Movie Blog reader Johnathan sent me an interesting story today revolving around Oscar winner Forest Whitaker and his upcoming film “Winged Creatures”.
Turns out the film almost got sunk and that Whitaker was almost removed from the movie because one of the film studio’s originally behind the film thought that Whitaker was “ugly, black and unbankable”. This comes to us from the folks over at LiveNews:
Despite having “the hottest ensemble cast in town”, including Guy Pearce, Kate Beckinsale, Dakota Fanning, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Jennifer Hudson, Woods said the company who owned the script wouldn’t accept Whitaker as a leading man.
“The initial finance fell through when I stuck with Forest Whitaker for the role of Charlie,” Woods (the director) said. “An executive told me straight: `Even if he wins the Oscar he’s ugly, he’s black and he’s unbankable.'”
Ok, now I admit that on the surface that quote appears horribly insensitive and outright racist. But before taking a comment out of context and assume the worst, let’s just for a moment choose to believe that the unnamed studio executive was speaking as a studio executive. Let’s assume for a moment that he didn’t have a problem with Whitaker being black because he hates black people, but that because he believes (rightly or wrongly) that black leading men (aside from Will Smith) aren’t as marketable or “bankable” as some other potential stars. Or that perhaps he made the comment because the script didn’t call for the character to be black.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a moment and defend what the executive said (at least the PRINCIPLE of what he said). Keep in mind, he is the money guy. The movie doing well or doing poorly directly effects how much money his company gets. If he (for whatever reason) doesn’t believe that Forest Whitaker is capable of drawing in a large audience… doesn’t he have a right to object to his casting?
Ok, so he finds Forest ugly (I don’t), don’t pretend like you’ve never called someone that before. Ok he mentioned he’s black. Well… if he thinks that will have an impact on his bottom line, then he has the right to object. He thinks Whitaker is unbankalbe. Can we say he’s wrong about that? How many $100+ million movies has Forest headlined? None.
Forest Whitaker is one of the best actors out there, no doubt, but when you’re talking to the people who will be investing money, you also have to show them that getting a certain actor will also increase the potential for them to make money on their investment. If this guy (for whatever reason) thought Whitaker was a bad investment, can we blame him for fighting to get him out of the movie?
Personally, I’d put Forest Whitaker in as Dorothy in my “Wizard of Oz” remake if he wanted the role (I think he’s that good), but I can’t judge this studio exec for making… well… a business decision. Just my two cents worth.
Forrest Whittaker has Not aged well. You sure never see a woman as ugly as Forrest Whittaker being considered for top movies. If he wants to continue in Hollywood, he needs to get some plastic surgery like all the women have to do as they age. he is so ugly now that I don’t like to watch his shows anymore.
John stated: “Racism would be to make an assumption about THE PERSON you’re talking about. In this case it WOULD be racism if the studio exec was making an assumption on Whitaker’s acting ability because he’s black.
However, what he was doing was making an assumption (correct or incorrect) on how the MARKET would respond to an actor in that role. An assumption that is (very sadly) backed up by verifiable numbers and proof.”
observation about the facts of how OTHER people (the market) respond people of another ethnicity in the lead role of a movie.
This is only racism if the exec doubted Whitaker’s acting ability because he was black. That’s not what happened here at all.”
Really John I honestly don’t believe that you believed that bs you wrote. Racism is not only when you make an assumption based on someone’s race but most importantly when you act upon this assumption. Nothing illustrates racism more than denying a person opportunity based on their skin color. (hasn’t this same argument been used many times in history to deny blacks equal opportunity?)
And your having a “black” girlfriend doesn’t add anything of value into the equation.
Naue stated: “There is not context needed for the statement to be offensive and wrong. the only exception would be if he was quoting something someone else said. And if any remarks are to be made about context, it’s that he doesn’t want Forest Whitaker in the movie because he think that Forest is ugly, he doesn’t like the fact that Forest is black, and that he doesn’t think he can make money off of him. Which is exponentially more offensive no matter where in the world you are.
