Joseph Fiennes was recently cast as Michael Jackson for a new
comedy special television programme. (see http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/feb/05/joseph-fiennes-michael-jackson-shocked-to-be-cast)
He is a white middle class British, playing an African American. This raises
the long standing issue of white-washing in Hollywood - Emma Stone as the
half-Asian Hawaiian in Aloha, the all-white cast of Gods of Egypt, the white
citizens of ‘Neo Seoul’ in Cloud Atlas, to name a few. Fiennes has said
that “It's not in any way malicious,” and that as Jackson had “a pigmentation
issue…He was probably closer to my color than his original color.” Sky Arts
comedy has also defended the casting choice as “creative freedom.” This is a
defence that many have relied on, a case of ‘merit,’ because Joseph Fiennes was
the ‘best’ choice according to Sky Arts. If people claim they have no intention
to be racist, as Fiennes himself said, does this make the discourse of white
actors playing people of colour innocent? Does it relieve them of some sort of
responsibility?
According to Stuart Hall, the narrative discourse constructed by
‘The West’ on to themselves, and in relation to ‘the Rest,’ cannot be neutral.
Discourse is about power. Only those that are in positions of power can
influence the production of meaning. In this case, Hollywood is made up of
distinctively White, Western influences, which reflects the racial inequality
in other aspects of society as well. This is seen in the #OscarsSoWhite where
Oscar Nominations were White for the second year in a row. A defence of ‘merit’
by Sky Arts for Whitewashing the portrayal for Michael Jackson executes on the
basis that there is a “level playing field,” for white actors, and actors of
colour. It ignores the cultural hegemony of the West, and the power it has on
to the depiction of “others.”
Therefore, White actors, such as Joseph Fiennes playing people of
colour may not have the ‘intention’ to be racist, yet they are exercising their
privilege by furthering a certain narrative, one in which White is the norm,
and minorities are not. Representation in films and television is a reflection
of society, showing us what we can be, and what we can do. When people of
colour are virtually invisible in media, they do not have the privilege to
envision themselves in various positions in society, in a way a middle class,
white heterosexual male can. When opportunities for actors of colour arise,
such as the portrayal of iconic African American singer and songwriter Michael
Jackson, those in positions of power, such as Hollywood and the ‘West’ have a
responsibility to create a discourse that validates and recognises people of
colour.
This was an interesting read and something I myself have been following. As you have outlined above the racism within the media and Hollywood is blatantly obvious and is becoming increasingly challenged. In discussing the casting of Joseph Fiennes as Michael Jackson they could be a valid argument for the British actor being cast due to Michael's skin condition, but it got me wondering that because of the success and admiration held for Michael Jackson has society and the media claimed him subconsciously as a "white" star because of his status and aimed to reinforce this through the casting? Although I'm sure there are still many who see Michael Jackson as the fuzzy haired little negro kid.
ReplyDeleteYou are also correct about how minority groups get low representation in the media but I think it is also important to remember that the little amount they do get is usually negative and skewed towards the white or Western viewpoint further damaging their group and maintaining the societal hierarchy.