Once it was thought to be a measure of an actor’s skill that he or she might play roles at odds with his or her actual circumstances, race, or even gender (Shakespeare’s women, after all, were once played by male youths). But the trend—disguised as a moral imperative—has been to demand that characters be played only by those with the correct characteristics. No more casting Charlton Heston as Mexican (as was done in Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil) or Marlon Brando as Japanese (as was done in the excruciating Teahouse of the August Moon). The less said about Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, the better.
And of course, the politics of staging Othello have become daunting.
But this week, the racial correctness demanded of Hollywood officially jumped the shark. Samuel L. Jackson, making the rounds to promote his remake of King Kong, took the opportunity in a radio interview to denounce Tinseltown’s infatuation with black British actors. He wondered how much more compelling, for instance, the new racial thriller starring Brit Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out, “would have been with an American brother who really feels that [American racism].” Nor was he happy that David Oyelowo played Martin Luther King Jr. in 2014’s Selma: “There are some brothers in America who could have been in that movie who would have had a different idea about how King thinks.”
How far will this go? If an actor has to be African-American to play Dr. King, why not be even more specific and demand that the player be from Georgia, or Atlanta in particular? And if the actor is to understand the role, shouldn’t his portrayal be informed by a theological sympathy? Should only Baptists be considered for the part?
But of course, Jackson’s complaint isn’t about accuracy or artistry but guild politics. He explained it quite explicitly: “We’ve got a lot of brothers here that need to work too.”