A moment of absolute clarity… thank you!!!!!
There is not context needed for the statement to be offensive and wrong. the only exception would be if he was quoting something someone else said. And if any remarks are to be made about context, it’s that he doesn’t want Forest Whitaker in the movie because he think that Forest is ugly, he doesn’t like the fact that Forest is black, and that he doesn’t think he can make money off of him. Which is exponentially more offensive no matter where in the world you are.
This is really amazing. With Whitaker, no one wants to say the king has no cloths. He is a disgusting, nasty fat pig, loser. Forget he is black, there is nothing wrong with black. But the guy makes one want to vomit just to look at him. I can´t handle any movie he is in. I am in total agreement with the studio exec. The guy would turn the movie into garbage. The funny thing is no one wants to say it, that is really weird. And you know there has to be very few people that don´t feel he is nasty to look at. It is not a racial issue, actually a beautiful black man or woman can be much more photogenic and exotic than a white one.
wow, so the casual racism of a hollywood studio exec gets to be “just a business decision”, neato! hollywood professionals of color can all testify to the veiled and casual bigotry that is encountered on a regular basis, and all within the context of “just business”. and this is coming from self-described “socially tolerant liberals” who may think that they are above bigoted attitudes.. Hollywood Klan can go to hell…
John seriously this is one of the funniest articles in a long time.
The headline alone cracks me up. :-)
All you folk that can’t deal with an opinion on this need to take a step back…
Obama’s gonna be king just find solace in that !!! Tards…
Not wanting to emply someone because of there race is NOT racism.
Situation:
If I were a business owner, and i interviewed 40 people. 10 of them were black, and only 1 of them was hired. I also did not hire 18 white people, the next round I interviewed 12 black people and 15 white people. Only one of the black people lasted and 6 white people were hired. I interviewed another 18 more black people and 12 white people. None of the black people were hired and the 3 white people were.
I interview 17 more black people and 5 white people. Again none of the black people were hired, and 2 white people were.
I interview 15 more black people, and 2 white people. The white people get the jobs.
From the above examples it would appear that I might be a racist, however, it also MIGHT be that the black people do not have the qualifications or skills for the jobs. As long as the business owner does not disqualify other black people from interviewing for the jobs, and stereotyping or disqualifying them for the positions, this is NOT racism.
Should the owner decide, he just is not going to hire any black people no matter the qualifications, then this is RACISM.
I believe that above said examples can quickly show that some situations can look like racism but in FACT are not.
Not wanting to emply someone because of there race is NOT racism.
Situation:
If I were a business owner, and i interviewed 40 people. 10 of them were black, and only 1 of them was hired. I also did not hire 18 white people, the next round I interviewed 12 black people and 15 white people. Only one of the black people lasted and 6 white people were hired. I interviewed another 18 more black people and 12 white people. None of the black people were hired and the 3 white people were.
I interview 17 more black people and 5 white people. Again none of the black people were hired, and 2 white people were.
I interview 15 more black people, and 2 white people. The white people get the jobs.
From the above examples it would appear that I might be a racist, however, it also MIGHT be that the black people do not have the qualifications or skills for the jobs. As long as the business owner does not disqualify other black people from interviewing for the jobs, and stereotyping or disqualifying them for the positions, this is NOT racism.
Should the owner decide, he just is not going to hire any black people no matter the qualifications, then this is RACISM.
I believe that above said examples can quickly show that some situations can look like racism but in FACT are not.
Yes,,,,
Didn’t Keanu Reeves kill him in Street Kings.
Die Monster Die!
and yes its his money and he can invest in whatever he wants. But that doesn’t change the fact that whitaker being black was one of the reasons he didn’t want him. That is pretty much the definition of racism.
If the guy had said “I don’t want whitaker because I don’t see this character as a black man” then that would be a completely different story. But that is not what the exec said.
