Whitewashing in the Hell

Hollywood's guilty of harbouring many skeletons. Its most-recent one, sexual predation, has been the subject of scrutiny and backlash following Harvey Weinstein and the #MeToo movement. However, it's its whitewashing, which goes back to the industry's inception, that regularly rears its ugly head. It's been criticized, chastised, deconstructed and apologized for as much as it's been defended and ignored, making it a routine punching bag. And while it's not as bad as it used to be, thanks to the globalization of film in the last 30-odd years, it hasn't gone away entirely.

I mention this in-light of a Vulture article about Annihilation. The article discusses the issue of whitewashing the, admittedly vague, character descriptions in the source material via actresses who are predominantly white. Or, more specifically, actresses who are Natalie Portman. It's an interesting piece, to say the least, and it's worth reading, but I'm stung by what it's insinuating about Portman and Jews as a whole.

I don't think E. Alex Jung, the author of the piece, is being malicious towards Jews. At least, not intentionally. But the underlying, subtle implications can lead to a terrible and blatantly-offensive misreading, one that reinforces negative stereotypes about the Jewish people as a whole. And that's somewhat concerning, such that I feel it's worth responding to.

What's whitewashing? It's the concept by which one culture or character's legacy is painted over or supplanted with another's, this being white people. This practice can extend to other areas as well, but since whitewashing's its most-common form, that's what's usually brought up. Especially since whitewashing has been the predominant form of cultural revisionism in art for centuries, completely ignoring the contributions of other groups. To be fair, sometimes what qualifies as whitewashing can be vague, especially when factoring in context, but the concept is pretty abhorrent and worthy of understanding in order to change it.

Which leads me to Jung's article. He's right to say that Annihilation's an example of whitewashing, even if it's unintentional. He's also right to say that casting Portman as an originally Oriental-Asian character is a form of whitewashing. But I take issue with Jung's assumption that Portman's, therefore, white. Because she's not.

Let me explain.

See, Natalie Portman's not even American. She's Israeli. Her birth name is Neta-Lee Hershlag. The decision to Anglicize her name, a common practice for foreign talent in Hollywood, was to help sell her to American audiences. It's especially common for Jews to adopt this, and is, itself, already an argument against Jews being inherently white.

This is important for why calling Jews "white" is a problem: because they still feel subtle pressure, like other minorities, to adapt in order to succeed. If Jews were really white, they wouldn't be adopting non-Jewish names. If Jews were really white, they wouldn't feel pressure to hide their Jewishness. That both of those still happen should already be a red flag, right?

Besides, Jews are a diverse people. Some are European. Some are Asian. Some are African. Some are Latino. Some are Middle Eastern. Some are Desi-Hindu. There's enough range in physical and ethnic appearance for them to not classify as "white". The only reason why most people don't know this is a lack of exposure and representation.

Even ignoring the diversity of skin colour, "white" Jews, the European ones, have only really been accepted into Western culture within the last 100 or so years. Even after The Enlightenment of the 18th-20th Centuries, in which Jews were slowly-integrated into European countries, long-standing discrimination, left-over from segregation and isolation, didn't fully go away. Rather, it morphed into modern-Antisemitism, a term coined in Germany in the 19th Century. Antisemitism continued to haunt the Jewish experience like an elephant in the room, eventually reaching its peak during WWII and The Third Reich.

Even today, Jews aren't fully part of white culture. They might benefit from a certain degree of white privilege, no doubt due to their resourcefulness and understanding of wealth and power, but it's recent, conditional and can be easily-revoked. If you want proof, simply ask a white supremacist or neo-Nazi what they think of Jews. At the same time, though, brace yourself for the answer.

This is why it offends me when Jews are lackadaisically clumped in with "white people". Even those Jews that aren't European, like Hank Azaria and Ben Kingsley. It ignores the difference in historical circumstances and is, honestly, somewhat Antisemitic. Yet instead of being the kind of Antisemitism that's open and blatant, it's the kind of Antisemitism that's more opaque and harder to read. This is the same Antisemitism that allows oppressed groups to adopt BDS as a platform, to delegitimize the Jewish experience, and to lump the occasional bad apples with the grander power structure that's oppressed them historically. It also robs Jews of their voices in the struggle for societal progress.

Which leads back to my issue with Vulture's article. I'm sure the filmmakers were unaware of their whitewashing, as the article states, but to assume it's okay to feed the long-standing misconception that Jews are white is equally frustrating. Because Jews don't need backhanded placating and lip-service from other minority groups. Good or bad, they need the respect they deserve.

I Am Panther, Hear Me Roar!

