racism in hollywood - and how far it has come.

do you see wat i'm saying?

  • yes i see wat you're saying

  • i don't agree with you, but i understand you.

  • no and this thread is bollocks.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Wait, so are people saying that if Bollywood, Nollywood, Japanese or South American movies aren't ethnically diverse they're also racist, or does it only apply if Hollywood doesn't insist on multicultural casts?

Genuine question.

Well those countries film industries primarily make movies for their domestic audience which is a mostly homogeneous.

Hollywood makes movies for a global audience. These days in particular they make movies that they hope to make a profit overseas.
 
Last edited:
It mainly applies to Hollywood because it exists in a much more cosmopolitan country. There's over 50 million Latinos, 38 million black people, and 14 million Asians in the US alone. That's a lot of people noticing they're not featured in movies very often, especially as main characters.

As you're aware, Bollywood has a huge bias against actors with dark skin. It's not without its own faults.

I can't really comment on Nigeria or Japan's film industries because I honestly know next to nothing about them.

In which case Latin Americans should feel a lot more peripheral than African Americans, no? An issue I have with this topic is that it's not really focused on equal discussion, but a lot of time is being dedicated to the black/white dynamic. People keep talking about Human Torch being black now, or what would people say if you wanted to make Shaft white.

There's a focus on two races in America, and ironically the people clamoring for more of one race's inclusion are erasing the relevance of other non-white races quite casually.

At the risk of being flamed, my other problem with people having issues with "white Hollywood" is that they're essentially saying "Hey, you know those greedy whites in Hollywood, they need to make more movies for [Insert non-white/male/Christian demographic here]!". Instead, shouldn't people be saying: "Hey, we need more Hispanic/African-American/Asian/LGBT/Muslim/Buddhist/Etc directors/script-writers/cinematographers/producers/Etc in Hollywood". I find it a little odd when the same people that some folks want removed from movies fall under the demographics of the people who they want to make those movies. Just seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

As a small caveat, I find it kind of sad that going through this topic almost every post is related to a white/black dynamic, which is ironic considering there are more Hispanics in America than African Americans. So who does Hollywood actually not care about?

Latin American countries have a problem with "lighter" skinned Latinos as well. How many novelas do you see fronted by darker skinned Latino/as? They usually only play servants or secondary cast.

I'm not sure pointing out other countries bias in how they portray themselves does anything more than show that societies do this for a very ugly reason. Hollywood included.

I'm just broadening the topic a little. Erasure in general is bad. I merely pointed out that "Hollywood" isn't racist, all of film making is.

Well those countries film industries primarily make movies for their domestic audience which is a mostly homogeneous.

Hollywood makes movies for a global audience. These days in particular they make movies that they hope to make a profit overseas.

That's a fair point, but their main demographic, depending on the movie is going to be the Western market quite frequently. I'm also wondering what people want more specifically. Do they want aggregate representation in film to go up, or is it that they want more representation in blockbusters? I mean a film like Nightcrawler was made for under $10m, and there are enough non-white film makers and talented actors to put high quality films together, is that something people would like? Or is it more a case of every main character in the next Transformers should be non-white and that would satisfy people? I'm just trying to flesh out what exactly people would see as an improvement.
 
I agree that there should be more minority filmmakers. The lack of diversity in filmmakers is definitely a problem plaguing Hollywood as well. I think this topic just happened to be more actor/actress-centric in its discussion.
 
I agree that there should be more minority filmmakers. The lack of diversity in filmmakers is definitely a problem plaguing Hollywood as well. I think this topic just happened to be more actor/actress-centric in its discussion.

Fair point. Which may be part of the problem I suppose. I mean if all is equal then the director's of the Twilight movies (or Stephanie Meyer?) are equally racist as Tyler Perry for having such homogenous casts? Except I don't really believe that, I don't have a problem with anyone from a certain demographic telling stories that consist of people they have encountered or feel most comfortable with. It isn't a problem if Tyler Perry wants to do movies with homogenous black casts if that's what he's comfortable with and knows best, why should he be forced to tell stories with characters he may not feel a close affiliation with? But at the same time people shouldn't really be able to go after white directors telling them they're racist for not being more diverse. Is Martin Scorsese racist then, or is he just making movies because they're about topics that resonate with him personally and it's what he knows?

I'm not saying big Hollywood isn't racist, it definitely is. But instead of demanding more representativity from whites, I think it would be more productive for people to encourage individuals from all demographics to get involved in film making if diversity is what people are after. People tell stories they know, the more diverse the set of craftsmen in the film world, the more diverse the films will be.

Considering how accessible technology and expertise is nowadays in comparison to like 25 years ago, nobody should complain that films don't represent their lives. If that's the issue, get involved.
 
That all sound inherently racist.

It's not racism...it's just demographics. Oppression by non representation is racism. Hollywood has come a long way definitely from what was definite racism back in the early 1900's with black face and derogatory lampooning. The complaints today are about not enough representation concerning certain minorities. It's not racism, it's demographics. There are a lot of leading black men and women in Hollywood. I don't think African Americans are under-represented in Hollywood. You aren't going to see a $200 million dollar movie about two Polynesian superheroes in the US because of demographics. The studios have to make a profit. That's not a reflection of racism against Polynesians. Women and minorities have come a long way in Hollywood. If any group has had and still has a hard battle it's the gay community. They are wholly under-represented in Hollywood today. Are there still racist producers in Hollywood? Yes. There will always be some racism everywhere.
 
