White Supremacist Group Boycotting Thor; Because of Elba Casting"The Council of Conservative Citizens attacks Marvel for giving the role of the deity Heimdall to Idris Elba, star of The Wire."
The CCC is calling the casting of Elba "left-wing social engineering"—because of course the portrayal of a Norse god will have some effect on the actual society of Asgard, which, as we know, exists in a realm reachable by the rainbow bridge but not the Rainbow Coalition.
When I saw Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor trailer, I was thrilled, because Marvel was doing what the narrow minds behind the Lord of the Rings movies failed to do, moving past the definitions established by the myths. Keep in mind that that's what we're dealing with, myths, not historical dramas.
Sticking with Lord of the Rings for a moment, it doesn't matter how Tolkien saw his characters—and certainly he saw the hobbits and elves and all of the good guys, all the "races of men" on the side of right as white people, because he's thinking of Northern Europe and the Eddas and a particular kind of world. But when you translate those tales into images in the 21st century, how can you not see that only white folks were on the side of goodness? Every indigenous actor who showed up to audition: you're getting covered with dark stuff and made an orc. Some other people, we'll give them dark complexions, dress them as Arabs and stick them on elephants or on pirate ships. Did no one notice this sharp line? There was no need for it, because "black and white" wasn't part of Tolkien's calculation, nor was it essential to his tale.
Must every god in Asgard be white because the Norse were white? If the Norse mythology is true, and all people of all colors are their people, wouldn't the gods also share that variety? And that argument aside: it's all made up. They can look however we want! I mean, shouldn't they all the male gods have beards? Any good Norseman would, after all.
At least bigots continue to make it easy for us to find them.
9 comments:
When I saw Idris Elba as Heimdall in the Thor trailer, I was thrilled, because Marvel was doing what the narrow minds behind the Lord of the Rings movies failed to do, moving past the definitions established by the myths. Keep in mind that that's what we're dealing with, myths, not historical dramas.
Considering the LotR movies didn't bother to add the non-pale men on the side of good like the men of Pelargir, Dol Amroth, Harondor, the coastal provinces, and especially the Druedain, I think the films arguably made the whole "black/white" thing even worse. This is a case when the "old myths" were actually less racist.
The "black/white" line was in fact essential for his tale, because this was a story set in prehistoric Northern Europe. Like it or not, Northern Europe in a mythological mindset was a white place. What would it prove to start sticking in actors of other ethnicities? Tokenism? Such actions are insulting not only to the history of the Europeans, but to the history of other ethnicities: that there's this fear of exclusiveness that the only way for something to be enjoyed is to make sure someone from each demographic is included.
Sticking with Lord of the Rings for a moment, it doesn't matter how Tolkien saw his characters—and certainly he saw the hobbits and elves and all of the good guys, all the "races of men" on the side of right as white people, because he's thinking of Northern Europe and the Eddas and a particular kind of world. But when you translate those tales into images in the 21st century, how can you not see that only white folks were on the side of goodness? Every indigenous actor who showed up to audition: you're getting covered with dark stuff and made an orc. Some other people, we'll give them dark complexions, dress them as Arabs and stick them on elephants or on pirate ships. Did no one notice this sharp line? There was no need for it, because "black and white" wasn't part of Tolkien's calculation, nor was it essential to his tale.
So you're saying that in order to be relevant for a modern culture, it has to be slowly picked apart and moulded to a current generation in order to be acceptible to 21st Century standards? I say if 21st Century people can't see a piece of work while understanding the context of the time and place in which it was written, they probably shouldn't be reading it anyway.
If the Norse mythology is true, and all people of all colors are their people
Well first of all, this isn't about Norse Mythology, it's about Jack Kirby's reinvention of Norse Mythology. The Norse knew of non-white people, and even had experience with them. Polytheism back them was more of a "these are my gods, those are your gods" kind of thing. At most, ancient religions would assume that gods of another people are simply those people's names for their gods. Hence how Jupiter was equated with Zeus and Taranis.
And that argument aside: it's all made up. They can look however we want!
Why should something's fictional context mean that no attempt at faithfulness should be made? By that logic, there's no reason to get upset that they cast all white people as the heroes in The Last Airbender despite this taking place in a clearly Asian-inspired fantasy world. After all, if it's all made up, what does it matter?
At least bigots continue to make it easy for us to find them.
These idiots protesting Thor are exactly that, but to assume that everyone who disagrees with Elba's casting is a bigot is, frankly, rather close-minded in itself. Many of the people complaining about this are the ones complaining about Thor having a beard (which he didn't in the comics): it's not about race, it's about fidelity to the source material. And in the source material, Heimdall wasn't black.
But then, I don't see why making Heimdall black makes things particularly better anyway. All it proves is it makes the film more multicultural and colourful. And? Does it improve the narrative, the themes, the plot, the aesthetics? Especially since Heimdall is, essentially, a minor character?
If this is "moving past the definitions established by the myths," then it's in the most inconsequential and meaningless way I can think of. Now, if they made Thor and the rest of the Asgardians black - all of them - then I would be impressed, because at least then they're putting their money where their mouth is.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
On Tolkien:
The "black/white" line was in fact essential for his tale, because this was a story set in prehistoric Northern Europe. Like it or not, Northern Europe in a mythological mindset was a white place. What would it prove to start sticking in actors of other ethnicities? Tokenism? Such actions are insulting not only to the history of the Europeans, but to the history of other ethnicities: that there's this fear of exclusiveness that the only way for something to be enjoyed is to make sure someone from each demographic is included.
