Joshua Alston, Newsweek, March 14, 2008
{snip} And one of the silliest furors to emerge from the rancorous Democratic primary contest is the selection of Fred Armisen, who is of white and Asian heritage, to play Obama on “Saturday Night Live.” It’s especially silly because it is an issue that seems to have been totally created by the media-a charge leveled often, but this time it has merit. The tornado in a teacup was started by two pieces (one in the Chicago Tribune and one in the Guardian) that questioned the judgment of choosing Armisen to play Obama. Apart from raised eyebrows from those critics, there hasn’t been much of a to-do about the issue.
{snip} The explanation provided by the producers of “Saturday Night Live” is perfectly reasonable: they held several auditions for actors, and none of them worked. The cast’s sole African-American, Kenan Thompson, would have been required to lose a considerable amount of weight for the role and still would neither look nor sound anything like the Illinois senator. Armisen had Obama’s rhythms down and was easiest to slot into the role. Fair enough. Besides, Armisen has played Prince, and his white castmate Darrell Hammond has played Jesse Jackson. It wasn’t nearly as easy for Angelina Jolie to explain why she darkened her skin to play Mariane Pearl in last year’s film “A Mighty Heart.” There was more of an uproar over that choice, from actual people, not media pundits, and Mariane Pearl is far less famous than Obama is. So what’s the difference? Why are some “blackface” performances pounced on while others skate by?
There are two issues at play when people have a negative gut response to a white actor donning makeup to play a minority. The first has to do with the history of minstrelsy, which used white actors to show blacks as lazy, buffoonish caricatures. The other has to do with the dearth of substantive roles for actors of color. {snip}
If watching Armisen play Obama makes people uncomfortable, it’s because watching a white actor with his skin darkened calls to mind a painful chapter in America’s history. But minstrelsy, at least white minstrelsy, doesn’t exist anymore. White actors are darkened only to play characters that embody the opposite characteristics of the stereotypes presented in minstrel shows, like a Barack Obama, like a Mariane Pearl. White actors would never play characters who embody negative stereotypes, because Hollywood, that bastion of liberalism, knows better than to snatch off that bandage {snip}
{snip}
Making a fuss over the appropriateness of Fred Armisen playing Barack Obama is indeed silly. What’s not silly is that there are so few opportunities for black actors to play Oscar-bait dramatic roles. It’s not the presence of white actors in makeup that should make us uncomfortable; it’s the absence of black actors that should make us squirm in our seats.
Original article
(Posted on March 17, 2008)
Comments
Obama is also half-white. So let’s see if we have this straight: A white actor playing a bi-racial character is bad - but a black actor doing so would be perfectly fine. Nope…no double standards here. What bizarre times we live in!
Posted by HH at 6:37 PM on March 17
I heartily recommend that my fellow AMREN readers watch Spike Lee’s movie “Bamboozled” which contains some of the most hilarious scenes within the minstrel show that is at the center of the storyline. Lots of “corking up” and some of the finest comedy I have seen in a long time.
I was thouroughly entertained.
Posted by Hotrin at 6:39 PM on March 17
To be on SNL, I think you have to sign a comtract for a few seasons. Perhaps that long-term commitment has something to do with so few blacks being on the show. Tracy Morgan is one of the few exceptions and was on the show for like 20 years.
“Make a doo-doo pie, I love you…”
Posted by sir hunter of white hall, esquire at 6:56 PM on March 17
Making a fuss over the appropriateness of Fred Armisen playing Barack Obama is indeed silly. What’s not silly is that there are so few opportunities for black actors to play Oscar-bait dramatic roles. It’s not the presence of white actors in makeup that should make us uncomfortable; it’s the absence of black actors that should make us squirm in our seats.
Original article
(Posted on March 17, 2008)
The “absence” of black actors that should make us squirm in our seats”. Is this guy serious? People that believe this way must have never been around blacks for longer than 2 seconds. That’s about how long it takes to become disgusted by their behavior.