If this story is true the exec didn’t mention the character or the script. He gave three reasons he didn’t want him. Not one of those was about the character. One of them however – the middle one – was based on whitakers race. That is called Racism.
I don’t see how there is any defence for what the guy said.
Ok so after reading my message above I can see how people would not really get what I was trying to say after the way I typed it.
So for anyone who was offended by my comment above, I’m very sorry and I did not mean to offend any Jewish people.
What’s that you say? Will Smith! “Oh my god your a racist! Surly by choosing Will Smith over Dustin Hoffman means that you wouldn’t want an ugly Jew in your movie!” (Note: that was a flippant comment, not a genuine one)
Ok so I’m being silly but that’s what a lot of you guys are shouting at the executive, it’s the same difference.
Unfortunately, that’s the way it is Raphael.
And so this is the reason executives, like the above mentioned, don’t really like to put their money on an actor that ain’t bankable thus his reason for saying what he did.
Question: If you were a producer and you were financing a film that would you think would make you the most money for your film,
A) Putting Will Smith in your film, who is a sure fired hit?
Or
B) Putting an actor like Dustin Hoffman who has won lots of awards and acclaim but isn’t really that bankable anymore and is a bit past his prime?
Raphael,
Why is it bullshit? It’s his money. He can spend or not spend in on whatever he wants.
Besides, you’re far over generalizing. He never said he’ll never cast a black actor. All he said was that he doesn’t want Whitaker in this specific role in this specific movie.
I already know that most bankable actors today are white… but is this guy going to stop casting black people just because their unbankable? its bullshit…
I also think the executive was generalizing when he said “he’s black”. Keeping in mind that in general most bankable actors today are white, unfortunately that’s just the way it is.
So I think he should, if he were to say this sensitively, say “He’s ugly, he’s no Will Smith and he’s unbankable!”
It would have caused less agro!
What’s the budget for this film anyway?
Raphael once again you’re totally missing the point.
The sad and ugly fact of the matter is that I can list off 20 white actors who are more “bankable” than any black actor right now, excluding Will Smith who is the biggest BO star in the world.
That is an issue with our society that I hope changes, but it is what it is right now. White leading men are more bankable (in general) than black leading men. Period.
That says NOTHING about the QUALITY of black actors out there (like Denzel, Jamie Foxx, Don Cheadle, Chiwetel Ejiofor and others), but there are facts about what the audience goes to see. Period.
So if a producer is being asked to invest HIS MONEY in a movie, you’re damn fucking right he has a right to weigh every single factor that might influence if he makes his money back. That’s his prerogative.
Depends on the budget of films they do it does… either way if their’s not even a white actor bankable, then all these actors besides Will Smith are no different from Forest Whitaker… so there was no reason for this guy to call Forest Whitaker black… WHY because their’s no actor not even the white actors are as bankable as Will Smith.
The executive’s race has no bearing on whether he’s stating a racist opinion. Ths is the major problem black people have. They don’t understand that you can be racist towards your own race!
Its funny how everybody is quick to say the executive is racist because of what he said when they don’t even know the person. (I mean the executive could be a black guy himself, how the fuck do we know we aint seen him!)
Plus I bet not many people would say that Sasha Baron Cohen is racist for portraying a Kazakhstan person called Borat because for some reason it was supposed to be taken in a different context!
And so many people for some reason like to jump on the bandwagon of shouting “he’s a racist” when they haven’t even thought of the reason behind why it was said.
We are told the executive is said to have said, he doesn’t want Forest Whitaker in the role because he’s “ugly, black and unbankable”, apart from him saying he’s ugly, which is subjective, (Some people might think he’s hot).
Forest Whitaker IS black and he IS unbankable, this is based on fact.
What he said can be taken in different ways but to say he’s racist when, he’s stating fact leaves me scratching my head!
Will Smith is bankable.
Denzel is not.
Samuel L Jackson is not.
Denzel and Jackson are both fantastic… but not at all “bankable”. Not even close.
