic friends than you do black and other minorities? Is Hollywood accurate in its representation and portrayal of stereotypes... and again... do whites have NO stereotypes at all? Are they the "normal...?" Consider that.
Who is Hollywood's main audience? What are their goals and what are they trying to address? I'll talk about that next week.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Friday, April 24, 2015
Progress? I think, yes!
I read a few articles by USA Today and BBC America among others that covered the news that over a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of Netflix's new film The Ridiculous Six (starring Adam Sandler) because of its offensive portrayal of Native Americans and their culture according to the American Press.
Among some of the scripted offensive stereotypes were the female characters who's names were Beaver's Breath and No Bra, and the Apache woman who peed while smoking a peace pipe. Netflix had apparently defended the film by saying something along the lines of because "ridiculous" is in the title the film is intended to be stereotypical and offensive but humorous, because it is a satire of Western movies and it "features a diverse cast that is not only part of it - but in on the joke."
Well you know what, props to the actors that walked off: Loren Anthony, Goldie Tom, Allison Young, David Hill. But what's really wrong about this picture is not how little Netflix cares about actors walking off the set but the producers and directors who didn't care at all. They had apparently told the actors to leave if they found it offensive as if it was no big deal at all. Obviously, they have their stars Adam Sandler, Taylor Lautner, and Steve Buscemi who play the leading Natives anyway. What do they care, they'll easily find actors to replace the extras...
The second thing that is wrong is that Natives don't even get to play the leading Natives. Why are they the ones that are just cast as extras and in supporting roles? If that happens, producers obviously don't care about the 8 that walked off the set because they're extras and obviously the leads won't walk off the set because they're not offended at all because they'r not Native American. It's just a bunch of white people - Hollywood ridiculing a people and culture that they know nothing about and have no business doing... Navajo actress Allison Young says, "We are still just Hollywood Indians."
But there are a several positive conclusions to be drawn here. First, rather than just doing a job because it's a job, the actors that walked off the set are not only respectable and dignified people for refusing something that was beneath themselves, but because they have set forth a precedence that could lead other actors in the future who are also stuck with similar projects to do the same. Yes, maybe the movie will continue to be shot and supported by Netflix like this one with famous, white, leading actors, but you know what? Eventually it'll stop working. How believable is it for white people to play the roles of ethnic minorities. What if Raj in The Big Bang Theory was white? Ethnic actors are needed and will forever be needed. Hollywood will eventually have to realize that you just can't make a film with the actors that you need if you are going to ridicule their cultural background in a way that's degrading. Having a bunch of white people trying to ridicule a culture that is not only second hand and unfamiliar but that is physically SO not them, ultimately defeats the purpose of the film. The "ridiculous" stereotypes won't be funny because they'll be so inaccurate. Just as ethnic minorities can't play white people, white people can not play ethnic minorities. They'll figure it out... as more and more people walk off the set of films like these. "Our dignity is not for sale," - Native American actor, David Hill.
Among some of the scripted offensive stereotypes were the female characters who's names were Beaver's Breath and No Bra, and the Apache woman who peed while smoking a peace pipe. Netflix had apparently defended the film by saying something along the lines of because "ridiculous" is in the title the film is intended to be stereotypical and offensive but humorous, because it is a satire of Western movies and it "features a diverse cast that is not only part of it - but in on the joke."
Well you know what, props to the actors that walked off: Loren Anthony, Goldie Tom, Allison Young, David Hill. But what's really wrong about this picture is not how little Netflix cares about actors walking off the set but the producers and directors who didn't care at all. They had apparently told the actors to leave if they found it offensive as if it was no big deal at all. Obviously, they have their stars Adam Sandler, Taylor Lautner, and Steve Buscemi who play the leading Natives anyway. What do they care, they'll easily find actors to replace the extras...
The second thing that is wrong is that Natives don't even get to play the leading Natives. Why are they the ones that are just cast as extras and in supporting roles? If that happens, producers obviously don't care about the 8 that walked off the set because they're extras and obviously the leads won't walk off the set because they're not offended at all because they'r not Native American. It's just a bunch of white people - Hollywood ridiculing a people and culture that they know nothing about and have no business doing... Navajo actress Allison Young says, "We are still just Hollywood Indians."
But there are a several positive conclusions to be drawn here. First, rather than just doing a job because it's a job, the actors that walked off the set are not only respectable and dignified people for refusing something that was beneath themselves, but because they have set forth a precedence that could lead other actors in the future who are also stuck with similar projects to do the same. Yes, maybe the movie will continue to be shot and supported by Netflix like this one with famous, white, leading actors, but you know what? Eventually it'll stop working. How believable is it for white people to play the roles of ethnic minorities. What if Raj in The Big Bang Theory was white? Ethnic actors are needed and will forever be needed. Hollywood will eventually have to realize that you just can't make a film with the actors that you need if you are going to ridicule their cultural background in a way that's degrading. Having a bunch of white people trying to ridicule a culture that is not only second hand and unfamiliar but that is physically SO not them, ultimately defeats the purpose of the film. The "ridiculous" stereotypes won't be funny because they'll be so inaccurate. Just as ethnic minorities can't play white people, white people can not play ethnic minorities. They'll figure it out... as more and more people walk off the set of films like these. "Our dignity is not for sale," - Native American actor, David Hill.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Voice Post
Destiny Lilly is a casting director and theatre director right in the heart of New York City, who has founded her own company Destiny Casting. She casts for theatre, film, television and commercial work and has worked on several projects for ABC, Spike TV, Comedy Central, PBS, Ensemble Studio Theatre, Looking Glass Theatre, Classical Theatre of Harlem, American Airlines, Reebok, Nike, etc. etc. Wow! I was fortunate enough to stumble upon her blog, Casting in the City: Casting,Diversity, and Feminism All in One Convenient Place... how convenient for me! Not only does she touch on issues of race and gender within film, tv, and theatre, but she discusses opportunities for and gives advice to casting directors out there and potential actresses like myself. She's clearly very experienced with the film, TV, theatre trio IN NYC, and is therefore very knowledgeable about what's going right here, right now, today in the entertainment scene.