Posted by Howard in Las Vegas at 7:05 PM on March 17
“There are two issues at play when people have a negative gut response to a white actor donning makeup to play a minority. The first has to do with the history of minstrelsy, which used white actors to show blacks as lazy, buffoonish caricatures.”
Blacks were and still are lazy and buffoonish. One need only to look around on his job to see the lazy part. And to witness buffoonery, tune into a music video on BET and notice the clown-like characters with their earrings, tattoos, ostentatious colors, gold teeth, baggy pants, primitive dancing, etc. This is not merely a stereotype.
“It’s not the presence of white actors in makeup that should make us uncomfortable; it’s the absence of black actors that should make us squirm in our seats.”
This is an asinine statement and one representative of the racially blackmailed white cowards in the media. But I am not “squirming” about not enough blacks in film. They in fact seem to be all over the television and in the movies (ones that I will never pay to see). If anything, they are overrepresented in film and TV.
Posted by Don't Spite the White at 8:26 PM on March 17
Not enough black actors? What are they 13% of the population? Yet, when I run through the channels, it is more likely that I will see a black male than a white male. And that black male is usually paired in a scene with a white female. It even goes as far as subliminal suggestion; note that when you see a lone black male on your screen, count the times that the next image you see is a white woman.
Posted by Whiteplight at 8:39 PM on March 17
I don’t know about movies since I seldom go anymore, but the number of blacks on TV is in far greater proportion than their actual population in the country. And blacks on TV are nearly always protrayed in sympathetic roles and positions of authority. And since most of Hollywood is very liberal I’m sure casting directors would jump at the chance to cast a black in an Oscar potential role. Problem is, they can’t find a black with the acting talent. Alter is a flaming liberal and just one of the reasons I dropped my Newsweek subscription years ago.
Posted by Vlad The Emailer at 9:42 PM on March 17
Total straw-man: only noteworthy because it’s so out of left-field that one raises an eyebrow. Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman by themselves are adequate to represent black actors in “Oscar-bait dramatic roles.”
Posted by David Traywick at 10:07 PM on March 17
Wow! Now I know how Alex in “A Clockwork Orange” felt after he received his “corrective treatment.”
I’m glad I don’t feel “uncomfortable” or have to “squirm in my seat” every time I see or read something that has been deemed racially insensitive. What a Hell that must be.
I feel sorry for this brainwashed idiot.
Posted by KP at 12:06 AM on March 18
Frankly, I think the ubiquitous black judge/police chief/general/scientist has become a bit of a joke. Less funny is why Othello must be black but Henry V does not have to be white.
It was reported that Lord of the Rings was made in NZ to avoid having to endure the likes of Will Smith wisecracking his way through the trilogy. Not sure I believe this but I’m grateful anyway.
Posted by Iain at 4:32 AM on March 18
Armisen does a decent job of Obama. He did a great job in another role where his skin had to be darkened, playing Mahmoud Amadinejad, the president of Iran, in the hilarious Andy Samberg/Adam Levine music video “Iran So Far” that opened the SNL season.
Posted by Alan at 7:58 AM on March 18
Yeah, there are two problems with this and they have nothing to do with racial issues.
1. Obama is done….finished, finito. Too much highly negative stuff has come out about him. He’s no longer a viable candidate and the democratic party knows this. They will not allow him the nomination because, if they do, they will suffer a historical (and humiliating) defeat. The voters will not decide the issue. The superdelegates will. And electability will be why they choose Clinton. Obama has no one but himself to blame. Anyway. He will quickly drop out of public consciousness after August. It would be pointless to parody him.
2. MadTV has already scooped SNL over this with an extremely humorous parody, “Under Barack Obama”, months ago. Obama was played by Keegan-Michael Key and it is HE that is firmly entrenched in the entertainment portion of people’s minds in the slot reserved for parodying Obama. I’m sure he has lots of material he’s about to use to make fun of Obama as he is thrown out of the body politic for his bad behavior.
Posted by at 10:06 AM on March 18
Oh - the hand-wringing… Oh the painful put downs and stereotyping… I’m guessing the authors never seen a black person do a comedy routine before. Actually, white actors can put-down whites pretty good too. In fact, it used to be all they were paid to do. Perhaps this author’s more comfortable with that.
