'Hitch' Battled Race Issue (http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-02-25/)
Eva Mendes was cast as Will Smith's love interest in new movie Hitch to avoid upsetting race groups. Movie bosses feared handing Smith a black leading lady would alienate white audiences and a white actress would upset African American film-goers - so they settled on a latina. Smith explains, "There's sort of an accepted myth that if you have two black actors, a male and a female, in the lead of a romantic comedy, that people around the world don't want to see it We spend $50-something million making this movie and the studio would think that was tough on their investment. So the idea of a black actor and a white actress comes up — that'll work around the world, but it's a problem in the US."

I can't believe people are still this stupid, and still need to be considered.

I can't believe people are still this stupid, and still need to be considered.

i hope that its the failure of the studios to judge contemporary society values, and really hope they have not got it right.
i feel your pain Cinematography.
I just hope that everyone else is reading this (about Hitch) thinks how stupid it is too and not an accurate reflection of their society.

*SIGGGHHHH*

I think Clive's 'Constantine' thread hit the nail on the head. Hollywood 'professionals' taking it to the max, literally : "ah, middle America, that would be...what, somewhere in ......

The geographical center of the lower 48 states lies outside of Lebanon, Kansas, in the middle of a hog farm.

Marketing 'professional's' belief as to 'who' occupies middle American hog farm......"Well Hell, that would just HAVE to be a hillbilly, a mooncalf to be sure. Hmmm, now, what does an unsophisticated ma-roooooooon want to see on the silver screen ?"

I don't know, to be honest, I think if Vivica A. Fox was cast as the romantic lead, the film would be percieved to be a "black" film by some people and may be disregarded as "not for them." I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but when there's money on the line, Hollywood will most always play it safe -- especially with a movie like "Hitch," which doesn't pretend to be an artistic triumph and has high profits expected of it.

Its very apparent in the way they market and advertise these movies, they ads are so "in your face" or make the movie look exciting or scary or dangerous, when the ads are just misleading on the content. It really drives me crazy watching some of these ads - thinking OMG they did not just spend Millions of dollars to both Make and promote this movie. One movie in particular was the movie "snow Dogs" w/ cuba jr.

I saw the ads for SDs and my jaw dropped, I was just at my limit in the 90s of bad movies, I swore I would never see it. And one day curiosity got the best of me and I rented it or borrowed it from someone (i like dogs) and it was actually a pretty good movie and the dogs did not talk throughout the flick, only in one scene but youd never know it from the ads.

It bums me out that the ads for movies just go for action and violence when the movie may not even revolve around that or its completely different than the idea itself... IE ELECTION - w/broderick - I mean I am thinking light comedy by the ads and the stars in it are great, but the movie was definately dark and twisted, don t get me wrong i still liked it but I was not prepared for that at all. Think of all the people that maybe brought their kids or a date to that movie...

But this thing w/black and white actors/actresses ... who cares as long as they're good and funny, i could care less about color. I would see the movie cause I like will smith, but it wont drive me to see it in a theater. Steve Martin pulled it of with latifa in bringing down the house which was okay - neither here no there about it, but I think it made money.

You know I don't know what's worse about this, the fact that they thought it or the fact that it may be true.

Actually, the bottom line is that they're saying "racists constitute an audience we're prepared to make movies for." Personally I find that distasteful. I was going to see that film but now I don't think I will.

I don't know, to be honest, I think if Vivica A. Fox was cast as the romantic lead, the film would be percieved to be a "black" film by some people and may be disregarded as "not for them."


i think this is a definite problem if that is true. i feel this opens us up to a wider debate than just Hitch or even Cuba Gooding Jnr, but onto if films should reflect on the prejudices of their potential audiences?
if a 'black' film with a black couple in it may be percieved as some as 'not for them' that opens up serious problems. someone (i think it was actually T Shipley) started another thread where they mentioned what makes for good drama (challenging us).
i think films should aim to do that, and if that means having an all black couple than so be it.
Clive hit the metaphysical nail right on its tip:
'racists constitute an audience' - i think that is the bottom line.
Should we not be trying to challenge this audience and try to change that side of their lives, instead of promoting their already held views (eg - bad drama)?
its all about how you see the social role of films.

i feel this opens us up to a wider debate than just Hitch or even Cuba Gooding Jnr, but onto if films should reflect on the prejudices of their potential audiences?

