Written By: Melody Hou
Introduction
After being exposed to decades of whitewashed media, the ‘woke’ generation’s cry for a more inclusive and diverse society has finally been reflected in recent films and television shows. Despite producers’ efforts to showcase an awareness towards the underrepresentation of minorities, the judgment from critics remains uninterrupted; the most prominent being accusations of forced representation. Aside from calling out numerous producers, this problematic approach has also sparked intense online discussions relating to the right and wrong ways of inclusion. The question is: should all filmmakers be credited and praised simply for the inclusion of characters who come from a racial minority or is there a positive and negative way of representation?
Recent examples
With the protagonist being a mythical creature living in a world under the sea, there is no doubt that The Little Mermaid lies within a fictional setting. However the recent live-action adaptation of the story has given rise to intense arguments regarding diversity in the filmmaking industry for featuring Halle Bailey, an actress of African-American descent, as Ariel. The Little Mermaid has always been famously recognized for her red hair and blue eyes; so it seemed almost inevitable that the fanbase expressed discontent upon seeing the actress’ orangish-red locs and dark eyes. Although the backlash has mostly been dismissed as racist, some continue to argue that their viewpoint does not originate from a discriminatory perspective. Many movies and television shows such as Frozen II and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power have faced similar criticism over the past years. With the knowledge that such debate has been repeated over and over by fans of multiple franchises, it seems logical to explore unconventional perspectives and perhaps think beyond the racist accusations.
Diversity for diversity’s sake. What is it?
The main argument against racebending (altering the race or ethnicity of a character) in the filmmaking industry is that it is an act of forced diversity. Put in simple terms, it is a form of false representation where diverse characters are only there to fulfill the desire for inclusion of minorities. In many instances, this results in the creation of African-American, Hispanic or Asian characters who possess distinctively ‘white’ characteristics. The term ‘diversity for the sake of diversity’ condemns the industry for its halfhearted attempts to represent minorities by forcing actors of this background into roles meant to be played by caucasian actors.
The fine line between positive inclusion and forced representation
To frown upon forced diversity is not to discredit all shows and movies with a culturally diverse cast. The issue lies not in the filmmaking industry’s desire to represent minorities, but in their ways of doing so. When race is not the defining trait of a character, inclusion can be beneficial, as it is supposed to be. The deliberate choice to create characters whose sole personality is their ethnicity is rather pathetic as it enforces false stereotypes which ultimately become more harmful than a lack of representation.
Positive inclusion and representation
One example of positive inclusion is shown in Grey’s anatomy. Producer Shonda Rhimes adopts a system of blind casting, where race is not written into the script, in order to create inclusion and eliminate tokenism (where figures of under-represented groups are recruited to give the appearance of racial equality within a workforce). The racial and cultural diversity in Grey’s anatomy was not created for the sake of marketing; it was simply the result of equality in the casting process. The call for inclusion and representation in modern day media is not a call for minorities to be raised to a high ground, but for them to have the same opportunities as the majorities.
Instead of racebending characters with pre-existing cultural backgrounds, film writers should create roles which accurately reflect racial minorities. Examples include movies such as Soul, where African-American culture is represented through jazz improvisation music and African-American characters, and Coco, where Mexican tradition is celebrated through Spanish-speaking characters and the Mexican holiday: Día de Muertos. Although some may say that movies like these enforce racial stereotypes, others believe that the various emotions portrayed showcases the personalities of different social groups. These factors make ethnic minorities more human, thereby allowing people to see beyond race and understand that it should not divide society. It takes the first step towards positive inclusion as it eliminates the sense of alienation between different cultures.
Issues with forced representation
The question still stands: is all representation positive inclusion? At first glance, forced representation may seem rather harmless; so what if the character is black? The script, plot and personalities of the movie and characters remain the same, should that not mean the quality of the movie remains unchanged? Though some may agree with this perspective, others argue that forced representation poses three vastly different but equally significant issues: tokenism, misrepresentation and plausibility.
a) Tokenism
Let us turn back to The Little Mermaid’s live action adaptation. To some, the argument of personality and moral values being prioritized over race may still apply in this instance. However, others argue that Disney has drawn unnecessary attention to the representation of different ethnicities, thereby diverting focus from the moral values conveyed in the movie. Given that the story is completely fictional, the main issue is not false representation, but tokenism in the industry. It seems almost inevitable that some suspect this to be the dominant reason for the director’s decision as there was no apparent reason for racebending the character. Although one cannot say with certainty that this was the intention behind the choice, the use of the cast as a marketing tool has shown some degree of validity in this argument.
b) Misrepresentation
On the other hand, the controversy that arises when directors cast figures of ethnic minorities as caucasian characters introduces a completely different issue. In the case of Frozen II, a movie inspired by nineteenth-century Scandinavia, the appearance of Lieutenant Mattias: a character with African ancestry, seemed rather out of place to some as there were supposedly no Black people in Scandinavia at the time. Given the cultural background of the movie, some believe that this was forced diversity as there was no genuine representation of the Lieutenant’s background. It appeared as though Disney simply wanted to check a box in order to appease those of the ‘woke’ community. The fact that the movie merely showcased the superficial characteristics of an African character fueled the rise of discussions regarding whether racebending was necessary. Having a character from an ethnic minority portray the role of a ‘white’ figure can trigger misunderstandings of their culture, thereby instigating misrepresentation.
c) Hinders plausibility
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, a new television series also received backlash for casting actors and actresses of African descent to play elves and dwarves. Despite the trilogy being largely fictional, fanatics of the series were still keen to debate upon the casting decisions as The Lord of the Rings was ‘an ancient mythology created specifically for England.’ This discussion differentiates from previous cases as the show exists on the borderline between realism and fantasy. Aside from the possibility of tokenism, some say that the cast hinders the plausibility of the plot, making the series less enjoyable.
Conclusion
Although the opinions on this topic remains divided and a resolution has yet to be made, producers are sure to be more careful when casting future roles. There are many alternative perspectives proposed; some claiming forced diversity to be a myth created by those who are overly sensitive to modern day issues. Some accusations are so morally gray that it is difficult for anyone to suggest an alternative perspective without appearing too controversial themselves. But who is to decide what is right or wrong?
Comments