The topic is huge, of course, and in my post I was trying to stick with that the film addressed. But you're right; this comes into play whenever race or ethnicity is depicted. I remember a class about 1920's film where we looked at the spectrum actors of color were forced to place themselves on: white actors could "stoop" to playing Native Americans or Asians (I'm talking about "serious" films not minstrelsy, which is related but a whole other topic) while black actors could attempt to "pass" as Native Americans to get jobs. The point is that everyone was allowed to try for the ethnicity that was "next to them" on some scale created for filmic representation. If that makes sense.
Then there's mixed race or films about passing, like in Pinky where god forbid we have an African American actress playing an African American who passes as white! Which on top of being racist (and uninspired) casting, adds something to the monologue Hollywood creates about What Race Is. What people look like. Are we training people not to tell the difference between an Iraqi and an Indian? (Reading this over, it makes me uncomfortable because it implies I want a chart or something so there's no confusion and everyone can go sit in their little box.)
I think that you can also include the older films like Lawrence of Arabia in your discussion of this topic...
The reason I think LoA was left out of this documentary is that I believe it's too complicated to be summed up as one in a barrage of clips. While the actors portraying the majority of the (speaking) Arabs are non-Arab, there are so many mitigating factors (the difficulty of actually getting English-speaking Arab actors at that time, for instance) that I don't think there's an easy answer about that film. On top of that, and I might be delusional, what I see in that film doesn't contain a lot of stereotypes other than Quinn's false nose; from what I've read the infighting of the Bedu and the difficulties of organizing isn't exactly an exaggeration. My parents lived in Arabia when I was a baby, too. And I find Sharif such a compelling figure that I see respect in the portrayal (which I do too in Guinness' Feisal, though that's fraught with his whiteness. I still think he did the best he could). But I don't always feel comfortable discussing this, as someone whose only potential stereotype is the ditzy blonde. I'm sure I'm not seeing things the way someone else might.
We're talking the spectrum from Valentino's Sheik to Alec Guinness in LofA to, say, Art Malik in True Lies.
But this is an excellent point; I see this particular spectrum as ranging from one Other (Latino) playing another (more acceptable? sexy?) type of stereotyped Other; to an attempt to play Arab straight but miscast (or, alternately, the only way to play an honorable Arab is by casting a white man); to casting someone decidedly different looking from both "the generic American" and "the Middle Easterner who might get mistaken for generic American" to be "properly othered." Which, of course, is also a trend darker.
As for the The Brave One question, I think we (I'm not sure who "we" is in this sentence) might be trained to remark upon "white woman with non-white man" more than anything else. My household just had a conversation about what trends one could see in a modern high school--what ethnicities could hook up without comment. There seems to be a complicated system, rather like the old Hollywood White--Native American/Asian--African American continuum, where movement is one stop in either direction. Again, "without comment." I'd say the Andrews/Foster relationship would be meant to stick out if he's Middle Eastern (because of the contemporary political issues), but not if he's Indian. That's just my sense. If he was black, the movie would be about him being black and her being white.
Sorry if the above is convoluted. I'm going to go read your essay now; thanks for joining the conversation!
no subject
Then there's mixed race or films about passing, like in Pinky where god forbid we have an African American actress playing an African American who passes as white! Which on top of being racist (and uninspired) casting, adds something to the monologue Hollywood creates about What Race Is. What people look like. Are we training people not to tell the difference between an Iraqi and an Indian? (Reading this over, it makes me uncomfortable because it implies I want a chart or something so there's no confusion and everyone can go sit in their little box.)
I think that you can also include the older films like Lawrence of Arabia in your discussion of this topic...
The reason I think LoA was left out of this documentary is that I believe it's too complicated to be summed up as one in a barrage of clips. While the actors portraying the majority of the (speaking) Arabs are non-Arab, there are so many mitigating factors (the difficulty of actually getting English-speaking Arab actors at that time, for instance) that I don't think there's an easy answer about that film. On top of that, and I might be delusional, what I see in that film doesn't contain a lot of stereotypes other than Quinn's false nose; from what I've read the infighting of the Bedu and the difficulties of organizing isn't exactly an exaggeration. My parents lived in Arabia when I was a baby, too. And I find Sharif such a compelling figure that I see respect in the portrayal (which I do too in Guinness' Feisal, though that's fraught with his whiteness. I still think he did the best he could). But I don't always feel comfortable discussing this, as someone whose only potential stereotype is the ditzy blonde. I'm sure I'm not seeing things the way someone else might.
We're talking the spectrum from Valentino's Sheik to Alec Guinness in LofA to, say, Art Malik in True Lies.
But this is an excellent point; I see this particular spectrum as ranging from one Other (Latino) playing another (more acceptable? sexy?) type of stereotyped Other; to an attempt to play Arab straight but miscast (or, alternately, the only way to play an honorable Arab is by casting a white man); to casting someone decidedly different looking from both "the generic American" and "the Middle Easterner who might get mistaken for generic American" to be "properly othered." Which, of course, is also a trend darker.
As for the The Brave One question, I think we (I'm not sure who "we" is in this sentence) might be trained to remark upon "white woman with non-white man" more than anything else. My household just had a conversation about what trends one could see in a modern high school--what ethnicities could hook up without comment. There seems to be a complicated system, rather like the old Hollywood White--Native American/Asian--African American continuum, where movement is one stop in either direction. Again, "without comment." I'd say the Andrews/Foster relationship would be meant to stick out if he's Middle Eastern (because of the contemporary political issues), but not if he's Indian. That's just my sense. If he was black, the movie would be about him being black and her being white.
Sorry if the above is convoluted. I'm going to go read your essay now; thanks for joining the conversation!