To me, it goes without saying that a work should reflect the vision of it's creator, that is what makes it first, and foremost, a piece of art. If you're intention is to make the work ALSO a 'product', then you do consider your audience. I don't believe that means you pander to their prejudices, but, perhaps a gentle enticement to social change/evolution. No one has ever changed a person's mind by beating them into it(figuratively or literally). It always seems to have been a sort of charismatic persuasion.

Interesting point about opening up a wider debate. I think an even deeper question arises. Should prejudicial works of art, even if they discover/present revolutionary formal innovations, occupy reverent space in the heirarchy of ART? I am thinking of the seminal example of D.W. Griffith's 'Birth of a Nation' . Does the 'universal' discoveries of 'Birth' (it's contribution to art) take precedence over any 'local' suffering it may have caused (it's possible contribution to the resurgance of the KKK)?

Hollywood has always been a mixed bag when it comes to race and social issues. In one aspect, they push for social justice -- films like "Intolerance," "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," "Cry Freedom." On the other hand, they've reinforced and spread stereotypes -- The Jazz Singer, Birth of A Nation, Blackplotation films, etc...

Hollywood really has a split personality -- producers either want to save the world or make money. When they want to make money, they make decisions like casting a Latino woman as Will Smith's romantic lead. When they want to save the world, they make Hotel Rwanda.

I don't really see the casting in "Hitch" as racist or anything close. I think they were trying to give it a broader appeal.

If only the talent of the actor matters, are we also to disregard looks? Film is a visual medium, and decisions are made on casting that are purely physical all the time. Race does factor in.

The fact of the matter is I'm white -- and the only films in recent memory that I've seen that had predominently casts are "Eve's Bayou" and "Boomerang" -- before that "Hollywood Shuffle" and "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka" and Spike Lee films (though, he has at least one or two major characters that aren't black in a lot of his films).

DId I not see Barbershop/Waiting to Exhale/Any Movie with Morris Chestnut because of the all black cast? I don't know. I think the producers of 'Hitch," which isn't supposed to save the world, are going to err on the side of having the widest possible audience.

I think Birth of a Nation should be still be considered to be one of the great works of film -- at least from a technical and narrative aspect. I think today's audience can see the message as a "of the time" and antiquated.

Personally I do not want to see Hitch because a) I know that Kevin James is featured in the trailer more than he is in the movie, and b) Will Smith stopped being funny to me circa MIB II. It has nothing to do with race, it has all to do with unfunniness.

Hmmm, now, what does an unsophisticated ma-roooooooon want to see on the silver screen ?"

I like clowns.

Poke

I don't really see the casting in "Hitch" as racist or anything close. I think they were trying to give it a broader appeal.

How can pre-determining the race of an actor, prior to casting, give a film broader appeal? Unless they are appealing to people who make buying choices based on the colour of the actors (ie. racists)

The truth is, that based on that marketing decision any black actress or any white actress who auditioned for that part was ruled out on the basis of her colour. There isn't any way of seeing that decision as anything but racist.

There's an incredible play by an English writer called Trevor Griffiths called the Comedians. It was turned into a TV play in the 1970's and was one of Jonathan Price's first major roles. It's all about the relationship between entertainment and racism. It's also one of the best plays ever written. In it a group of stand up comedians are preparing to do their first show for an agent. They've been taught by a comedian who is very anti-racism, but the agent hates political comics and is looking for comedians who give the people what they want (ie. jokes about blacks and asians). The question each comedian has to decide is will they change their act to get work or will they stick with their original material. Some of them stick with their acts and some of them sell out.

This situation is exactly the same, they've been asked to make the same decision and they've sold out for the cash, shame on them.