Yeah your right about his dissission… but look at Will Smith he’s bankable, Denzel Washington is bankable and Samuel L. Jackson is somewhat bankable… but what does being black for Forest Whitaker has to do with being unbankable he’s just unbankable plain and simple there’s no reason for this guy to say he’s black.
Hey Josef,
You said:
“The arguement that the “role MAY have called for a caucaision actor” is a cop out and speculatory”
The fact that no context is given makes ANY interpretation speculatory. To assume he’s just saying that because he doesn’t like black people is a FAR stretch considering the topic of the conversation, given the other two reasons, seem centered on marketability and reasons surrounding the project itself.
The question was why he didn’t want Whitaker for the role. The producer acknowledged that Whitaker is a great talent (by conceding it’s possible he could win another Oscar for the part), so TO ME, it seems clear he was talking in the context of the project.
You are of course free to interpret it another way, but I think this way makes more logical sense personally.
The back and forth banter is a quite entertaining. Very interesting reading, so I just had to throw my two cents in if you will. I would only ask to John, why was the “he’s black” necessary? I can accept Forrest being ugly (check!) and unbankable (check again) but what does him being black have to do with it? The arguement that the “role MAY have called for a caucaision actor” is a cop out and speculatory, nothing in the post refers to what the role called for.
Don’t confuse racism with ethnocentrism which we all have and use unconsciously. The term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression. In this case, the studio executive did not discriminate SOLELY on Forest Whitaker because he is black, he also cited that FW is unbankable and ugly.
There is also a term called lookism. Discriminating against people for the way the look. I notice no one brought this up in 100+ posts. Perhaps it’s because we all do this?
Other actors that probably suffer from lookism…Rusty Schwimmer, Jennifer Jason Leigh (more on her in a minute), Paul Giamatti, Michael Rappaport, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, James Gandolfini, and Jason Alexander.
Actors also “suffer” from reverse lookism, meaning they can’t act a whit but continue to get work, William Baldwin, Jude Law, Jean Claude Van Damme, Orlando Bloom, Paul Walker, Hayden Christensen, Jessica Simpson, Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan. (There are way more of these types)
As for unbankability, I’m sure that there have been some great actors who didn’t get roles because they don’t draw people to the film.
Such as:
The aforementioned Jennifer Jason Leigh who pretty much nails it with every performance, Unbankable actors Jason Bateman, Delroy Lindo, Dennis Haysbert, Hope Davis, Jason Patric, and Gina Gershon.
Was Forest discriminated against ? Of course!!! But the executive was neither racist, nor lookist, nor unbankist. Hollywood is a very subjective industry and all factors of casting an actor need to be taken into account.
Finally, you will notice that Forest Whitaker’s reputation was defended by the director and the director got his way, although I’m sure some compromise was involved.
John you said Who are you to tell other people that if they write a latino character, they don’t have the right to insist on the actor being latino?!?! That is ridiculous… NO that’s not what i said at all your actually proving my point… i said it doesn’t matter If the character was written spesificly for a white person because you can get a bankable actor like Will Smith for the role take I Am Legend for example.
Hey Raphael,
That’s fine that you think that way… but you’re wrong. Who are you to tell other people that if they write a latino character, they don’t have the right to insist on the actor being latino?!?! That is ridiculous.
It may not matter to SOME people, it certainly doesn’t normally mater to me… but it does matter to a lot of people, and it CERTAINLY matters to the people who are putting the money up for the movie and for the person who wrote it.
Like i said before If the character was written spesificly for a white person it doesn’t matter if its played by a black, latino, or asian as long as they play the character right. There was no need for words like ugly and black in his comment.
I don’t know… all i know is that he was pretty harsh on his comment.
John aren’t you glad you moved from Canada?
Hey Raphael,
If it’s THE TRUTH, why is it not right to say? Especially when the director… who has a right to know the truth… specifically asks why he doesn’t want a particular actor.
If you don’t want to know the answer to a question… then don’t ask.