All her posts address some sort of current issue or problem that concerns her. She knows what she wants because she already has answers… which she supports through her own research and more interestingly her personal experiences. Then when she blatantly states her opinion on the matter at hand, we get how and why she got there and we can only agree with her more because we are moved by her sentiments.
I'll start by discussing her post Why Don't Actors Think They're Worth Minimum Wage? The title of the entry itself is a question that she is posing that she already has an opinion about and answer to... She's not asking "Why do actors get less than minimum wage." She says, "Producers and actors have come out overwhelmingly AGAINST paying actors minimum wage. We want to raise the minimum wage for fast food workers, security guards, and retail employees, but when it comes to acting, even actors are against paying themselves minimum wage. That, my friends, is messed up."
The emphasis is on AGAINST and on minimum wage. The stakes are huge. Then we see actors compared to fast food workers, security guards, etc., who are all fighting to raise minimum wage. Then she says “even actors are against paying minimum wage” and we see how horrible this situation really is… we get a sense of what the actor’s status is... even lower than professions that we think of as being below minimum wage or at the bottom of the entire working class spectrum. That is messed up… because we know we’re not and we know actors don’t deserve that but we let it happen anyway. But what’s even more messed up is that we only realize this when it’s put into perspective. Of course this pisses the both of us off. So why? Here’s one of the mentioned answers she's gotten: some say that if actors ask for more money, than they'll be replaced by someone willing to take less. Yes, to some extent we agree, but then Lilly makes another fairly persuasive comparison.
"In a relationship, if you assert your value and make it clear that you won’t date a cheater, your girlfriend may break up with you, but who wants to date a cheater? Who wants to work on a project where your skills aren’t valued? If your answer is, “I do.” That, my friends, is messed up."
Even though the example is something that I don't think happens very often - your girlfriend probably wouldn't cheat, because she wouldn't want you cheating and your relationship would be based on the agreement that you are exclusive, which is why you're in a relationship... and who wants to date a cheater? Well, obviously people rarely do or they end up finding someone else - this is so relatable because it’s appealing in a way. It allows us to understand how basic of a right it is that actors be paid minimum wage... and in the sense that we should value our skills just as much as we value our self-respect and dignity when it comes to relationships. “My friends?” she says sarcastically... she is addressing us actors, while criticizing us at the same time… but we deserve it and we know we do because she’s making us aware of our problems and giving us easy solutions. She’s invested in us. She cares about us. (Also she leaves out names or references of the specific people who gave her those answers… so she doesn’t call anyone out… again another indication that her purpose is to help us and that she cares. So we care, agree, and listen.)
Still addressing the first answer, she makes another point.
"I work with film students on a daily basis and somewhere along the line, they’ve been told that actors are a dime a dozen and that you don’t have to pay actors or treat them well and you’ll still get what you need from them. Now, imagine that if in the above sentence, I replaced “film students” with “men” and “actors” with “women”. It would read: I work with men on a daily basis and somewhere along the line, they’ve been told that women are a dime a dozen and that you don’t have to pay women or treat them well and you’ll still get what you need from them. We’re outraged at blatant sexism but disrespect for acting doesn’t seem to ruffle anyone’s feathers. We demand equal pay for women but balk at paying actors minimum wage. That, my friends, is messed up."
First of all, if you work with film students on a daily basis you know way more or just as much as some of us do about actors, there's no doubt that you're right about what you're talking about and we automatically trust you and your opinion. Second, totally convinced and listening because you compare this issue to another issue at hand that we are so familiar with and know the injustices of. You put it into context, literally, in a way which helps us relate the two issues directly... so we not only familiarize ourselves with an issue that is under looked but we understand that actors getting minimum wage is just as screwed up, and we get the extent to which it is screwed up. It is messed up, I just agree with you more and more.
Okay, I can go on about EVERY one of her blogs and talk about how convincing they are... but now I'm going to talk about one (of several) that directly addresses my topic - the issue with "diversity" in entertainment. She has so many that discuss the unjustness of the underrepresentation of black people (she’s also said in a number of posts that she loves seeing blacks more than superficial, overrated white people... and sometimes other ethnic minorities in entertainment, so I’m sold). Throughout her blog, she’s been keeping tabs on their progression in entertainment (that is coming out of common stereotypes and breaking new grounds with new roles) and seeks to find ways in which that can continue, just. like. me. AGAIN, I love that she's so blunt about her opinions and better yet that they are formed from judgments based on facts and experiences rather than from misinformed assumptions. She says in Banner Years for Black People that she wrote two years ago, "as a fan of both movies and black people, I am pretty ecstatic to see such a range of black films this year... I think (and hope) this trend is the first step in a lasting shift toward Hollywood films that are more representative of contemporary America." After this, she posts YouTube clips of 10 excellent examples of renowned films that showcased blacks and we see exactly what she’s talking about… and we’re given hope (especially us minorities).
But then she describes in a post from last month, The Blair Underwood Effect or Where are my Good Black Men, how it is not happening on TV. We’re first told of her childhood encounter with the show L.A. Law in a colloquial, conversational style that we are moved by and can relate to ourselves as she discusses her feelings about seeing an educated black man on TV. “Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t hurt that Blair Underwood was and still is drop dead gorgeous, but I remember being enthralled by this strong, self-assured, educated black man. I had never seen anything like it on TV, not even on St. Elsewhere or comedies like The Cosby Show and A Different World.”