(If you are ever in Bradford, Engalnd, at the BFI museum of the moving image, they have a viewing copy in their library, I strongly urge anyone who has the chance to watch it. It's one of the few pieces that makes me weep every time I see it).

Clive, for it to be racism, one has to be of the opinion that one race is inherently superior to the other. That's not the case in the casting of "Hitch" (and least i don't think is it).

My point is, there are many people in America who will see an ad, see the two leads as black and write it off as a movie targeted to black people and not "for them."

There was that movie that came out a few years ago about the events of the wedding of a black guy -- it was pretty much an all black cast. I had no interest in seeing it, and to be honest, because it had a large black cast probably had a lot to do with it. Now, this is not to say I don't see movies with all black casts, but this film seemed to focus on the black zeigiest.

I personally think the producers of Hitch didn't want white people to see Will Smith and Vivica A. Fox onscreen and think it's a film about black people dating. They wanted them to see Will Smith on screen and think it's a movie about dating.

I'm not saying any of this is right -- in a perfect world, we'd all be color-blind. But the fact is that race does play a factor in whether people see certain films, and since this is not an art house pic trying to promote some social message, but a date flick, producers played it safe and went with a casting that they thought would bring in the most revenue.

I guess we're going to have to accept that we disagree about what constitutes racism.

Just as a point of reference, here's one group's formal definition:

Definitions of Racism (http://www.centralcatholichigh.org/diversity_in_action_racism.htm)

That said, personally I find the idea that films that aren't arthouse are exempt from any sense of social responsilbilty sad. It implies that anything is excusable as long as there is a profit in it.

And, there is nothing contemptable in either taking a moral stance or being an arthouse film maker. I'm proud of both.

The truth is that if film making is only about profit we may as well all stop writing and start making porn, as long as we don't use a black actor and actress in the lead roles, because no-one in middle America is going to rent a porn film with two black leads, because they wouldn't be able to relate to it.

Clive, for it to be racism, one has to be of the opinion that one race is inherently superior to the other. That's not the case in the casting of "Hitch" (and least i don't think is it).

there is historically speaking supposed to be line of racist thought. it begins with weak racism (which is simply a statement like 'blacks can jump' or 'boy can those Latino ladies jiggle' etc). The line only ends with strong racism, which is what you have described above (the belief in inherent superiority). I think the casting choice is an eg of weak racism, and a pandering to weak racism in society for the means of making money.

And, there is nothing contemptable in either taking a moral stance or being an arthouse film maker. I'm proud of both.

there really isn't, and i'm sure that no-one here would ever suggest there is - thats what i really appreciate about this place :)

After much consideration, I've decided this is more of a Viewfinder type discussion. So I moved it here. Wow, that's a really long way to say I moved something. Damn! I just made it longer! What the hell is wrong with me!? Why am I still typing!? Someone! Please stop me! I--
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________

To get serious for a moment (and back on topic), I see nothing wrong with the casting decision. Sure you could imply that this is a racist decision, but for me racism lies in the intent of the action. If the Casting Director for Hitch said, "We already got one (racist term here) in this here picture show, we don't need another!" then yeah...racist casting decision. Since it was said to be a move to make the movie more available to everyone, then it's not racist...it's racial.

Sure it's the "Weak Racism" that Nique mentioned, but it's not the dangerous and completely wrong kind. We all exhibit forms of "Weak Racism." I can't tell you how many times I've heard racial remarks towards me at work (I'm one of three anglos at a hispanic TV station), but they're never offensive...just simple things like "Guero" or "White people are always so mean." And I have to admit that I've made joking racial remarks back.

See I differentiate between a "racist remark" and a "racial remark." A "racist remark" is one that is meant and/or taken as an insult to one's race. A "racial remark" is one that has not malintent, merely an observation or comment on one's race. I'm not saying all "racial remarks" are a-okay, but they are definitely not as dangerous and wrong as "racist remarks."