PCism takes over the world when simply stating facts or truths becomes “wrong”
As I said, I personally disagree with the producer in this case, but I’ll totally defend his right to his opinion which is based on FACT.
Sometimes people just don’t think about it like the first time i seen Crash i didn’t know what fuck was going until later my friend told me it was about prejudice then i realized.
John,
I can see why you would think what I wrote is scary but I was in a hurry and I need to clarity:
What I meant to say is that even if the exec thought that Forest was too black and ugly to play this particular part, he should never have said it. Of course, there will be roles that would only be suitable for blacks, whites, natives etc. so that the actor will properly fit the character withing the context of the story.
But for the exec, in a position of power, to put “ugly” and “black” together in the same sentence when describing an actor is a boneheaded move. What a dumb ass. If the exec is going to be that stupid then he/she should be let go.
So when you see someone different haircolor do you associate them by there different hair color? No cause it’s not relevant. I’m not saying I am so dumb that I can’t physically see a difference but I don’t conciously say OMG you’re black!!!! And I don’t define a person by the pigmentation of there skin
but imagine im an exec greenlighting a flick about a young mother whose husband died or something…..the script doesnt call for the race of the character….the director says he wants maggie gyllanhal (great actress btw, not the best looker tho)
i turn him down, he asks why and i say i dont want some ugly, white, bitch in my flick….this gets printed online…..dont try and say people wouldnt be upset….like they should be about this…..
discrediting an actor because of looks even after the said actor proved his or her talent….and sayin it in a crass unprofessional level is ridiculous….even if it was in a private convo its an asshole thing to say….not sayin the guy should be fired, but hes an asshole that made a very insensitive, stupid comment and should be called on it
hey mikey, are you blind?? how can you not ever think about race when you look at someone? if i see a black person and acknowledge that he’s black, does that automatically make me racist? why not see a person as black and then accepting that it’s fine that he’s black? i don’t get how people can say they “never think about race” when it’s so obvious that the person is of another race!
also, finaljoe was being sarcastic.
@ Kanthan
How am I a fanboy? Just because I agree with John on this particular issue???? I can think of lots of instances where I didn’t agree with John and told him so. Really, I’d love to know.
@ Mikey
HILARIOUS!!
Sorry i ment to say by instead of but.
If the character was written spesificly for a white person it doesn’t matter if its played but a black, latino, or asian as long as play the character right.
First of all, I like how the title asks if he’s really black, as though it’s a matter of opinion. Lol.
But seriously, there’s no justification on any level, monetary or otherwise for his ethnicity to have any kind of effect on whether or not he get’s a job. And TRYING to find any kind of justification is just ridiculous. One day, we’ll finally see as a society, that people should be disliked and judged for their actions and their actions alone. There’s no excuse for questioning an actor’s ability to bring an audience on anything other than their acting abilities, which clearly he has some of if he’s winning oscars.
Haven’t you people seen Crash? WE’RE ALL RACISTS! Every last one of us. Even when you think you’re not racist – that’s when you’re the most racist! Thank God Paul Haggis opened my eyes to this because I had been living in denial before.
Hey Ransom,
You said:
“What the exec said was ignorant, whether was he said was true or justified”
That is the scariest statement I’ve read all day.
Ok I don’t have time to read all these comments, but come on let’s get a fucking grip. What the exec said was ignorant, whether was he said was true or justified. If he thought that Forest Whitaker was wrong for the part because he’s ugly and black then he should not have said so. So what would be ok? Ugly and white, or just white? What is it? What about handsome and black? Is it just the combination of ugly and black that is unacceptable?
John can’t you see that what he said really has no meaning? Basically he threw in the black in there to be an ignorant asshole.
Whether you understand what he was “trying to say” doesn’t make it ok if it offends people. That is so backward. Forest deserves more respect than that.
John I totally understand your point. I happen to agree that it wasn’t purely a racist remark. More ugly, stupid and rude.