She’s very open and personable. She tells us about her background, about how her parents were college educated and about how she lived in suburban America which all made her aware of accustomed to educated black men. Despite all that she says it was life-changing to see them on TV. We can’t help but also wish that black men, just as some women like Viola Davis, would get more roles other than just drug dealers or cops: again she gives an example of Terrence Howard playing a drug dealer "turner rapper, turned Mogul" on Empire. So moved. I feel like I already know her.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Profile Post
Finally. Someone who really hit the jackpot in explaining the role
of stereotyping in entertainment... ingridxgarnica… created a short but
extremely significant blog about the racial stereotyping of minorities on
television! Though she hasn’t revealed a lot of personal information like her
age, occupation, whereabouts, etc., she seems to be interested in the exact
same thing that I am: how ethnic minorities are portrayed differently in
television than are white Americans. She describes how and where it exists,
what it means and what its consequences are. She is definitely an avid TV
watcher as her blog addresses three/four very different TV shows: The Big Bang
Theory, Flavor of Love (in comparison with The Bachelor), and Shark Tank… it’s
important to note here that she makes the point that they all fall under the
genre of "reality" TV when she examines the portrayal of ethnic
minorities in each… Well I overlooked that one as I’m sure many people overlook
that “reality” has many forms and dominates TV. She also shows that these shows
are statistically considered to be some of the most watched shows on PrimeTime
television, which makes her analysis of these particular shows more relevant
than any other show because many Americans are familiar with them and could
learn a lot about how stereotyping affects each and every one of them.
She begins every post with the notion that viewers are the ones to
decide whether minorities remain victims of racial stereotyping... but she then
asserts her own opinion on the matter by drawing single conclusions and
offering no possible counterpoints. She very much believes, like me, that in Hollywood's
decision to add or create diversity in Caucasian-based TV shows, minorities in
entertainment fall victim to being type-cast as either "comic relief"
or as people that possess an inherent character flaw that mainstream,
"normal" Caucasians don’t. She validates this point by referencing
Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci's philosophy of cultural hegemonry, where
members of the lower class in society accept the position that they are given
by members of the upper class. In these perceived "reality shows,"
problems arise because audiences not only believe that what they see is a
reality because it’s a “reality show,” but because the minority characters
portrayed themselves believe and accept the roles given to them by the
"majority," or the "upper class," or Hollywood and its
writers and producers.
Her first post: 2012: Is Prime Time TV Ready to Stop Racial
Stereotyping, Part 1 discusses the role of the Indian character Rajesh
"Raj" Ramayan Koothrapalli on The Big Bang Theory. She begins
by describing the story of the series: a bunch of hyper-intelligent nerds who
work at Cal Tech, form a friend group because they are so similar in their
social awkwardness and gaming and comic interests. Originally a group of three,
Raj was added as a fourth because, according to Sheldon in an early episode in
Season 1 called The Irish Pub Forumulation, (according to the character
created by writer, Chuck Lorre) Raj provides "diversity" and is
needed to form an even numbered group of four needed to play the games that the
other three were interested in playing, she mentions. It’s implied that he is
an outsider from the beginning. She then discusses the discrepancies of each of
the other characters in the group with vivid detail, and then their relation to
Raj. For example, she says "Sheldon", the self-proclaimed ringleader
of the group and expert of knowledge in all things also happens to believe he
knows more about Indian culture than 'Raj' himself." She gives visual
examples of this through YouTube Links. Each of the characters she mentions are able to torment Raj based on his
cultural identity and background, but the reverse never happens, nor does Raj
stand up for himself. He accepts his place instead. She also doesn’t fail to
mention that he has an illness of being unable to speak with women or socialize
unless under the influence of alcohol, which makes him a social outsider even
though he is technically "part of the group." She provides evidence
of this with another YouTube link from another episode. She concludes with the
fact that because Raj accepts his place, and because he will never reach equal
status with his friends though he is of equal academic intelligence, Hollywood
is successful in perpetuating racial stereotypes and attacking minority groups.
Honestly I myself have forgotten that Raj is of equal intelligence because he
just accepts his place and doesn’t reassert his authority, and now that ingridxgarnica points it, I realize the
extent to which he is negatively stereotyped and the extent to which people can
easily overlook that.
Through her description of the negative racial stereotyping that
exists in Big Bang Theory, and
The Bachelor and A Flavor of Love in the other post she had written, it’s clear
that Hollywood seems to be racist in its ambition of creating
"diversity." However she offers a positive example of racial
representation on television in her analysis of the show, Shark Tank, which
tells me that she acknowledges the change that she advocates for. Shark Tank is
a show that centers around entrepreneurs showcasing their ideas and projects
for 5 self-made multi-millionaire and billionaire investors. The addition of
investor Daymond John, an African-American self-made millionaire who is
educated and well respected just like his fellow Caucasian investors beside him
is wholly beneficial. She provides evidence with yet another YouTube link of
how the other investors respect him and choose to collaborate with him for
future projects. This reflects the positive portrayal of minorities on
television as they are seen as being equal to the white “majority.” She
compares this to her post about Raj in The Big Bang Theory, who does not stand
on equal ground with his friends. Though these are two drastically different
shows, as the Big Bang Theory can be seen as more of a fictional comedy whose
intention is to provide comic relief whereas Shark Tank features real-time investors
that take their respected professions very seriously, the point she makes is
clear and valid – minorities must be considered equal to the majority group in
order to avoid unjust racial discrimination.
What is most remarkable about her is that she's very successful in
making her points concrete by providing footage from the clips she references.
