02/13/2004 Archived Entry: "Race-isms"

It is widely rumoured that the director of the upcoming Superman movie wants Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane. Seems to me that the decision to cast her wouldn't be based at all on her acting abilities (what has she been in?) at all but because she's the current pop tart it girl.

First of all, I think a movie about iconic characters, like Superman, shouldn't have to rely on the name of the stars involved but on the brand recognition alone, like Spider-Man. When you cast someone for their star power it seems that you have to catter the movie to them, often to the detriment of the film.

Second, Lois is white and Beyonce is, well, black. Seems like a sensitive issue, someone's always calling someone else a racist when this is talked about. But the point of the matter is, Lois is white. She's been white for 60 years. Granted, Lois isn't a charecter that is defined by her colour like...say...Malcolm X, but I still think making her of another race would make her fundamentally different. You can't really talk about what it means to be (or be proud of being) white without getting into some difficult territory, but you CAN talk about what it means to be black, asian, latino, etc. And for Lois to be black would mean that she would be a very different person. Some people would have us believe that everyone is the same no matter what our skin colour, but that's just not true. Different races have different values, ethics, outlooks on their surroundings, customs, experiences, whatever. While I'm certainly not opposed to seeing more racial diversity in our media, I think it's blatantly ignorant to say that someone is racist if they think that colour does matter. And you can't simply trivialize someone's background and say that we're all interchangeable, because we're not.

So in conclusion, Lois is white!

Replies: 17 comments

Let's start a petition to have them change the actress for Lois lane to a WHITE female =P. We'll address it to George W and tell him how they're wrongfully killing the superman image =P

Posted by Anonymous @ 02/13/2004 04:44 PM EST

Whoa there, cowboy. There's a difference between 'race' and 'culture'

Different races DO NOT have different values, ethics, outlooks on their surroundings, customs, experiences, etc.

You're thinking of cultures, or even sub-cultures.

(For the purposes of this discussion, I am white)

Living in suburbia in Canada tends to make people believe that it is a 'white' neighborhood. Granted, there are more white people then downtown Toronto, but there are blacks, chineese, indians, and others, and you know what? Having all grown up in the same situation, we tend to have simmilar beliefs, opinions, etc.

I prime example of the opposite is eminem. He's as white as white can be, but living in a 'black' neighbourhood (or even working with black rap people in general) gives him the same beliefs as those who were actually black in the area.

While there may be a few select differences in people's ideals due to their race*, the reality is that we are far more affected by income, growing-up experiences, and those that influence us such as family and friends.

Race has very little to do with a person's personality. It is in fact culture that creates these differences.

Oh, and to present an argument to your original point:

The big-budget trend in Hollywood right now is super-heros. You may notice that almost every single super-hero is white. There's three thoughts here:

1) As a black actor, how are you supposed to get a job if all the big-time roles are for white people?

2) As a producer of an American film, with a potential audience that has a substantial amount of black people, how can you appeal to them in order to generate more ticket sales?

3) As an artistic perspective, does it REALLY matter what colour Lois Lane is? Is there any part about the story that would have to be signifigantly altered for the movie? Even if there is such a change, would this change be any more than the usual comic-book-to-movie liberties taken with the plot?

In conclusion, there's nothing wrong with making generalizations and stereotypes, but when they are not based on truth, or can hurt others (i'm not just talking about feelings, i'm talking about 1 and 2 above), then they are best curbed.

* One thing I find interesting is that only people of European descent are inclined to drink milk and ingest other milk-based products. In fact many Asian and African people are allergic to milk products, because their make-up was never designed to eat/drink it.

Posted by anon. @ 02/13/2004 04:46 PM EST

I'll agree that Cultures would be the better word but I still believe that difference races have different experiences, etc.

A white person and a chinese person both growing up in a white neighbourhood are going to have vastly different outlooks on their surroundings, no?

I don't think Eminem and a black person from his surroundings would have the same outlook. He had to prove himself over and over to be accepted while his neighbours were just part of the group, no questions asked.

And while there are very few black super-heroes, it seems wrong to me that you would want to cast a movie simply to fill some kind race "quota". It's awefully short-sighted to think that black people would only watch movies with black people in it. A good movie is a good movie no matter the colour of the actors.

Some comics-to-movie changes are necessary (and acceptable) to make the movie more realistic (or whatever) like the x-men's uniforms. But others are just part of some inane scheme to hit certain demographics because the people behind the movie don't think that it can sell on its own merits. Those are changes that I find stupid and unnecessary.

And it's important to some people to stay faithful to the soure material. If a biography of Janet Jackson were made, could Britney be in the staring role? No, because Janet's black and Lois is white!

Posted by Rayne @ 02/13/2004 05:48 PM EST

Well Beyonce was in Goldmember, but she better not act the way she did in that movie or this one will be atrocious. Quite frankly I couldn't care less who played Lois, but i do think it strange of them to use a black woman. However, if she plays the part right she could easily come off seeming the same as a white Lois Lane. I've known a few black girls whiter than your average white female, so i don't think this is too much of a stretch. Like you said, the movie should be liked because of the comic and the story, not because of the actors involved...so if all the actors play their characters well you should like it just the same.