I guess I just see racism as a problem that is never going to go away...kinda like war. It's inherent in us to see differences, no matter how small. With that said, racism is no where near the problem some make it out to be. We have moved past the days of enslaving other races (at least in this country). We all get judged for things that we have little or no control over - our accent, our weight, our choice of car, our choice of friends, etc. Racism ranks higher than those in the realm of societal judgement problems, but not by much.

Now with all that said...think about this...we are condemning a movie with a black lead, a latin female lead, and a white in a supporting role as racist.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Poke

it's not racist...it's racial.

good point.


I guess I just see racism as a problem that is never going to go away...kinda like war. It's inherent in us to see differences, no matter how small

hold on - i think that spotting differences is inherent, but not racism. as you yourself said, its racist if offence is meant. that is not spotting the difference, that is utilising that spotting to offend. the ability to dicriminate between 2 things is part of human nature, but the contemporary channels through which this reveal itself (eg - racism) are not. Comptetition and the struggle for recognition are part of human nature, and I feel that war is merely a channel through which that is revealed - war itself is not inherent, just competition, and whilst all war is competition, not all competition is war.



Hmmmmmmmmmmm

blueberry muffins

blueberry muffins

I love the Strawberry Cream Cheese muffins you can buy at the Kwic Trip...I mean the local pastry artisan's shoppe. (Which one of you said I was eating gas station food?)

I love the Strawberry Cream Cheese muffins

:huh: :huh: :huh:
my god, you must be lightyears ahead in the evolution of muffins. and i thought walnut cake was revolutionary..... :blush:

:D Nique!

Walnut Cake? Just a gibbon on the evolutionary culinary trail...Strawberry Cream Cheese Muffins, they're the smarty-pants aliens who think we humans be cattle.

the evolutionary culinary trailQUOTE]

i thought that i had made it to the very end of that trail when i invented my own dish. it was grated blue cheese with grated chedder cheese, in a mug, then microwaved for twenty seconds and it goes all gooey. then scoop it all out with a fork and gobble it down it a second of pure adrenalin. i was on cloud 20 til a pal tried it and was sick :(
the trail continues........still my ultimate irish (baileys, jamesons, coffee ,cream, no potatoes cake) is quite popular.

[QUOTE]gibbons

don't mock those creatures. 99% of our human genepool is shared with that of the gibbon. Makes you wonder 'what is in that one per cent?' (a not so original line from Supermarche, an original screenplay by Nique Zoolio)
now hows that for self-advertising ;)

what a crock of S word here

Definitions of Racism (http://www.centralcatholichigh.org/diversity_in_action_racism.htm)

I was going off the dictionary definition of racism. The problem I have with the definition in the link you provided is that is specifies "in the United States" as well as blacks being oppressed and white being the oppressors. While historically, this has often been the case, those factors should not be included in the definition, which should end (in my opinion) at "targeted racial groups."

Also, going by this definition, i still don't think it's racism. I think we most of us would agree, the producers of this film most likely are not racist. They probably made the decision in attempt to gain a larger audience. If that's the case, then the problem is with the audience -- or the producer's perception of the audience. I propose that people are drawn to what they are most familiar to. The producers of Hitch want people to see the trailer and identify with the trials of dating. They wanted to take race out of the equation. A large portion of the movie-going audience in the US is white. Some may be less willing to see a romantic comedy with two black leads, not because they dislike black people, but because they identify less with the two main characters. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, i just don't really think it's racist. I think the producers were making a purely monetary decision. With a film like Hitch, that is broad entertainment, the studio doesn't want to risk isolating part of that if they don't have to.

Unfortunately, having two black actors in the lead may make some white people less likely to see it -- not in a way where they see the ad and say "I'm not going to a film with two blacks in it" but in a more subtle way. Producers are very paranoid about ticket sales -- it's they're job to make a film that brings in good profits for the studio. So when given the choice between and black and latino actress of equal talent, if they think the latino actress will be better for box office, they'll go with that everytime.

That said, personally I find the idea that films that aren't arthouse are exempt from any sense of social responsilbilty sad. It implies that anything is excusable as long as there is a profit in it.