We are not only able to read what she is referencing but we can see exactly how
it is manifested. The entire layout of her blog itself is in black and white. The
background is entirely black and the words are white, which is ironically the
opposite of what we are used to viewing: a plain white background with dark,
black writing such as Microsoft Word, for example, or this very template that I
am using to type this blog which actually makes what I’m seeing and doing more
legible and this brings me to the next point. It was almost difficult to read
the blog, it gave me a sense of a skewed reality, but this reflects exactly
what she is talking about... white words dominating a black background. I like
her a lot because she is not only very interested in understanding how
stereotyping exists and manifests itself on TV… something we can see through
her meticulous analysis of each of these shows, but because by providing her
own thoughts and opinions on the matter, she is clearly very passionate about
eliminating the negative impacts of stereotyping and supportive and promotive
of more positive, beneficial portrayals of diversity on TV.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Social Bookmarking Soulmate
I was browsing through citeulike and came across Randomaxes' resourceful library... Among many other topics, he's bookmarked a plethora of articles that deal with origin and nature of television culture and other digital media: how TV has developed over time, how it has become so mainstream, how it will develop and revolutionize, the implications of specific TV content such as reality shows, and its impact on culture and society of yesterday and today. Some sources include Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition, Inside PrimeTime, Cable Television U.S.A.: An Analysis of Government Policy, The Essential HBO Reader, Gay TV and Straight America, Public Television and the Public Sphere, Television will be Revolutionized, Redesigning Women.
This is all very relevant in understanding how and why stereotyping in television and then on film occurs and exists, how it continues to spread via technology, and how it affects consumer audiences in the same way that other aspects of television and the media do as well. It also gives us so more much insight into how stereotyping itself can change now and could change in the future not only by the way people represent and are made to represent themselves on film and TV, but by the ways in which people perceive what they see on TV (not just from a production or directing stand point) but from a standpoint of how and when people watch film and TV and the psychology of how film and TV affects them at that specific time and place.
One article entitled Stereotyping or Success? examines the evolution of "minority characters" in entertainment, specifically gay, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. Apparently there are three historical stages of television: The Stereotypic Age, The New Awareness, and Stabilization. While blacks have advanced pretty far into Stabilization, gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals, who are only just now being adequately represented on television are still being ridiculed and very few are respected. They are therefore just overcoming the Stereotypic Age. This gives us hope for ethnic minorities as well. Yet it seems to be that it is those that prominently and continuously recur in entertainment that will continue to progress... Because Black Americans have appeared on film and television very close to its inception, are they able to break such boundaries. However with the progression of digital media and film and television in general, as now a large percentage of the U.S. population along make, watch and become a part of television on a day to day basis (almost every person you and I both know owns one or two television sets or a Netflix account) there is tremendous hope that progress will be made much sooner, but again, it is important that for that to occur, minorities must really insert themselves into the film and television industry so that they are adequately represented and will continue to be represented in the right way.
This evolution of television and television culture in its efforts to cater to a consistently changing (diversifying) audience makes it much easier to understand how stereotyping existed and how it exists today.
This is all very relevant in understanding how and why stereotyping in television and then on film occurs and exists, how it continues to spread via technology, and how it affects consumer audiences in the same way that other aspects of television and the media do as well. It also gives us so more much insight into how stereotyping itself can change now and could change in the future not only by the way people represent and are made to represent themselves on film and TV, but by the ways in which people perceive what they see on TV (not just from a production or directing stand point) but from a standpoint of how and when people watch film and TV and the psychology of how film and TV affects them at that specific time and place.
One article entitled Stereotyping or Success? examines the evolution of "minority characters" in entertainment, specifically gay, lesbians, and bi-sexuals. Apparently there are three historical stages of television: The Stereotypic Age, The New Awareness, and Stabilization. While blacks have advanced pretty far into Stabilization, gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals, who are only just now being adequately represented on television are still being ridiculed and very few are respected. They are therefore just overcoming the Stereotypic Age. This gives us hope for ethnic minorities as well. Yet it seems to be that it is those that prominently and continuously recur in entertainment that will continue to progress... Because Black Americans have appeared on film and television very close to its inception, are they able to break such boundaries. However with the progression of digital media and film and television in general, as now a large percentage of the U.S. population along make, watch and become a part of television on a day to day basis (almost every person you and I both know owns one or two television sets or a Netflix account) there is tremendous hope that progress will be made much sooner, but again, it is important that for that to occur, minorities must really insert themselves into the film and television industry so that they are adequately represented and will continue to be represented in the right way.
This evolution of television and television culture in its efforts to cater to a consistently changing (diversifying) audience makes it much easier to understand how stereotyping existed and how it exists today.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Where Do We Draw the Line? How Do We Do it?
I could give you 1,0001 more examples of TV shows, films of the past and present that present ideas that are offensive to various cultures, religions, etc. But we all know that not all stereotyping done on film and television cannot exist for the mere purpose of confining other cultures to a few traits!
Sometimes it is done to serve other purpose. There are various other motives that exist and it is important to understand how these motives can be so beneficial for entertainment and society, that stereotyping can exist in spite of its offensiveness.
I was reading a blog post discussing the implications of stereotyping in an episode of The Simpsons. In a recent episode, a new family, a Muslim family moves into town and Bart becomes friends with their son. Obviously skeptical, the Simpsons invite them over for dinner, to figure out if they are terrorists or not, shocker (Who would have thought!). Bart actually finds evidence for this, "evidence," only realizing later that they are just a normal family trying to live life in the same way as himself and his family. Here, stereotyping is effective because it is done in a way in which it proves that such over exaggerated assumptions are actually untrue. The entertainment value comes from Homer's assumption that the stereotype is true, and also because of the commonality of such a stereotype due to real world events, people are easily amused by its over exaggeration and inconsistencies. People can see that it is purposely offensive and that it just exists for a good laugh. It doesn't mean that people will look at Muslims differently. However, such stereotypes could affect the way we think about and interact with Muslims in the long run, so the writer of this post is pretty much neutral.