Posted by at 10:47 AM on March 18
…..”Frankly, I think the ubiquitous black judge/police chief/general/scientist has become a bit of a joke. Less funny is why Othello must be black but Henry V does not have to be white.”
Posted by Iain at 4:32 AM on March 18
> It’s worse than that. If you read Othello, the first thing you will note is the subtitle “The Moor.” The Moors as we may easily recall, were/are North Africans, therefore Arab perhaps, but not Sub-Saharan blacks. It is a miscaste from the start to continually use blacks to play Othello, even though the character displays typical black emotions of violent jealousy, etc. Although there is a fudge factor as some blacks made it up to Morroco and into Europe here and there, this casting has been being done since the 1960s as a way to shock and titillate. Casting a black as a rich sultan is a bit of a stretch anyway when they were most often slaves. It has been done so often over time that now, few notice that casting a black as Othello is almost as inacurrate as casting Henry V as a black.
Posted by Whiteplight at 2:04 PM on March 18
“It’s not the presence of white actors in makeup that should make us uncomfortable; it’s the absence of black actors that should make us squirm in our seats.”
Sometimes I really wonder if the media is from the same planet. You can’t find a program anymore without a shoehorned black character that totally ruins the vibe of what would be an otherwise good show. There was one show recently that caught my eye that is set in Alaska. I watched for a few minutes just waiting for the ‘mandatory black guy’ to appear. Then…Bingo!! There’s John Amos (James Evans from Good Times) up in Alaska. Turned the channel and never even learned what the show was called. Credible casting is a make or break deal for me and nine times out of ten, blacks are cast in roles that are not credible just for the sake of diversity.
And this SNL deal? The actor is part white and Obama is part white. That’s more accurate than having a full black actor.
Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 3:06 PM on March 18
Whiteflight and vlad the emailer (I love that handle), I say to both of you: stop whining about what’s on T.V. and throw away your *!@# TVS! I hope you’re not exposing children to that poison but even you, as adults, should use your local library more often and give up TV. Also don’t give the newspapers any of your money.
Posted by jewamongyou at 6:03 PM on March 18
“The “absence” of black actors that should make us squirm in our seats”. Is this guy serious? People that believe this way must have never been around blacks for longer than 2 seconds. That’s about how long it takes to become disgusted by their behavior.”
Is it not truly ignorant to presume this in a ubitquitous manner? Say what you have to say about an individual or local group you have personally experienced. But to subscribe to the method of lumping all members of a race, group, club, nationality, etc in this way hurts your cause. I have far too many black colleagues that perform at a high level to agree with your method. Given I work in the professional realm so I only speak of my experience.
The fact is I have worked with lazy blacks, lazy whites, and lazy hispanics throughout my life. In fact I have worked with more lazy whites than any other. Because we are the laziest race? Of course not. Because I have worked with far more whites than any other race. My point is that it is all relative. Have you only been disgusted by blacks in your life? Would you speak highly of all whites in the same way you speak lowly of all blacks? Have you never been disgusted by ignorant “white trash” individuals? Perhaps my experience is skewed, but I see no reason to say “blacks” or “whites” in a way that implies every member of every race performs at the same level. There are stupid lazy blacks and stupid lazy whites. Judge each independently and your cause can be respected. Lump them all together and you look like a fool.
Posted by bill at 7:17 PM on March 18
“It even goes as far as subliminal suggestion; note that when you see a lone black male on your screen, count the times that the next image you see is a white woman.”—Whiteplight
I agree, Whiteplight. I’ve lost count years ago.
You especially notice this in t.v. commercials. Particularly keep your eye on the background of the “shot”. Every frame of a movie or t.v. program is a painting to the director/editor. This is one of the reasons I stopped “watching” television and going to the movies.
You can’t escape it. Observe any advertisement on billboards, buses, newspapers, magazines, junk mail, ect. If the ad shows a diverse crowd or group of people, you can guarantee they will strategically place a black male next to,or surround him with, a white(preferably blond)female. Must be an advertising law, along with emasculating the white male, punishable by death if not followed.