Wait, so are people saying that if Bollywood, Nollywood, Japanese or South American movies aren't ethnically diverse they're also racist, or does it only apply if Hollywood doesn't insist on multicultural casts?

Genuine question.

To be fair, all those film industries have their own problems with race.
 
Well those countries film industries primarily make movies for their domestic audience which is a mostly homogeneous.

Hollywood makes movies for a global audience. These days in particular they make movies that they hope to make a profit overseas.

You are seeing that more and more today as the WW market opens up more. Hollywood is starting to cater to more and more people. That will continually change. If China opens up a bigger market, you bet more and more Chinese actors will be in more movies...it's already happening. Hollywood has to make a profit. There is a difference between catering to an audience and being racist.
 
It's not racism...it's just demographics. Oppression by non representation is racism. Hollywood has come a long way definitely from what was definite racism back in the early 1900's with black face and derogatory lampooning. The complaints today are about not enough representation concerning certain minorities. It's not racism, it's demographics. There are a lot of leading black men and women in Hollywood. I don't think African Americans are under-represented in Hollywood. You aren't going to see a $200 million dollar movie about two Polynesian superheroes in the US because of demographics. The studios have to make a profit. That's not a reflection of racism against Polynesians. Women and minorities have come a long way in Hollywood. If any group has had and still has a hard battle it's the gay community. They are wholly under-represented in Hollywood today. Are there still racist producers in Hollywood? Yes. There will always be some racism everywhere.

Then by your own definition it still racism. The tactics just changed. Representation means many things. The first AA Oscar winner was Hattie McDaniels as a maid and 70 plus years later our last 2 of 5 are female Oscar winners were as a maid and a slave.

The types of roles and who is green lighting them is part of the representation.

Demographics don't mean as much unless the people in charge say they do. Hollywood decided that summer blockbusters only made money if men 18-25 went to them. That wasn't demos cause Twilight is a blockbuster without that demo and Hollywood only acknowledged it after it happened. Women have been going to movies more and are more of the population for quite some time. Hollywood isn't following the demographics of it's audience.
 
People say why don't minorities make their own movies to cater to their own race and the reason is because it is very difficult.

Just listen to the actors, directors and producers who made movies like Selma or Hotel Rwanda or Love and Basketball talk about the hard time they had getting studios to back them or raise finances to make the film or get one of the major studios to distribute the film.

Director Gina Prince-Bythewood had studios flat out tell her they won't back her movie Love and Basketball because it has two black leads.

“Selma” Star David Oyelowo on Being a Black Actor in Hollywood (Dec. 29, 2014) | Charlie Rose

[YT]/e6rACq-91W8[/YT]

David Oyelowo intelligently explains his view.
 
Last edited:
I work in Hollywood. Nobody big but enough to know that what chaseter is saying is a little..naive.
 
Humans are attracted to tan complexions. Not too pale, not too dark. Something in the middle. Even white actors are lathered up in makeup and tone altering camera tricks.

Men don't come under the same kind of scrutiny. We can be rugged, muddy, disheveled, and that is still deemed desirable by audiences. He's a "tough guy" or whatever. There is a huge double standard when it comes to men and women in that department.

This is a human wiring problem. We are attracted to tan yet fair complexions. Bollywood has produced how many Miss Universes? White actresses are aided by makeup and lighting. Completely pale or white is not attractive. They need makeup to look good. That's what male audiences are going to pay for.

I mean look at Lupita Nyong who commented on this issue. She looked gorgeous at the Oscars, but not really attractive as a slave in a period piece. This is the double standard I'm referring too. Nobody complains about Djimon Hounsou getting type cast (he continues to get good, diverse work for his ability), but as a female actress, you just happen to be an ugly slave in a slave movie and that's all you can do. The performance gets lost because that's what people immediately associate Lupita as when she steps onto the screen as a slave.

The fact that Lupita isn't getting featured roles is telling that Hollywood sees her as a type cast. Is she talented? Or are those the only roles she can excel at? We may never know...
 
Last edited:
Then by your own definition it still racism. The tactics just changed. Representation means many things. The first AA Oscar winner was Hattie McDaniels as a maid and 70 plus years later our last 2 of 5 are female Oscar winners were as a maid and a slave.

The types of roles and who is green lighting them is part of the representation.

Demographics don't mean as much unless the people in charge say they do. Hollywood decided that summer blockbusters only made money if men 18-25 went to them. That wasn't demos cause Twilight is a blockbuster without that demo and Hollywood only acknowledged it after it happened. Women have been going to movies more and are more of the population for quite some time. Hollywood isn't following the demographics of it's audience.

Firstly, if you are implying the Oscar selection is racist then those people don't have to take those roles. If winning an Oscar by being a maid is covert racism then why didn't the actress turn down the role? That's silly. They are period pieces.