Now the question is, how do we sustain such a positive outcome of stereotyping, without still, making Muslims seem foreign, inferior, and unknown to a "majority" white people. Despite positive effects of stereotyping, it is still done in a manner in which the minority culture being portrayed as being inferior in comparison to a dominant white culture. How do we avoid this? Can there be a film or show about a Muslim family with relatable stereotypes that serve entertainment purposes of being humorous and appealing, who has a white family over for dinner with *insert x stereotypes about white people being ignorant and rich of example,* that are also humorous and appealing?
First of all, the only way something like that would happen is if the writer, director, and producer of such a show had some sore of Muslim affiliation or would approve of something like that without taking offense to it (so most likely someone who isn't white, correct me if I'm wrong). Something like that clearly has not happened yet, so why would it, or how would it? Obviously if it hasn't there isn't enough cultural representation in entertainment, or, again, circling back to by main point of this entire blog: the entertainment industry is made up of a white majority and therefore targets mainly white audiences and vice versa. So how do ethnic minorities come in and change that with a show like this? They are faced with two challenges: not only having to assert themselves as actors, writers, producers, and directors in entertainment, but having to entertain a long-standing white audience who would object to such a TV show or film who would actually be able to prevent it from being produced (unlike the minority Muslim population in entertainment that can not stop themselves from being portrayed as such in films such as The Siege and TV shows such as The Simpsons).
Regardless of any of that, would this potential show about this Muslim family be hypocritical? Not if it was serving the same purpose. In other words, not if, at the end of the show or film, the Muslim family realized that the white family didn't actually represent those stereotypes. This results in a positive outcome of stereotyping and shows its true benefits as it similarly had done in The Simpsons. But are there stereotypes about white people? If not, why? If not, then stereotyping shouldn't exist in entertainment at all. Stereotyping in entertainment with its benefits of being humorous, educational, and relatable should only be allowed if does not create prejudice against one group but can be applied to all people. There is no superiority or inferiority, no majority or minority, but just people. Simply humanity. This seems like a possible solution. Again, the entertainment industry "is diversifying" so with more diverse representation in entertainment, and with more of a diverse audience the world will be set straight.
Sometimes it is done to serve other purpose. There are various other motives that exist and it is important to understand how these motives can be so beneficial for entertainment and society, that stereotyping can exist in spite of its offensiveness.
I was reading a blog post discussing the implications of stereotyping in an episode of The Simpsons. In a recent episode, a new family, a Muslim family moves into town and Bart becomes friends with their son. Obviously skeptical, the Simpsons invite them over for dinner, to figure out if they are terrorists or not, shocker (Who would have thought!). Bart actually finds evidence for this, "evidence," only realizing later that they are just a normal family trying to live life in the same way as himself and his family. Here, stereotyping is effective because it is done in a way in which it proves that such over exaggerated assumptions are actually untrue. The entertainment value comes from Homer's assumption that the stereotype is true, and also because of the commonality of such a stereotype due to real world events, people are easily amused by its over exaggeration and inconsistencies. People can see that it is purposely offensive and that it just exists for a good laugh. It doesn't mean that people will look at Muslims differently. However, such stereotypes could affect the way we think about and interact with Muslims in the long run, so the writer of this post is pretty much neutral.
Now the question is, how do we sustain such a positive outcome of stereotyping, without still, making Muslims seem foreign, inferior, and unknown to a "majority" white people. Despite positive effects of stereotyping, it is still done in a manner in which the minority culture being portrayed as being inferior in comparison to a dominant white culture. How do we avoid this? Can there be a film or show about a Muslim family with relatable stereotypes that serve entertainment purposes of being humorous and appealing, who has a white family over for dinner with *insert x stereotypes about white people being ignorant and rich of example,* that are also humorous and appealing?
First of all, the only way something like that would happen is if the writer, director, and producer of such a show had some sore of Muslim affiliation or would approve of something like that without taking offense to it (so most likely someone who isn't white, correct me if I'm wrong). Something like that clearly has not happened yet, so why would it, or how would it? Obviously if it hasn't there isn't enough cultural representation in entertainment, or, again, circling back to by main point of this entire blog: the entertainment industry is made up of a white majority and therefore targets mainly white audiences and vice versa. So how do ethnic minorities come in and change that with a show like this? They are faced with two challenges: not only having to assert themselves as actors, writers, producers, and directors in entertainment, but having to entertain a long-standing white audience who would object to such a TV show or film who would actually be able to prevent it from being produced (unlike the minority Muslim population in entertainment that can not stop themselves from being portrayed as such in films such as The Siege and TV shows such as The Simpsons).
Regardless of any of that, would this potential show about this Muslim family be hypocritical? Not if it was serving the same purpose. In other words, not if, at the end of the show or film, the Muslim family realized that the white family didn't actually represent those stereotypes. This results in a positive outcome of stereotyping and shows its true benefits as it similarly had done in The Simpsons. But are there stereotypes about white people? If not, why? If not, then stereotyping shouldn't exist in entertainment at all. Stereotyping in entertainment with its benefits of being humorous, educational, and relatable should only be allowed if does not create prejudice against one group but can be applied to all people. There is no superiority or inferiority, no majority or minority, but just people. Simply humanity. This seems like a possible solution. Again, the entertainment industry "is diversifying" so with more diverse representation in entertainment, and with more of a diverse audience the world will be set straight.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The Good Ol' Days
Remember the good ol' days when Disney movies were the highlight of our lives? No pressure to work, or go out, or do something with our lives then, but to sit back, relax, and take in those entertaining motion pictures. Let's go back in time and relive some fun facts about our favorite Disney movies...
