You know, if an author of a book, comic, screenplay, poem, whatever makes a character a certain color, race, sex, whatever, just cast that character that way. If the character's color, race, sex, whatever isn't specified, cast it any way you want. I really don't care other than try to cast the best possible actor as that is what is going to make the story most believable and enjoyable.And if they could not give roles to Will Smith's kid that would be good too
Like in Godfather 3. Michael Corleone's daughter's actress has to be female, white and Italian looking. She doesn't have to be the worst actress in the world, Sophia Coppola. Give the part to the best actress. Not the director's daughter
I think people should be able to give any role to any person at any time. I like how Adam Sandler hooks his buddies up with roles. People like to work with people that they like.
I feel like the forest is lost through the trees on this one. Nobody is trying to punish white men. They're trying to help segments of society that could use help. One can agree/disagree that certain segments need or are deserving of help. I just don't get the cynicism that people have when they hear people wanting to help others. This isn't a zero-sum world. Just b/c McDormand mentioned that more women should be prominent in the movie business does not mean that white men have to lose jobs. Movie sets are fluid- they don't just hire 50 people for every movie regardless of the scope of work. Wealthy production companies can do more to be inclusive- it's not all that controversial.
I think I agree with you (if I am understanding you correctly). I think the vast majority of people favor merit-based decision making, and also favor the idea that in business (as opposed to government) people should have the right to hire their family, friends and people that they think they'll most like to work with. This is well and good until society realizes that underlying the "people they think they most like to work with" is solely based on gender, skin color, or ethnicity. In other words, left unfettered, an economic and social system CAN become one that significantly favors the appearance of one person over another in lieu of merit. When this happens, it can push the various values of a system (or a person) into conflict: meritocracy; business-owner rights; equal opportunity; anti-discrimination; diversity... these values battle it out, reflected pretty well in the discussions that go on here. Speaking only for myself, the values that I have against discrimination and in favor of equal opportunity need to be pretty clearly violated to me for me to favor something that would threaten meritocracy or the right of a business owner to make autonomous business decisions. But there is definitely a line where internal values come into conflict with one another.
On another note (related), my wife and I were browsing a few weeks ago in a store in Concord and I came across a book titled: "Public Officials of Massachusetts 1933-34". This interested me because I knew my grandfather was a state rep around that time. He only served one term -- a uneducated newspaper delivery man who won one term as a state rep. Remarkably, he was there, picture, bio and all. After the purchase, I was intrigued by the pictures. I counted 242 state reps; 2 woman; 0 people of color (disclaimer: I am, of course, concluding this based on their pictures which do no always tell the whole story). 42 state senators; 0 women; 0 POC. Of nearly 300 people representing the interests of the people of Massachusetts 99% were white men. Of course, not all white men agree on everything, nor do they reflect the interests of only white males, but I think it is interesting to see, in black and white, just how significantly decision-making was dominated by white men for the majority of our nation's history. Eventually, the social and political climate has evolved, but in the meantime, women endured 150 years without the right to vote; without true governmental representation. People of color, of course, went even longer without equal rights with regard to voting, education, workplace equality, etc. I understand the ideal of merit-based decision-making and I agree with that value, but sometimes looking in the mirror allows us to see what we really are, and affords us the opportunity to ask whether or not we are OK with what is looking back at us. It may be fine for us to say that we'll continue to evolve (we definitely have evolved) -- let it take it's course. I suppose that's fine unless you've experienced days, weeks, years, decades, generations of powerlessness. We don't come by out current challenges by accident. It's probably a strong agreement here (me included) that quotas "inclusion-contracts", requirements for minority interviews... are not desired policies and reflect inadequate solutions. What we mostly want is a cultural change in which bias based on race, gender, etc. is in the past and individuals are judged based on character and qualifications. But when we're faced with a mirror that reflects something that just looks wrong, I think most of us are compelled to at least ask the question, what (if anything) can we do about it? Frances McDormand offered what I think is a daft solution, but I respect the notion that she sees a problem and offers an idea. It's only from respectful open dialogue and the desire to hear and understand other's perspectives that mutually satisfying solutions can occur. That's why 282 white men and 2 white women should not be making all the policy decisions for a diverse population. Unfortunately, it took 200 years to change that power differential.