I’m a little tired of “it’s just business” being the catch all excuse that is supposed to let business men (whether from Hollywood studios or any other big corporation) off the hook for being assholes, or for acting on the outer fringes of ethics, morality or the law. It’s like your humanity is removed if you are the “money guy” and then you are exempt from the rules that govern how we should treat each other as fellow humans. Personally I think that very attitude is the actual moral crisis of our times.
Hey Nautica,
You said:
“so if i’m a racist (and we all are at some level), then i can’t say what hitler did was “wrong”?? ever?”
Yes Nautica… casual behind your back name calling, and mass genocide of an entire race of people are the exact same thing. Excellent comparison (please note sarcasm)
“and we all are at some level” REALLY? You honestly think that every person on Earth prejudges and prejudices someone by the color of their skin? How do you figure that one? I pride myself on being as diverse as possible and not thinking like that. Maybe that says something about yourself and not really “all of us”
John is right that this was a money return issue with a little bit of unwitting racism thrown in there. Whitaker
We all know that Hollywood is pretty damn racist…it’s true, they are. That’s why they only one “big” star of another race at each moment. Right now Will Smith is the black movie star, before him it was Denzel, before him it was Eddie Murphy the first black actor to become a blockbuster star. Jamie Foxx is not a block buster actor since he prefers the more “personal” arthouse films. I personally can’t think of any asian star other than Lucy Liu and she started dwindling right after Charlie’s Angels.
White America doesn’t want to watch movies with other races, they just don’t.
whitaker is a great actor but he’s no leading man, both because of his looks and because he doesn’t attract mass audience. And why doesn’t he attract the audiences, because of his looks and because he’s black. And of course because he isn’t featured on ever other page of the gossip rags.
If only Hollywood were more like the music biz where ugly white men are considered sexy, Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler anyone? Then unattractive black people might have a better chance, or maybe not. We might just get more of ugly white people instead.
john – “Of coarse, if you’ve NEVER in your life EVER called ANYONE ugly before, then I guess you can throw a stone.”
so if i’m a racist (and we all are at some level), then i can’t say what hitler did was “wrong”?? ever?
NBAkid what do you mean “you people”. Haha sorry had to do it. Robert Downey jr is racist for playing a black guy! God it’s too early to be up
bobafett, student evaluations of teachers are used in the same manner. now teachers have a strong union, so most don’t get fired on their basis, but students say anything and everything and i’m sure race has come up.
Oh Jesus Christ. John has a point as does Doug. What the exec said could have been put more politely. He could have said “Forest is less appealing to audiences” but unfortunately he is human and said what he did uncensored. John is dead on with the business aspects, doug is right about him saying hurtful shit and potentially coming off as racist. I highly doubt the man is racist, Business people tend to think in business terms. Lets stop the bickering and let it go.
In a art fueled world, Forest is a great choice as any and I champion that choice. In a business world he may be less warranted. Movie making is a mix of business and art.. Compromises must be made. I guarantee EVERYDAY in Hollywood conversations like this happen every hour, but this one was made public. Its the nature of the world. Im tired, goodnight lol
“There’s more strangeness to his style than there is quality to his acting.”
Slightly off-topic here, but I thought this comment was brilliantly insightful.
Whitaker has as many ticks and affectations as DeNiro and Pacino. This ‘strangeness’ of his has enabled him to carve out a career. Most times, it translates as earnestness. Sometimes, downright…well…’weird’. But he always seems to bring his A-game.
mmmm funny John is the person to defend such an arguement and all the fan boys i.e NBAKID2000 comes to his rescuse how shocking
This is an absolutely ridiculous argument you people are having with John, and you’re all wayyyyy too politically correct for your own good.
A studio exec making a decision on whether to hire someone based on what he feels the general public will or will not like is NOT racist. This falls under the same category as a company NOT including certain features in a product they produce, because they feel the general public does or doesn’t want those features….what, are they automatically bigoted toward those features they don’t include now???