I guarantee that you and your friends will to this day instantly recognize Aladdin's famous song, "Arabian Nights?" How many of you remember the lyrics? Well, they went like this: "Oh I come from a land, from a far away place, where the caravan camels roam. Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but hey, its home! Oh, Aladdin! Good times! Do you remember how wonderfully sexy Aladdin looked in comparison to Jafar, who was fifty shades darker and had a ton of grown out facial hair?
Remember the two sneaky cat villains in Lady in The Tramp? Si and Am? If I say they were the two cats with slanted eyes and spoke like that foreign exchange student from China, or Vietnam, or Japan, or wherever in Asia, would that ring a bell? Oh and don't forget about that really cool Siamese cat from Aristocats who couldn't play the piano with its fingers (paws) but could easily do it with his chopsticks!
We all remember our friend Sebastian from The Little Mermaid, who obviously swam all the way from the Atlantic waters in Jamaica to convince Ariel not to be a human being because life is too hard and you'll have to work all day...
And I know for a fact that we all miss Neverland! Don't you miss following the leader, our heroic Peter Pan and his counterparts as they helped us get a long with the rest of the Indians, decked in feathers, beads, and bright red skin, behind us who could never speak a word... except they could make the traditional whooping sound that Peter himself taught us all! Yeah, of course we do, but what about that song "What makes the Red Man Red?" We don't seem to miss that one as much...
We can't forget all our friends from The Jungle Book! Baloo, Bagheera, Shere Khan! And of course, our favorite monkeys, even though we didn't understand them because their voices sound "African American" in comparison to the memorable British accents of Mowgli, Baloo, and the rest.
Our favorite Indian princess Pocahontas, who's obviously really good unlike the other Indians who are really bad, saved Captain John Smith from the evil Indians who captured him, because he was courageous and strong when holding the "savages" captive and when seeking their land.
Dumbo an all-time classic, about this elephant who realized that he could fly with his magical, large eyes, and then ended up on a tree befriending a bunch of crows, one who's name was Jim crow, who would all just chill out, smoke cigars, speak in Jive, and not really do anything else. Oh and don't forget all the catchy tunes from that one, especially the one that the black men without faces sing when pitching up the tents for the animal circus: "We slave until we're almost dead, we're happy-hearted roustabouts, keep on working, stop that shrinking, pull that rope, you hairy ape!"
There's many more, I've left out over a dozen Disney princesses, like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow WHITE, but those are pretty self-explanatory don't you think? I'll stop there and let you go back and watch them. The Walt Disney cooperation is of the most popular and influential media production companies that exist in North America. Their movies are the ones that you watched as a child, the movies that introduced to you the different kinds of people who exist in the world around us: who they are and what they are like. Relive your childhood, and you'll truly realize how these films led you to understand the world around you and its people today.
I guarantee that you and your friends will to this day instantly recognize Aladdin's famous song, "Arabian Nights?" How many of you remember the lyrics? Well, they went like this: "Oh I come from a land, from a far away place, where the caravan camels roam. Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face. It's barbaric, but hey, its home! Oh, Aladdin! Good times! Do you remember how wonderfully sexy Aladdin looked in comparison to Jafar, who was fifty shades darker and had a ton of grown out facial hair?
Remember the two sneaky cat villains in Lady in The Tramp? Si and Am? If I say they were the two cats with slanted eyes and spoke like that foreign exchange student from China, or Vietnam, or Japan, or wherever in Asia, would that ring a bell? Oh and don't forget about that really cool Siamese cat from Aristocats who couldn't play the piano with its fingers (paws) but could easily do it with his chopsticks!
We all remember our friend Sebastian from The Little Mermaid, who obviously swam all the way from the Atlantic waters in Jamaica to convince Ariel not to be a human being because life is too hard and you'll have to work all day...
And I know for a fact that we all miss Neverland! Don't you miss following the leader, our heroic Peter Pan and his counterparts as they helped us get a long with the rest of the Indians, decked in feathers, beads, and bright red skin, behind us who could never speak a word... except they could make the traditional whooping sound that Peter himself taught us all! Yeah, of course we do, but what about that song "What makes the Red Man Red?" We don't seem to miss that one as much...
We can't forget all our friends from The Jungle Book! Baloo, Bagheera, Shere Khan! And of course, our favorite monkeys, even though we didn't understand them because their voices sound "African American" in comparison to the memorable British accents of Mowgli, Baloo, and the rest.
Our favorite Indian princess Pocahontas, who's obviously really good unlike the other Indians who are really bad, saved Captain John Smith from the evil Indians who captured him, because he was courageous and strong when holding the "savages" captive and when seeking their land.
Dumbo an all-time classic, about this elephant who realized that he could fly with his magical, large eyes, and then ended up on a tree befriending a bunch of crows, one who's name was Jim crow, who would all just chill out, smoke cigars, speak in Jive, and not really do anything else. Oh and don't forget all the catchy tunes from that one, especially the one that the black men without faces sing when pitching up the tents for the animal circus: "We slave until we're almost dead, we're happy-hearted roustabouts, keep on working, stop that shrinking, pull that rope, you hairy ape!"
There's many more, I've left out over a dozen Disney princesses, like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow WHITE, but those are pretty self-explanatory don't you think? I'll stop there and let you go back and watch them. The Walt Disney cooperation is of the most popular and influential media production companies that exist in North America. Their movies are the ones that you watched as a child, the movies that introduced to you the different kinds of people who exist in the world around us: who they are and what they are like. Relive your childhood, and you'll truly realize how these films led you to understand the world around you and its people today.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Hollywood is outdated.