Imagine the impact of (subliminal) advertising on the young white female:
black man= muscular, virile, highly intelligent
white man= malnurished, impotent, dumbfounded
“Hollywood” knows what they are doing.
And yes, I have noticed the oriental female/european male pairings, too. Not even close to being as common as the above mentioned, though.
As for the subject-matter, nobody I know even tunes in to SNL anymore.
Posted by wisecracker at 7:51 PM on March 18
Bantus have no problem with Will Smith playing James West in “The Wild, Wild West”. But they howled when a Bantu played Judas Iscariot in “Jesus Christ, Superstar” (1973).
It depends on the role, with Bantus.
Posted by Soprano Fan at 8:56 PM on March 18
Shortage of black actors? The impression from watching TV is that blacks were 35% of the population and they were all educated doctors, lawyers and CEOs.
Posted by at 9:07 PM on March 18
“But to subscribe to the method of lumping all members of a race, group, club, nationality, etc in this way hurts your cause.”
But surely it’s reasonable to talk about probability? I know people who hire and fire and, although they have good and bad employees from all races, they have their own preferences based on experience and probability.
Posted by Iain at 4:49 AM on March 19
“But surely it’s reasonable to talk about probability? I know people who hire and fire and, although they have good and bad employees from all races, they have their own preferences based on experience and probability.”
Absolutely. It would be foolish to not utilize your own experiences when formulating conclusions. But the comment I was speaking of said, “People that believe this way must have never been around blacks for longer than 2 seconds. That’s about how long it takes to become disgusted by their behavior”. The poster says “blacks” and “their behavior” as though there is one behavior associated with all individuals of that race. I don’t know about you, but if someone said all whites are assholes I wouldn’t take them seriously. How could all whites fall under one heading?
If it matters, when I was in graduate school I taught various intro science courses. In the first one I taught, many of the black students showed up and at first glance appeared to meet every stereotype I could think of. However, my top 2 students were black and on average the black students performed better than white and hispanic students (for reference there were 15 whites, 6 blacks, and 1 hispanic student in that course.
Yes they wore baggy clothes, hats sideways, gold, and all else you expect based on stereotypes. But so what? Once I got passed that and realized these were simply byproducts of their culture I soon realized they were bright, considerate human beings. Of course I don’t walk around saying “whites” are stupid because they scored lower. There is a good chance that those numbers could vary considerably over time. For reference, this was at a D1 school in Indiana. Not exactly an inner city area.
So while personal experience guides our individual conclusions we should remember that those conclusions don’t represent every member of whatever group we are judging. But yes, if you have only encountered black individuals that are lazy and acted in a way that disgusted you I can understand how one would say that in their opinion it is probable that most blacks fit your model. That said, I think that method gives ammunition to the side that those on this side have a problem with. What I mean is that making statements of this sort contribute to the problem. If you want to validate the other side and make Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton relevant all it takes is making ignorant statements like those I’m discussing. Surely it is possible to promote your views and those of this site without subscribing to this insidious method. Cheers.
Posted by bill at 5:50 PM on March 19
“Yes they wore baggy clothes, hats sideways, gold, and all else you expect based on stereotypes. But so what?”
Sorry, but I still don’t agree. People who dress in this way know exactly what they are doing - they are choosing to conform to a particular stereotype. If that stereotype has negative associations, they are likely to suffer as a consequence. This applies to blacks and whites alike - I’m thinking of ‘chavs’ in the UK. If you dress like a clown, you will be treated like one - the choice is yours.
Posted by Iain at 6:57 AM on March 21
Whites tend to outnumber blacks in almost any legitimate occupation simply because whites tend to be more reliable and professional. The article writer who is so upset by the lack of black actors needs to realize that blacks have only themselves to blame for their lack of employment. Only a naive liberal wouldn’t understand this.
The black tendency to lack education and manners, as well as their fragile egos and boorish, immature behavior means that blacks have a long way to go before they can be regarded as equally professional as whites.
Posted by RSJ at 4:17 PM on March 21