I don't think that films outside of the art house are exempt from any sense of social responsibility. I just don't think it was the producers moral responsibility to cast as black actress in the lead. And, as Poke said, we're talking about a film with a black lead. It's not like they cast Tom Hanks as Ray Charles and made him wear black face.

And, there is nothing contemptable in either taking a moral stance or being an arthouse film maker. I'm proud of both.

The truth is that if film making is only about profit we may as well all stop writing and start making porn, as long as we don't use a black actor and actress in the lead roles, because no-one in middle America is going to rent a porn film with two black leads, because they wouldn't be able to relate to it.

I don't think anyone said there is anything contemptable in taking a moral stance or being an arthouse filmmaker. I'm glad you're proud of morals stands you've made, as well as arthouse films you've made.

I also don't think anyone said filmmaking is only about profit -- but I think you'd agree that, especially at the large studios, profit has a lot to do with it. I think film can be art, at it's highest level. I also think film can be cheap and exploiting or just a two hour "escape." Personally, I try and to write things that someday would be called art.

the trail continues........still my ultimate irish (baileys, jamesons, coffee ,cream, no potatoes cake) is quite popular.

*Homer Simpson drool* 'maaaannnnnaaaa of the gods'

Hey, despite all the debate this is actually a very simple issue, you either believe:

a) That the casting of all roles on a film should be open to all actors regardless of their colour

or you believe

b) It's OK to restrict casting to a particular ethnic group in order to appeal to the needs of white middle America


When you look back fifty years exactly the same arguements were used to support casting choices that denied black people lead roles in movies. The films that were made with black leads from that period were made by people who took a moral and political stance against the second view. In the Heat of the Night and Look Who's Come to Dinner being great examples of that.

Now it would be possible to argue that because "Hitch" has a black lead and a Latino romantic interest that progress has been made, but instead of patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come, instead we should be turning our attention to how far we still have to travel.

You know I don't know what's worse about this, the fact that they thought it or the fact that it may be true.

Actually, the bottom line is that they're saying "racists constitute an audience we're prepared to make movies for." Personally I find that distasteful. I was going to see that film but now I don't think I will.

Exactly... That's a big problem with the system. I think they could have used anyone as Smith's love interest because of his popularity. It's a lot bigger than they give him credit for.

But that's money for ya...

filmy

Clive: you either believe:

a) That the casting of all roles on a film should be open to all actors regardless of their colour

or you believe

b) It's OK to restrict casting to a particular ethnic group in order to appeal to the needs of white middle America

-- well, here no one has actually said that it is ok - in every one of his posts T Shipley has said that 'i am not saying it is ok' - and he has been the most vocal defender of the decision as not racist.

what it really comes down to is

a) that you seek to live, and others too, by what ought to be done (your ideals)
or
b) that you accept that we do things not according to what ought to be done, but rather what is done - what is done within the prevailing order of things (the system)

as Film Jumper put it 'its what money can do', and the acceptance of that may lead people to feel b) (in no way do i percieve f.j to be like that - his own posts point that out, i am using f.j's statement , not his opinion, as an eg of the system as an excuse)

Clive: instead of patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come, instead we should be turning our attention to how far we still have to travel

I completely agree, and by doing so reveal myself to be eternally aspiring to be of the a type.

Live by the oughts, only way to escape being noughts (or something catchy at least)................
hmmmmmm :hmm:

Hey, despite all the debate this is actually a very simple issue, you either believe:

a) That the casting of all roles on a film should be open to all actors regardless of their colour

or you believe

b) It's OK to restrict casting to a particular ethnic group in order to appeal to the needs of white middle America.

So you think Tom Hanks should have been considered for the lead in "Ray"? I know that's kind of a stupid example, but it just goes to show that race matters. Hollywood is not color blind. There will always be casting decisions based on race.