I was browsing through Huffington Post and I came across this article entitled "Hollywood and the Shaping of Perceptions of Racism." Just as the title describes, Olivia Cole discusses the impact that Hollywood's films regarding racial topics, particularly slavery, have on white audiences today.
After watching Twelve Years A Slave, she'd come across several "white" people walking out of the film making comments like "Those people were horrible," and "It was so bad back then," which demonstrated this sense of relief: "this was all in the past, this no longer exists". Of course she points out that that is true, as slavery does in fact, no longer exist, but she goes on to describe how Hollywood's representation of racism in the context of slavery in historical films such as The Help, The Color Purple, and Twelve Years A Slave, blinds individuals to the reality of racism in America today. Films about slavery, and historical films in general seemingly tell white audiences that they have significantly progressed and live in a much better day and age. But have we? According to Cole, we have not, and I very much agree. Hollywood FAILS to portray the reality of racism that exits today. "We have to talk about Trayvon Martin and Marissa Alexander and we have to talk about Oscar Grant and Renisha McBride," Cole says.
This brings me to my main point. What continues to fascinate me about Hollywood is it's portrayal of outdated issues and stereotypes that continue to linger on in the present as if they still exist. All Hollywood focuses on are issues of the past and people of the past. Why this continues to occur is what draws my attention. Cole partly answers that question in discussing reasons why white audiences find comfort in films about slavery. More white people watch Twelve years a Slave than a movie like Boyz in Da Hood or movies with one leading black man. But what do black people like to watch more? We say that Hollywood is diversifying, that all sorts of people are being represented on television to cater to such diverse audiences. But just as Cole is saying, if Hollywood is continuing to produce films today that white audiences find comfort in, aren't we only catering to white audiences? If the entertainment industry is, like they say, becoming more "diverse," why doesn't this seem to change? There are two probable answers to this question: either the media is not as diverse as we think and Hollywood is dominated by white Americans, or the minority population in American is less than that of the majority population and Hollywood therefore accurately represents that. Even if the latter is true, that does not mean that the minority population should not be represented or represented inaccurately with outdated issues and outdated stereotypes: black people are no longer enslaved but racism still exists. Not all the Asian people in your class have parents that weren’t born in the United States. Hollywood should still be up to date in its portrayal of current events,issues, and people. If the former is true, then the question is how do we get the media to become more diverse? All in all, Hollywood is in need of change. How can we change it?
After watching Twelve Years A Slave, she'd come across several "white" people walking out of the film making comments like "Those people were horrible," and "It was so bad back then," which demonstrated this sense of relief: "this was all in the past, this no longer exists". Of course she points out that that is true, as slavery does in fact, no longer exist, but she goes on to describe how Hollywood's representation of racism in the context of slavery in historical films such as The Help, The Color Purple, and Twelve Years A Slave, blinds individuals to the reality of racism in America today. Films about slavery, and historical films in general seemingly tell white audiences that they have significantly progressed and live in a much better day and age. But have we? According to Cole, we have not, and I very much agree. Hollywood FAILS to portray the reality of racism that exits today. "We have to talk about Trayvon Martin and Marissa Alexander and we have to talk about Oscar Grant and Renisha McBride," Cole says.
This brings me to my main point. What continues to fascinate me about Hollywood is it's portrayal of outdated issues and stereotypes that continue to linger on in the present as if they still exist. All Hollywood focuses on are issues of the past and people of the past. Why this continues to occur is what draws my attention. Cole partly answers that question in discussing reasons why white audiences find comfort in films about slavery. More white people watch Twelve years a Slave than a movie like Boyz in Da Hood or movies with one leading black man. But what do black people like to watch more? We say that Hollywood is diversifying, that all sorts of people are being represented on television to cater to such diverse audiences. But just as Cole is saying, if Hollywood is continuing to produce films today that white audiences find comfort in, aren't we only catering to white audiences? If the entertainment industry is, like they say, becoming more "diverse," why doesn't this seem to change? There are two probable answers to this question: either the media is not as diverse as we think and Hollywood is dominated by white Americans, or the minority population in American is less than that of the majority population and Hollywood therefore accurately represents that. Even if the latter is true, that does not mean that the minority population should not be represented or represented inaccurately with outdated issues and outdated stereotypes: black people are no longer enslaved but racism still exists. Not all the Asian people in your class have parents that weren’t born in the United States. Hollywood should still be up to date in its portrayal of current events,issues, and people. If the former is true, then the question is how do we get the media to become more diverse? All in all, Hollywood is in need of change. How can we change it?
Friday, January 30, 2015
"You can not escape your 'type'..."
About a little over a week ago after his class, I had a very profound conversation with an acting professor of mine. He teaches "Auditioning for the Camera," a class which, much like the title, has been developed in light of his own personal experiences to relay onto us acting majors what exactly to expect from the real world when we walk out of USC with a diploma that says "BFA Acting." We were given an assignment that required us to find images of what we think our "type" is. That is, when looking at photographs of other people in newspapers, magazines, textbooks, etc., who are the people that we identify as the type of person other people see when looking at us? What do we exude? Obviously this assignment not only gave us a better understanding of who we all are, and not only allowed us to discover and understand how we're perceived, but it forced us to acknowledge the positive aspects of the "type" of person that we are.... and embrace it.