Posted by Mike @ 02/13/2004 06:50 PM EST

sometimes race is important to a character, sometimes ... it is not

for lois, is it really important? at first i thought, perhaps it was ... you know, stay true to the story ... the whole nostalgia thing ... actually, now that i think about it ... blair underwood would make a wonderful superman! hehehe

ok ... it's getting late and i should make a point ... hollywood blockbusters are for one thing: to make money (and hopefully be somewhat entertaining to audiences along the way .. but that has an end result of more money anyway) ... it's not about closeness to the story or anything like that .. how do you make money? by getting the "it" people to be in your movie ... so maybe beyonce is the wise choice ... i saw her act in carmen (the "hip hopera" ... there was seriously nothing else on that day and i think much played it 5 times back to back, or it felt like it at least) ... i have been fortunate enough not to see her in goldmember ... but she's a smart casting choice ... most ppl who are superman fans will see the movie regardless and this way you bring in a whole new generation ... what a smart marketing plan! (of course, i'm coming up with this whole argument while i'm rather sleepy, i could change my tune tomorrow)

Posted by melpie @ 02/14/2004 01:52 AM EST

this has nothing to do with this, i just want to complain to thai.

where the hell were you? i was looking to going out tonight! (sat 14th)

who proposes to go out to a bar at 12:30 am? you're supposed to have plans made before 10, and be doing them before 11! otherwise it's not worth it. we would've had only an hour at phil's if we'd left when you finally showed up to go.

keep this in mind for next time :P

Posted by shawnathan @ 02/15/2004 04:08 AM EST

I blame the poor planning by those i was with and the even poorer execution of the poor plans.

I also blame myself for following along with said poor planning and execution.

Posted by Rayne @ 02/15/2004 05:35 AM EST

i mean, even if you had called and said "i'm going to phil's from where i am right now, meet me there!", i would have gone

i posted in old posts :P

Posted by shawnathan @ 02/15/2004 07:24 AM EST

only an hour? who cares..it's still better than nothing. I hate the whole KW attitude that you need to go out before 11 o'clock. It's not like the bars close their doors at 11. Jeez.

Posted by Mike @ 02/15/2004 04:57 PM EST

Really you guys could have gone ahead without me and left me a note, I woulda met up with yas.

Posted by Rayne @ 02/15/2004 05:01 PM EST

I think I read in a article a while back that the official "language" association of north america, basically the people that make up words... they declared "race" not to be a word. (not as in car racing, but you know)

-Dave

Posted by Dave @ 02/15/2004 07:03 PM EST

that association has declared a ton of words to not be considered words anymore. I really don't think anyone takes it too seriously.

Posted by Mike @ 02/15/2004 10:36 PM EST

well, i think that wondering what's going on, then finally going out for only an hour is worse than deciding on something early that actually happens right then.

Posted by shawnathan @ 02/15/2004 10:42 PM EST

i think thai's right about the casting of characters in movies of a certain "brand". i think the lord of the rings was a fairly good example of that, as was x-men.

ian mckellen and elijah woods were around before that movie, but i couldn't have told you what movies they had played in. they aren't big name actors as brad pitt, tom cruise, and nicole kidman are to me. and the rest of the characters were completely unknown to me. and from this cast of unknowns emerge two new stars. the guy who played aragorn is in a new movie now, and orlando bloom seems to have become a big star, having a major role in pirates of the carribean.

x-men had patrick stewart, ian mckellen(who i don't think i realized he was also in lotr until maybe the second x-men movie...) and halle berry, but also a multitude of other unknow actors. the guy who played wlverine is in a new movie now. they should always have theses "this group of people has to go and do this", so they can fill most of the roles with unknown actors to find new talent.

Posted by shawnathan @ 02/15/2004 10:55 PM EST

lotr had lots of known actors ...
sean astin (don't you remember rudy?), elijah woods, ian mckellen (who was nominated for an oscar in 1998), the guy who plays the evil wizard ... christopher someone or else), liv tyler, viggo mortenson (that's aragorn ... he's been in movies before ... example: the perfect murder w/ michael douglas and gwyneth), the elf king guy is in the matrix ... i can't think of any of the other big ones off the top of my head ... but then again, i think that the target audience of superman and the target audience of lotr is a bit different ... kids identify with superheroes ... kids are unlikely to stay still to watch 4 hours of a classic

i think it really goes to what you're looking to make ... lotr was a reenactment of a classic series ... many of the superhero movies are a bunch of glitz and a lot of hype ... when you go for glitz and hype you go for the names on the tips of ppl's tongues ... when you're looking to make a movie of substance, you go for the good actors, whether or not ppl can remember their names ... just think, are you expecting to see superman be nominated for best picture?

Posted by melpie @ 02/16/2004 03:36 PM EST

Shawn, I think you have confused "unknown actor" with "actor's shawn doesn't know". Most of the actors in those movies were old hat to a lot of people.

Posted by Mike @ 02/16/2004 07:49 PM EST

Melpie, indeed, many had been in other movies before, they're actors, but they were far from being superstars like Beyonce. Most had been in low budget productions that didn't quite succeed.

Christopher Lee (Saruman), Liv Tyler and Ian McKellan were well known actors before lotr and played in many high budget movies, Cate Blanchett starred in Elizabeth and Hugo Weaving played agent Smith in the Matrix (which made it so odd to see him as good old Elrond in Lotr), but most of the others didn't firmly establish themselves as actors before : Viggo played villains in a few b-movies, Elijah made a pretty good drama with Kevin Costner when he was 12 years old and Sean Astin played in... Rudy. And who hear of Orlando Bloom, Dominic Monaghan (Merry) or Billy Boyd (Pippin) before? Their face are all known now, for good! Lotr's cast was nothing but brilliant, in my opinion.

What i like about this approach is that it lets you focus on the film itself instead of the actors involved. as for Superman, they probably couldn't really go without a famous actor in the lead role, because it's a one-man-movie, but they by no mean needed a Beyonce. In fact, the movie appeals less to me because of her horrible Austin Powers performance. I really don't care for the color of Lois, i just dislike when producers promote their films by using stardom instead of finding the better actors for the roles.

Posted by Étienne @ 02/17/2004 10:02 AM EST