Internet, it's time we had another talk…

I'm sure everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows what Black Panther is. It's the first major superhero movie starring a black lead and directed by black man that's receiving critical praise (I know the Blade movies predate it, but they weren't directed by black directors and weren't critical darlings.) This is a big deal, especially since superheroes have been at the forefront of mainstream film culture for over two decades and haven't made gains on proper representation for minorities. To paraphrase an old mantra, Black Panther matters.

Unfortunately, not everyone thinks that way. The existence of early-backlash against the film has been centre-stage for weeks now. This isn't new, Frozen and Selma also received pre-release pushback, but it's especially egregious in light of the circumstances leading up to it. For one, there's the anti-Disney/Marvel group that claims Disney's buying good press. There's a lot to be unpacked here about how ridiculous that is, but I think Bob Chipman did a better job than I ever could.

The bigger pushback, I think, comes from an underlying paranoia. Like the recent Star Wars films, Black Panther's become the victim of angry nerds who feel Hollywood's leaving them behind. But since they have no control over that, their only outlet of venting is to down-rate the film. It's as sad as it sounds.

It's worth noting that, despite its perceived status as a bastion of social progress, Hollywood's still largely ethnocentric in its casting and storytelling. Most individuals working in the industry are white, straight men, and their output reflects that. In an article written on July 31st, 2017, Variety noted that little social progress has been made in Hollywood over the last decade. To quote the article directly:

"…[O]f the films surveyed in 2016, 31.4% of speaking characters were female, unchanged from 2015 and not much higher than the 29.9% logged in 2007. The overall ratio of male to female characters was 2.3 to 1, and 34 films had a female lead or co-lead, compared to 32 in 2015…

…70.8% of speaking roles in 2016's top 100 were white, far outweighing the tallies for characters who were black (13.6%), Asian (5.7%), Hispanic (3.1%), or other (7%)…72 of 2016's top 100 films had no Hispanic or Latina female speaking roles, and 91 had none for LGBTQ females.

Women were underrepresented behind the scenes…making up 4.2% of directors, 13.2% of writers, 20.7% of producers, and just 1.7% of composers…[O]nly 34 unique female directors that released films between 2007 and 2016 (excluding 2011). Male gay characters were among the few demographics to rise year-on-year, up to 36 speaking roles in 2016 from 19 in 2015...The 2.7% of characters with disabilities in 2016 films was about on par with the 2.4% reported in 2015."

This snippet highlights the disparity between perception and reality. Hard-right critics of Hollywood like to point out the "liberal agenda", but the truth suggests otherwise: Hollywood talks the talk, but refuses to walk the walk. And in an increasingly-globalized world, the leading outsource of global entertainment is failing to keep up. Which is all-the-more reason minority voices of any kind should get their dues, as that's the only way for change to happen.

Enter Black Panther. I haven't seen any of director Ryan Coogler's prior films. I wanted to watch Fruitvale Station when it was in theatres in 2013, since 2013 was an awful Summer for blockbusters, but due to circumstances not within my control it never happened. Creed was intriguing, but I decided to skip it because I hadn't watched the Rocky movies prior. I feel bad, especially since I loved Michael B. Jordan in Chronicle, but it simply wasn't meant to be. And that's why I'm excited to finally catch Black Panther, as I get to see a new and exciting voice tackle a comic book character. That the reviews have been great so far helps.

This is also why the racist backlash is so concerning. Not only is this a Marvel movie, but it's a character based on an obscure property like so many of The MCU's prior films. We've embraced a guy in a suit of armour, a green monster, a Norse demigod, a genetically-engineered super-solider, a rag-tag group of space scoundrels (one of whom is a talking tree), a guy who can communicate with ants and a sorcerer who can bend dimensions, but a black man in a cat suit? That's pushing it!

That isn't to say Black Panther will be flawless, or that there won't be legit reasons to end up not liking it. But that so many of the complaints lobbed against this film come from having a black lead makes me sad. People are also whining that there are only two white people in the entire cast, to which I reply with "How does it feel?" Because movies have so frequently done the reverse that, as with last year's Wonder Woman, having an underrepresented demographic be at the forefront is a nice change of pace.

Besides, Black Panther, judging by early box-office estimates, will have intensely high turn-outs from audiences, including audiences of colour who wouldn't otherwise see movies in theatres. Like it or not, representation matters because it means that people care. You're not simply a wingman to someone else. And given there are other groups of people than straight, white males, isn't that good?

Let's not forget, we're also getting a Captain Marvel movie next year. And a Wonder Woman 2. And I'm sure that won't be the end of it. And if you can't accept that? Well…no one's forcing you to watch these movies, right?

Really, this backlash is a lack of understanding of what it means to share. There's a reason that people are taught how to share when they're babies, as it's an important life-skill. By letting Black Panther exist, you're sharing with black filmgoers. Why's that so bad?