First, Tolkien's story is not set in . . . well, anywhere real. He knows that. The geography isn't Northern Europe. He knows no such creatures existed. It's a pure fantasy. Middle Earth is not Earth, so by the nature of the thing, casting directors are free to approach the issue of race creatively. No one's being insulted, because none of these "races" ever existed. Do you think the mountains of New Zealand looked like what Tolkien imagined? Changes were made from Tolkien's text (a tome I've never managed to make it through, by the way) and vision in other ways; my question is, why was Jackson so hung up on maintaining (or, as you point out, overemphasizing) a black/white distinction?
No, I don't think one should modify everything thoughtlessly. In an historical film about, say, the Founding Fathers, you wouldn't stick in a female signatory to the Declaration or a black co-writer of the Constitution. But, for the sake of actors and the availability of roles, when can we make changes? Film poses a special problem because--even more now in the era of CGI--it's profoundly literal. We believe what we see. It's easier to make changes in theatrical drama, which relies so much on imagination to begin with, than in film, which in many way today relies on the viewer abondoning his or her imagination.
Well first of all, this isn't about Norse Mythology, it's about Jack Kirby's reinvention of Norse Mythology. The Norse knew of non-white people, and even had experience with them. Polytheism back them was more of a "these are my gods, those are your gods" kind of thing. At most, ancient religions would assume that gods of another people are simply those people's names for their gods. Hence how Jupiter was equated with Zeus and Taranis.
I'm not sure where you meant to go with that. It's somewhat true. From our cultural distance, we recognize the connections and renamings among the gods of the Mediterranean, but the Norse, coming along much later, have a wholly different theology, narrative and pantheon. And plenty of ancient peoples think other people's gods are bogus or demonic.
Why should something's fictional context mean that no attempt at faithfulness should be made? By that logic, there's no reason to get upset that they cast all white people as the heroes in The Last Airbender despite this taking place in a clearly Asian-inspired fantasy world. After all, if it's all made up, what does it matter?
I do not mean that "no attempt at faithfulness should be made." I mean, rather, that we can use our judgment in how we craft something new. Clearly, poor judgment was used in the casting of The Last Airbender.
These idiots protesting Thor are exactly that, but to assume that everyone who disagrees with Elba's casting is a bigot is, frankly, rather close-minded in itself.
And I didn't say someone couldn't object; these people had a transparently bigoted objection.
Many of the people complaining about this are the ones complaining about Thor having a beard (which he didn't in the comics): it's not about race, it's about fidelity to the source material. And in the source material, Heimdall wasn't black.
And Thor speaks bad Elizabethan English in the old comics. (Did anyone really want to listen to that?) And Jane Foster's not a Jew—but that's invisible, unlike blackness . . . most of the time. Anyone objecting to Natalie Portman? (Thor ought to have a beard, like any good Norseman, right?) For me, the issue is, shouldn't the director get who he or she wants for a role like this? Elba's a tough, menacing guy. You bet I want him guarding the Rainbow Bridge! He's a great choice, and thinking outside the skin-color confines constructed circumstantially by Kirby makes sense. I want, say, my black students to see themselves represented in positive and interesting ways in the movies they attend. If that can happen without it being somehow an utterly wrong move, it should happen.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but your response has convinced me it isn't because of simple-minded knee-jerkism, nor ignorance of the source material. I may not agree with it, but I respect it. A shame these idiots protesting Thor can't just respect Branagh's without accusing them of some sort of anti-white agenda.
I'm glad we could clear that up. (BTW, I'm one of those nerds tremendously disappointed Thor won't be speaking in Shakespearean, especially since Branagh's proven he can make Shakespearean work, but I'll still be there opening day.)
All said and done, I agree that even though white people make up a majority of America (something like 60-70%) there's still quite a dearth of minority-driven work these days. However, instead of hijacking white characters, I'd prefer it if existing black characters were brought to the fore. Instead of a black Captain America, for instance, I'd like to see Black Panther, Power Man or Steel get a good movie.
I'd love to see Black Panther, long a favorite of mine.
I think the Elizabethan English works better on the page; if Branagh and others even considered it, I bet they felt it didn't sound right for the film. (Stan Lee was completely indiscriminate with his "thou"-related pronouns in any case, if you want to be a stickler.) As long as the Asgardians sound formal and intelligent, that'll be good.
I've seen race-based casting fail, for sure. My view of Jackson's use of a black ship's captain in King Kong is that he wanted to make up for the missteps in LoTR, but it made no sense for white folks in the '30s to be treating this guy like a superior . . . and then when we reached the island, you got the worst "black savage" stereotypes ever, so it all collapsed. I showed some students some of Eastwood's Unforgiven recently, and when Morgan Freeman's character is grabbed by a black mob, a few kids wondered why no one commented on the character's race. I said I thought it was a sign that the filmmakers had no idea what to do about that, and so the script completely ignores it.
The local professional theater company here performed, several years ago, a racially mixed (black and white; naught else) version of The Crucible. My students were baffled, since there didn't seem a purpose to the casting (most of the farmers were black, but not all; most of the leaders were white, but not all). The story can't be unmoored from its historical setting, so the audience was trying to overlay race and history (as well as Miller's politics) and coming up confused. It could have worked had there not already been a black character, Tituba, whose blackness is actually important. And when the first group of people was arrested, they went off in chains singing a slave song . . . What a mess.
Thanks again for coming by to talk.
I've seen race-based casting fail, for sure. My view of Jackson's use of a black ship's captain in King Kong is that he wanted to make up for the missteps in LoTR, but it made no sense for white folks in the '30s to be treating this guy like a superior . . . and then when we reached the island, you got the worst "black savage" stereotypes ever, so it all collapsed.
That bothered me quite a bit, too. Ignoring the reality of the 1930s isn't the best way to approach things, and if Jackson really wanted to have a black character in Kong, he could've easily changed another character. Goodness knows he changed plenty else!
Post a Comment