And don't think the producers are necessarily restricting a certain ethnic group, they are just looking at numbers, trying to get the highest profit (audience) possible. How many black people do you think went to see Annie Hall? Or Manahattan? Or even "50 First Dates" (though, I did see this with a black girl, but it was only because another movie was sold out) I believe about 10% of America is black. As I said in the last post, I think white audiences (or any ethnic audience) is less likely to see a film that features a race that is not their own. I think it's more human nature than racism.

I haven't seen Hitch, but I'm assuming the script as written could have been an all-black cast, all-white cast or all-latino cast. The producers selected a major black lead, a white supporting character and a latino leading lady (instead of white or black) in an attempt to draw in the highest audience.

Yes, it's a money decision and it sucks that money decisions have to be made in the course of film production, but I don't ever see that changing.

Looking back at the article, Smith says it's an "accepted myth" that two black actors will alienate a white audience. I guess Hitch would have been as good a film as any to try and displace this myth, but producers tend to play it safe when it comes to money. I'm sure they'd love to see that myth defunct, but they don't want to take a percieved risk with their film (and career) to do so.

Maybe I went a bit too far in defending this casting choice -- I tend to enjoy the roll of devil's advocate -- but I still don't see it as racist. It could range from being ingorant to catering to peoples' natural prejudices (ie... they prefer to watch a story feature people of the same race as them). I don't know if anyone really knows the answer.

But regardless, it's certianly an interesting topic of conversation (from an unlikely source).

I tend to enjoy the roll of devil's advocate

Me too ;)

I do think this is an important debate though and arguing it has help me clarify my responsibilites when casting.

In the course of the last week I realised that although I firmly believe in colour blind casting (except in biographical films or where the plot dictates a particular ethnic requirement) and I also believe in equal oportunites in employment, my first feature film had an entirely white cast and an entirely white crew.

Now I could argue that in the North East of England the population is 99.9% white, but actually the truth is that it didn't occur to me to open the casting process up to more actors. Shame on me :(

To be fair to myself, there is a very good chance my next feature is going to be shot in Africa, where all my cast and 75% of my crew will be African. Maybe that's why I'm thinking about this a lot at the moment.

Aout the very first post:

1. Movies with all or mostly black cast make tons of money all the time! Bad Boys, Friday, Delivering us from Eva, Boyz In Tha Hood, Coach Carter, the list goes on forever...PEOPLE DON'T CARE...and if they do, I don't think they will refuse to see a movie because of it.

2. I can't believe that a) the studio actually thought this through (proving that they're a little bit racist) and b) Is CATERING to a racist audience!!!! Rediculous! Crap like this pisses me off so much.

<<Now I could argue that in the North East of England the population is 99.9% white, but actually the truth is that it didn't occur to me to open the casting process up to more actors. Shame on me

To be fair to myself, there is a very good chance my next feature is going to be shot in Africa, where all my cast and 75% of my crew will be African. Maybe that's why I'm thinking about this a lot at the moment.>>

It sounds like both these films take place in places that are predominently white or black, and thus your film reflects that. America, on the other hand, is a melting pot, and thus Hitch reflects that... if you'll all buy that logic.

Anyway, I've think I've exhausted my "race in film" quota for the month. It's been a good discussion though.

if you'll all buy that logic.
sold. :)

Anyway, I've think I've exhausted my "race in film" quota for the month

Yeah me too. Was it good for you? :lol:

Yeah, it was great!

hold on - i think that spotting differences is inherent, but not racism.

You're right. Maybe I should have said that it is human nature to mock and attack that which we deem different enough to be a danger. I think people who are racist act that way because in essence they are afraid of people who are different. It's been hard for me to recognize this. One of the man I most admired in my life, my grandfather, was a huge racist. It's taken me years to understand that despite all of the things about him that were great, when it came to people of a different color he was pretty much a coward.

... instead of patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come, instead we should be turning our attention to how far we still have to travel.

True, but let's not neglect the patting part. Put it in terms of filmmaking - you get an investor to lay down a substantial amount of money on your next project...do you not celebrate because you still have a long road aheadof you? I say we should pat ourselves on the back for the distance we have traveled and focus on the road ahead at the same time.

Poke

.