I see your still hard at it slaying the dragons. You said exactly what I’ve been seeing. They are “pulling us out of the story” every time I watch live TV. It’s really strange and disturbing, as I was raised a color blind person. Now I see color where I never did before and it’s not a good feeling at all. Equality is out of style and we must all acknowledge everything but the white race, they are to be marginalized and put in their place. Sounds like something out of the crow era, only the rolls are reversed. How does that help us move forward together? Keep doing what you do, I love it.
I don’t think it matters one bit whether Ariel is black or white or red headed or blonde or raven haired. If she’s a great actress and pulls off the part, then great.
What stinks is governments, universities, and corporations making everything about race. Give it a rest. As a black person do you really want everything to be about your skin color? In a woke/CRT/affirmative action world you never get know if “they really like me” or if you’re just a pawn in the progressive left’s political chess game where audiences are forced to watch.
I am glad you have taken on this issue. As I have little interest or investment in the Little Mermaid, I allow that it is going to disappoint some from much younger generations than mine. I guess the question comes down to “When does some thing or person become an icon?” For me, the greater offense came at the recent version of Cyrano de Bergerac reimagined as a dwarf. Peter Dinklage is a fine actor, but his Cyrano is a travesty. Gone is the iconic nose and one of the greatest monologues of classic theater. Gone is the belief that Cyrano is a phenomenal swordsman who could vanquish a small army (and by that I mean small in numbers). As others have suggested, better to write a new character for Mr. Dinklage, whose success in Game of Thrones does not earn him a carte blanche to assay any role.
If you read Clarence Thomas autobiography, he makes it clear that when he was at college many people thought he was there because affirmative action got him there. He proved what he could do and how intelligent he was. He wouldn’t have had to suffer through that had there been no affirmative action, but only being accepted to college on merit. Great article Leonydus!
Everything in this article was excellent but this part really stood out to me, "What we, as a society, have done to our children is made their skin color central to their worldview. It has become the lens through which they view everything. How can you possibly hope to rid the world of racism while simultaneously encouraging children to make race the most important aspect of who they are?" In 50'ish years (God, I hope it doesn't take that long though), how will the next generation view what we are currently doing to children today? My guess is we'll be judged as harshly as we are judging figures of the past.
As for Hollywood, I knew the plot was lost when Will Smith was criticized for being cast as Richard Williams because he wasn't black enough.
WOW, you make so much sense, I found myself wanting to save quotes from your writing for my use in making points. Thank you for being so clear in your expressing yourself. I find myself in agreement with you way more than not, but even if it were the other way I would commend your writing and pray that you continue to write. I want to follow you! God bless and keep you!
I very much liked this article. Thank you Mr Johnson for writing such a sensitive and well reasoned discussion of this. I am not sure if you hinted at it or if I read into your words: many of these decisions seem to be gimmicks to stir up controversy in order to sell tickets. The movie isn't out yet and already there is controversy over the casting - and we're not even talking about who is cast as Batman!
I cannot count the number of past movies which were labelled 'controversial' and did well in the box office only to be forgotten later. Some movies, such as _Passion of the Christ_, may have even fabricated protests to create a sense of controversy - that movie wasn't going to make money based on its merits.
I am a cynic. I have long felt Hollywood executives know that college-educated folks can be manipulated into buying inferior products by attaching them to a fashionable cause - even if a product is bad folks will proudly hand over their dollars to show support for the cause. (In truth, all corporations know this - when the cause is environmentalism we call it 'greenwashing'). What is more, attaching a movie to a popular cause keeps critics from being too harsh since they don't want to be accused of being against the popular cause.
You may ask why would Disney want/need to fan the flames of controversy on this, yet another, live action remake of a beloved cartoon? Well, Disney's remakes have not all been huge blockbusters and they need to recoup their investment. A slew of news stories about white supremacists hating this movie - this unreleased movie - will spur some to go see it. Some anti-racists may go see it multiple times just to make a point to the white supremacists - and Disney will laugh all the way to the bank.
A great article, brilliantly written, and I agree on almost everything. I too want a society where skin colour is as important as hair colour, so when it comes to almost every job, hiring should be a colourblind process. With casting, however, most stories take place in a specific time and place, which means that there is going to be more or less an accurate or inaccurate way of casting for these stories. With Lord of the Rings, for example, it doesn't make sense to have a cast as racially diverse as e.g. 21st Century New York City in a European inspired world which fits homogoneity better than diversity.
That's where colour blindness has to end - when you sacrifice authenticty for a drive for representation.
I would love to see more stories set in different times and places which would naturally feature casts that aren't white, but deliberately changing a character's ethnicity, especially a character as iconic as Ariel, is, as you say, insulting.
I could not disagree more with this article. The point of a colorblind society is that anyone can play any character. That's why it's called acting. I think it only feels political to you because of our historical moment. Did you object to Will Smith playing the Genie in the real-life Aladdin? If black people aren't allowed to play "white" fictional mermaids (!), what about historical figures, such as Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson? Because of America's racist past, most characters (fictional or real) are white. How do we reflect our multicultural society today if all white and previously-played-as-white characters are reserved for white actors? In my opinion, fiction is how we move forward to imagine the world as we want to see it. I want to live in a world where darker skinned humans (and females) are randomly distributed throughout the various professions and economic spectrum *without* affirmative action.