Women are on the up and up I agree, I mentioned that a few pages back that if you want to cry foul about racist Hollywood, well it's also sexist Hollywood, ageist Hollywood, and homophobic Hollywood. I would go that far. This thread is about racism in Hollywood...which I think isnt nearly as pandemic as it was 40 years ago. Does it still happen? Yes. There will always be some instances. Is it large? No, not in my opinion...because of demographics.
 
David explains it so well. Beautifully.

He also stars in a movie that vilifies a white proponent of civil rights to make a movie better sell to a demographic. Changing history...talk about racism.
 
People say why don't minorities make their own movies to cater to their own race and the reason is because it is very difficult.

Just listen to the actors, directors and producers who made movies like Selma or Hotel Rwanda or Love and Basketball talk about the hard time they had getting studios to back them or raise finances to make the film or get one of the major studios to distribute the film.

Director Gina Prince-Bythewood had studios flat out tell her they won't back her movie Love and Basketball because it has two black leads.

“Selma” Star David Oyelowo on Being a Black Actor in Hollywood (Dec. 29, 2014) | Charlie Rose

[YT]/e6rACq-91W8[/YT]

David Oyelowo intelligently explains his view.

Oprah is worth 3 billion. I'm sure she can fund 100-200 million out of her own pocket and start a production company making good well acted movies with black themes instead of a tyler Perry or wayans brothers crap fest

Edit :
Also as a dutch indian , it pisses me off that Anil Ambani has a joint venture worth 825 million with Steven Spielberg yet money isnt spend on projects such a the rayaman of the mahabharat ( two of the most important religious works in hinduism...) and instead the money is spend on the same hollywood properties which basically can be funded with any other production company.
 
Last edited:
She already does.

Her production company is Harpo Films, Inc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpo_Productions

If that is the case why the complaints ?
This isn't a 100 million blockbuster and even if it is it's still money Oprah can afford IMO.
C'mon 20 million budget and there are still complains about not being able fund this movie :huh:

IF this was a problem with distribution and or looking at other non-black ( if that is the right word) production companies to fund this moviei can understand that but that's not a problem here. I mean studios will gladly release movies where they basically haven't spend a dime on
 
Last edited:
Humans are attracted to tan complexions. Not too pale, not too dark.
Actually both extremes; goth milky pale Elvira Lucrezia types and darker than Lupita or Alek Wek Sudanese inky black are super sexy!:hubba
 
Last edited:
If that is the case why the complaints ?
This isn't a 100 million blockbuster and even if it is it's still money Oprah can afford IMO.
C'mon 20 million budget and there are still complains about not being able fund this movie :huh:

IF this was a problem with distribution and or looking at other non-black ( if that is the right word) production companies to fund this moviei can understand that but that's not a problem here. I mean studios will gladly release movies where they basically haven't spend a dime on

The film division of her company, Harpo Films, shut down in 2013.
 
It makes me sad that minority filmmakers STILL have a hard time in Hollywood. As a young black aspiring filmmaker, its kinda depressing to know that if I did make it, I would have to struggle to get the movies I wanted made.
 
so what if we flipped the scenario and had a character from literature that was written to be black, made white on screen. how would everyone feel about making lucious fox white?

I'd be pretty pissed. But seeing as how those two acts are not comparable, as non-whites are criminally underrepresented in popular media and that's the whole rational behind changing the race of a character, I also don't think it's worth bringing up.
 
I'd be pretty pissed. But seeing as how those two acts are not comparable, as non-whites are criminally underrepresented in popular media and that's the whole rational behind changing the race of a character, I also don't think it's worth bringing up.
well that was one of the original points of this thread. non-whites are underrepresented yes, but black characters and actors have made much more progress and I'd say at this point, on par or on the same level as the white of Hollywood. So when a white character is changed to black *just* for the sake of diversity I say it is unnecessary but if they HAD to just do it for the sake of diversity then why not pick an Asian, or brown, or latino, or Native American, or some other underrepresented non white, unknown actors?

Every time they change a white character to a non white, it is almost always changed into a black character. I can't think of a single case otherwise. One that comes to mind is Yinsen from IM1, but that character's ethnicity was changed because the movie was meant to be contemporary.
 
well that was one of the original points of this thread. non-whites are underrepresented yes, but black characters and actors have made much more progress and I'd say at this point, on par or on the same level as the white of Hollywood. So when a white character is changed to black *just* for the sake of diversity I say it is unnecessary but if they HAD to just do it for the sake of diversity then why not pick an Asian, or brown, or latino, or Native American, or some other underrepresented non white, unknown actors?

Every time they change a white character to a non white, it is almost always changed into a black character. I can't think of a single case otherwise. One that comes to mind is Yinsen from IM1, but that character's ethnicity was changed because the movie was meant to be contemporary.

I can think of a few examples, but you are right. The lack of representation for non-black minorities (and their struggles in general) are less noticed.

It still doesn't invalidate the practice of changing the race of a traditionally white character. If anything, it makes that practice more necessary.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,266
Messages
22,075,101
Members
45,875
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"