It took several others including myself to be able to do this. Doing this assignment, I realized I tend to focus on what I don't exude, as I passed through several pictures in a magazine that clearly weren't me. Then there's the difficult part of understanding that who you are and what you exude may be completely different from who you want to be and what you want to exude. Then comes the MOST difficult part of this assignment: making the assumption that others think you exude something, based on common misconceptions, otherwise known as stereotypes that may come with the "type" of person that you are, and then attributing those to yourself, even though you know that you don't fall under those stereotypes. So I went up to my professor and said, "Okay honestly, this chick is basically me... the hands, the elbows, the way she bends to the side, the everything, but she's white and has red hair. But I don't so I mean I don't 'exude' that even though that's me? Yeah I could go to the library and find some Indians in chemistry books but they're the antitheses of who I am." Then he says something along the lines of this:
"You cannot escape your type. It's who you are. I've gotten roles for being too tall, I've lost roles for being too tall. It's a part of you and you must embrace it. Use it to your advantage. Look at the positives of it. Why is it better than anything else? Right now, you're for some reason stereotyping yourself too much. You're a very good actress and are fun to watch. It's a different a day and age and they want people like you. They're looking for you to break the mold. You haven't even tried yet. You don't even know what's out there for you. The world's full of possibility and it will surprise you in more ways than one..."
It took several others including myself to be able to do this. Doing this assignment, I realized I tend to focus on what I don't exude, as I passed through several pictures in a magazine that clearly weren't me. Then there's the difficult part of understanding that who you are and what you exude may be completely different from who you want to be and what you want to exude. Then comes the MOST difficult part of this assignment: making the assumption that others think you exude something, based on common misconceptions, otherwise known as stereotypes that may come with the "type" of person that you are, and then attributing those to yourself, even though you know that you don't fall under those stereotypes. So I went up to my professor and said, "Okay honestly, this chick is basically me... the hands, the elbows, the way she bends to the side, the everything, but she's white and has red hair. But I don't so I mean I don't 'exude' that even though that's me? Yeah I could go to the library and find some Indians in chemistry books but they're the antitheses of who I am." Then he says something along the lines of this:
"You cannot escape your type. It's who you are. I've gotten roles for being too tall, I've lost roles for being too tall. It's a part of you and you must embrace it. Use it to your advantage. Look at the positives of it. Why is it better than anything else? Right now, you're for some reason stereotyping yourself too much. You're a very good actress and are fun to watch. It's a different a day and age and they want people like you. They're looking for you to break the mold. You haven't even tried yet. You don't even know what's out there for you. The world's full of possibility and it will surprise you in more ways than one..."
Hello World!
Have you ever watched the show The Big Bang Theory on CBS? A couple of white nerds who live and work together at Cal Tech. with their best friends: an Indian guy who can’t speak to women and a Jewish guy with awful pick-up lines who epically fails with women? It’s hilarious because it’s so applicable to this day and age: I can almost guarantee that at some point in your life, if not already, you are bound to come in to contact with an awkward Indian guy who’s a pre-med or has a PhD in physics or one of the sciences, or a Jewish guy that is enamored by women, money, or success. It’s one of my favorite shows and I watch it a lot. But have you ever looked at someone you passed by, maybe an Indian-looking guy, and thought that maybe he could be an artist?
People don’t seem to pay attention to the fact that the ideas we have about race or a person’s cultural background comes from TV shows like this and films about stuff like this, and not necessarily those “real life” experiences that we attribute them to. Movies and real life sort of mix and reinforce each other but people don’t seem to be consciously aware of that and for that reason, what could be pretty offensive on TV is considered okay. Maybe this is because physical appearance and race play more of a subtle role in an average person’s day-to-day life (well, depending on your race I guess, which will bring me to my next point…). It doesn’t prevent a person from living their day to day life, but it does subconsciously influence peoples’ interactions with one another.
Now why is this even an issue that needs to be addressed? Well just like sexism can affect women in the workplace, racism affects ethnic minorities in the workplace… but we seem to be less familiar with one, don’t you think? Minorities that choose to pursue professions that “defy set stereotypes” that we see on film and television are looked at through a narrow lens: they’re discriminated against because they’re “known” to somehow lack the qualifications. But at the same time, stereotypes have the opposite effect… many ethnic minorities seem to conform to pre-existing stereotypes (that they see that and/or are reinforced on TV!!!) because they believe that that is who they truly are.
I, a BFA Acting major (a young, hopeful, persistently aspiring actress) at USC, with a clearly evident Southeast Asian background, I’m remarkably fascinated by how it’s the things that are out of a person’s control that seem to matter most in this chosen profession. “You can never determine what they want. You may be just as interesting, just as talented, and just as hard working as someone else but you won’t get the part because you’re not as tall…” said a great teacher of mine here at USC. I’m sure that’s common in a variety of professions, some candidates are chosen because someone has to be chosen, but both can be well qualified. But at that point in both cases, stereotypes… may come into play.
In my experience so far, I’ve seen that even within the School of Dramatic Arts at USC, almost everyone has a specific “go-to” role that they are typecast as. How much of this has to do with physical appearance? How much of it may have to do with personality? How much has to do with true talent or intellect if at all? Can we even know? Maybe not… but how do stereotypes come into play here and when? This obviously varies from person to person, casting director to casting director, etc. but there’s usually a pattern… at least from what I’ve noticed.
As the entertainment industry seems to be becoming more and more “diverse” as they call it, so do stereotypes about race. Often times I’ve seen that these stereotypes are exaggerated, outdated, and untrue for most people. Yet when such content is shown to the masses, people, including those who don’t believe more than half of these ideas to be true will subconsciously assume that those ideas are true, including myself.
I want to know how this happens but more so, I want to prove how so many stereotypes portrayed on film and television are so untrue but still continue to affect minorities on and off television. Are actors typecast in their auditions simply because of their appearance? Has it always been hard or is it harder today for actors that are considered ethnic minorities to land leads because of prominent stereotypes that exist now? Most people will agree with me when I say that a lot of ethnic minorities land mostly supporting roles and very few leads? SO, what are the benefits of stereotyping in the entertainment industry? What are the drawbacks? How do the drawbacks outnumber the benefits? How does physical appearance and ethnic background cause true talent, and intellect to be overlooked in almost everything?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)