Leonydus,
I see your still hard at it slaying the dragons. You said exactly what I’ve been seeing. They are “pulling us out of the story” every time I watch live TV. It’s really strange and disturbing, as I was raised a color blind person. Now I see color where I never did before and it’s not a good feeling at all. Equality is out of style and we must all acknowledge everything but the white race, they are to be marginalized and put in their place. Sounds like something out of the crow era, only the rolls are reversed. How does that help us move forward together? Keep doing what you do, I love it.
I don’t think it matters one bit whether Ariel is black or white or red headed or blonde or raven haired. If she’s a great actress and pulls off the part, then great.
What stinks is governments, universities, and corporations making everything about race. Give it a rest. As a black person do you really want everything to be about your skin color? In a woke/CRT/affirmative action world you never get know if “they really like me” or if you’re just a pawn in the progressive left’s political chess game where audiences are forced to watch.
Very thoughtful, well-reasoned commentary that made sense to me. Thank you, Leonydus,!
I am glad you have taken on this issue. As I have little interest or investment in the Little Mermaid, I allow that it is going to disappoint some from much younger generations than mine. I guess the question comes down to “When does some thing or person become an icon?” For me, the greater offense came at the recent version of Cyrano de Bergerac reimagined as a dwarf. Peter Dinklage is a fine actor, but his Cyrano is a travesty. Gone is the iconic nose and one of the greatest monologues of classic theater. Gone is the belief that Cyrano is a phenomenal swordsman who could vanquish a small army (and by that I mean small in numbers). As others have suggested, better to write a new character for Mr. Dinklage, whose success in Game of Thrones does not earn him a carte blanche to assay any role.
If you read Clarence Thomas autobiography, he makes it clear that when he was at college many people thought he was there because affirmative action got him there. He proved what he could do and how intelligent he was. He wouldn’t have had to suffer through that had there been no affirmative action, but only being accepted to college on merit. Great article Leonydus!
Everything in this article was excellent but this part really stood out to me, "What we, as a society, have done to our children is made their skin color central to their worldview. It has become the lens through which they view everything. How can you possibly hope to rid the world of racism while simultaneously encouraging children to make race the most important aspect of who they are?" In 50'ish years (God, I hope it doesn't take that long though), how will the next generation view what we are currently doing to children today? My guess is we'll be judged as harshly as we are judging figures of the past.
As for Hollywood, I knew the plot was lost when Will Smith was criticized for being cast as Richard Williams because he wasn't black enough.
WOW, you make so much sense, I found myself wanting to save quotes from your writing for my use in making points. Thank you for being so clear in your expressing yourself. I find myself in agreement with you way more than not, but even if it were the other way I would commend your writing and pray that you continue to write. I want to follow you! God bless and keep you!
I very much liked this article. Thank you Mr Johnson for writing such a sensitive and well reasoned discussion of this. I am not sure if you hinted at it or if I read into your words: many of these decisions seem to be gimmicks to stir up controversy in order to sell tickets. The movie isn't out yet and already there is controversy over the casting - and we're not even talking about who is cast as Batman!
I cannot count the number of past movies which were labelled 'controversial' and did well in the box office only to be forgotten later. Some movies, such as _Passion of the Christ_, may have even fabricated protests to create a sense of controversy - that movie wasn't going to make money based on its merits.
I am a cynic. I have long felt Hollywood executives know that college-educated folks can be manipulated into buying inferior products by attaching them to a fashionable cause - even if a product is bad folks will proudly hand over their dollars to show support for the cause. (In truth, all corporations know this - when the cause is environmentalism we call it 'greenwashing'). What is more, attaching a movie to a popular cause keeps critics from being too harsh since they don't want to be accused of being against the popular cause.
You may ask why would Disney want/need to fan the flames of controversy on this, yet another, live action remake of a beloved cartoon? Well, Disney's remakes have not all been huge blockbusters and they need to recoup their investment. A slew of news stories about white supremacists hating this movie - this unreleased movie - will spur some to go see it. Some anti-racists may go see it multiple times just to make a point to the white supremacists - and Disney will laugh all the way to the bank.
A great article, brilliantly written, and I agree on almost everything. I too want a society where skin colour is as important as hair colour, so when it comes to almost every job, hiring should be a colourblind process. With casting, however, most stories take place in a specific time and place, which means that there is going to be more or less an accurate or inaccurate way of casting for these stories. With Lord of the Rings, for example, it doesn't make sense to have a cast as racially diverse as e.g. 21st Century New York City in a European inspired world which fits homogoneity better than diversity.
That's where colour blindness has to end - when you sacrifice authenticty for a drive for representation.
I would love to see more stories set in different times and places which would naturally feature casts that aren't white, but deliberately changing a character's ethnicity, especially a character as iconic as Ariel, is, as you say, insulting.
I could not disagree more with this article. The point of a colorblind society is that anyone can play any character. That's why it's called acting. I think it only feels political to you because of our historical moment. Did you object to Will Smith playing the Genie in the real-life Aladdin? If black people aren't allowed to play "white" fictional mermaids (!), what about historical figures, such as Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson? Because of America's racist past, most characters (fictional or real) are white. How do we reflect our multicultural society today if all white and previously-played-as-white characters are reserved for white actors? In my opinion, fiction is how we move forward to imagine the world as we want to see it. I want to live in a world where darker skinned humans (and females) are randomly distributed throughout the various professions and economic spectrum *without* affirmative action.