I guess the racist backlash will have to be shown up by opportunities for inclusive film-going. I know there's been an initiative to help students from underprivileged communities watch the film for free, and I strongly support that. Because if Iron Man and Spider-Man are allowed to be heroes in 2018, then so should Black Panther. I only hope that people realize that soon enough…

Walt Disney Revival Studios

These past few months have seen a serious shake-up. With Harvey Weinstein being stripped of the limelight following allegations of sexual assault and rape from various celebrities in Hollywood, the #MeToo movement has shed light on an onslaught of predatory behaviour in every industry out there. Notable predators include Kevin Spacey, George Takei, Mario Batali, Stan Lee, Max Landis, Roy Moore and Patrick Brown, to name a few. It appears as though some real change is happening, and it's happening fast and aggressively.

I mention this because of a video I recently watched discussing "the end of The Revival Era" for Walt Disney Animation Studios. It brought up the company's recent preference of sequels with Wreck-It Ralph 2 and Frozen 2 over original ideas, as well as the resignation of John Lasseter following his predatory behaviour. It suggested that the momentum that started with Bolt in 2008 might finally be over because of those factors. It's a cute sentiment in theory, but it doesn't hold up for a few reasons.

Let's start with the obvious: Disney's always had its ups-and-downs qualitatively. This goes back to the early days of Walt's studio, as following its first five films-Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo and Bambi-the studio was hit by the war effort and wouldn't make another real stride until Cinderella in 1950. It'd take, yet again, a hit following the financial failure of Sleeping Beauty in 1959, and would stagnate even further following the death of Walt in 1966. Even during the 90's, the studio released Pocahontas in 1995, and the latter-half of the decade never quite matched the prowess of the former-half. And let's not forget the 2000's, where most of the films that came out weren't successful critically or financially.

Basically, Disney's always been a roller-coaster of quality. If anything, a potential slump is expected, especially after 9 critical hits in a row. This isn't something to be feared, but embraced, as even the greats aren't infallible. It's a real learning opportunity. Also, given how Disney has Marvel and Star Wars to fall back on, I'm not terribly concerned.

Disney's sequels that are coming out don't concern me either. I'm actually excited for Wreck-It Ralph 2, while Frozen 2, though unnecessary, doesn't upset me in the slightest. Remember, this isn't the first time Disney's made a canonical sequel to a Disney property. Remember The Rescuers Down Under? Remember Fantasia 2000? Remember Winnie-the-Pooh? If those are well-liked, then so can these be.

Then there's Disney's near future. Disney announced plans a while back for some "original" projects, including ones based on Jack and the Beanstalk and The Princess and the Pea. They changed the names, obviously, and I doubt the films will follow their sources, as per usual, but they still look promising. And these have been in production for a while now! Disney has unique ideas, don't worry.

Finally, let's talk John Lasseter. For as much as it pains me that Lasseter's a sex offender, especially considering what he's done to rebuild Disney's image, I doubt Disney will die without him. Lasseter hasn't directed a truly great film since Toy Story 2 in 1999, let-alone a film at all since Cars 2 in 2011. He's had a ton of producing and executive producing credits, but he's never truly been active in the field for years now. And while I'll forever respect the dedication and passion he brought to the craft, he's not irreplaceable.

Besides, there are other, equally-talented individuals who deserve recognition, especially now that he's gone. These include female directors, producers, writers and animators who'd have otherwise not had a chance at fame and fortune prior, and it's high-time they got one now. I know that Brenda Chapman, Pixar's first female director, never got to truly show off what she was capable of before retiring in 2012, and she's one person! If Lasseter's accusers are to be believed, there are plenty of lost voices animation that deserve to be heard. It's merely too bad we won't get to hear them.

Don't get me wrong, Lasseter's contributions are immense: he helped Pixar kick off in the 80's and 90's. He helped CGI animation become mainstream in the mid/late-90's. He revived Walt Disney Animation Studios in the late-00's following their failures. And while he may not have been the originator of their success, he did help Studio Ghibli become well-respected by Western animation fans thanks to his friendship with Hayao Miyazaki. I'm forever thankful for all of that.

But I also have to acknowledge that he's an awful human being who's preyed on. The stuff that's been lobbed against him? That's probably not everything, especially given his tendencies to stalk women. It's like someone on my Twitter Feed stated: for every talented predator, there are a dozen, equally-talented women he's left behind. It's a serious problem, and if it means not seeing Lasseter's imprint on Disney anymore, then we'll have to live with it.

And yes, I don't think that Disney's Revival Era is over. Or, if it is, perhaps it's for the best until a wiser, less-destructive replacement comes along. Especially if it's a woman, because we don't have enough of those!