Ridiculous.
Now that guy is an asshole.
Just imagine what David O Russell Would say…
He didn’t insult him. He wasn’t even talking to him. The director asked him why he didn’t want FW in the film if he was investing in it… and he answered him.
I totally agree he should have worded it more sensatively. But for all we know the director isn’t accurately re-telling the story
No he insulted the him…
Just imagine if the exec was talking about 50 cent. We wouldn’t even be talking about this crap.
What would happen if the actor cast was “ugly, Asian, and unbankable?” Would that make a difference? Hopefully the exec meant “black” and “unbankable” to be in the same context.
What is he an asshole for???? For not wanting to spend his money on something he didn’t think would succeed???
Alright he’s not racist… but he still is an asshole.
Good point Bobafett
And to be clear…If I wre to suggest that Forest Whitak be cast as Gargamel, what would the first question in your mind be?
That does not make anyone racist!!!
When I saw this post, I immediately knew that were some people who would take this COMPLETELY the wrong way.
I grew up in the Detroit area, and attended a 50% White/ 50% Black High School. I joined the military to get away from the area, and worked with many, black people, very closely and personally I feel that Cpl Cedric E. saved my life. I was in the military for almost 15 years. I am NOT a racist.
However, I feel that our political correctness has gotten better since the 80s, but I also think that it may be swinging the other way.
Back in 2003, when I got out of the military, I was a security manager for a Fortune 500 company. Many of my officers were black, my boss the Security Director was black. I had many problems with my officers (not just black), an we had a lot of turnover ($10-12/hr jobs do that). I fired a lot of officers. But let me tell you as soon as I attempted to fire a black officer, their first response was it was because I was white and they were black. In addition, I was always extremely prescient of what I said and how it would be interpreted. I worked for that company for a year, and during one of my reviews, my boss stated that I was being “graded” downward directly because of the officers of color thought I was a racist. Which was ridiculous!
It seems that anytime a black person is denied a job, opportunity, education or loan, it has to be because of their color.
John I absolutely agree with you here, although the exec gave three reasons he really only needed one. FW is a goofy looking, but extremely talented actor. He brings no box office in to the theater. But were I a producer or studio executive he would have to be a supporting cast member to a strong box office lead, of course depending on the budget. Kirk Cameron can make 500k flicks forever and play the lead, but I don’t see him in a “Hollywood” 10+ budgetted film, as the lead, ever. Wait…am I anti-Christian now?
No
Perfectly said Mikey
Raphael,
Wow… so just because YOU say something is so… that makes it so. You wrongly said:
“so when we say he’s racist he’s racist”
No, if you say he’s racist, all that means is that you THINK he’s racist. And you’re entitled to that opinion if you so wish.
I say he’s NOT racist, and my opinion is every bit as valid as yours.
I can not debate what you THINK. But I can challenge the rationale behind what you think… and so far you’ve had no answers for my challenge other than “BECAUSE I SAID SO”
“Give me two reasons why you don’t wan t whitaker in this movie”
“first let me say that FW is phenomenal actor but he isn’t very attractive. And statistically speaking less attractive actors who happen to be non-caucasion simply don’t make as much money at the box office. I think we should go with someone like denzel or will smith on this one”. Is that still racist? Same concept but with a different context. No it’s not. Not everything is racism automatically if it involves race. It really could just be about money. And john do you really have a black girlfriend? Cause that’s an awesome visual image.
The point is we all have different opinons and Doug being your co-host has much of right on giving his truthful opinon on this issue just like you but you shut him off… so when we say he’s racist he’s racist i’m sorry man but that’s how i and alot of people feel, there’s nothing you can do to change that.
No, YOU said you can’t disagree with people’s feelings… and I just agreed with you. I said you CAN disagree with their rationale. Don’t my feelings count too?
No you said You can’t disagree with my feelings on this
What the hell are you talking about? Now you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
So nobody can’t disagree on your feeling on this but… you like to disagree on alot of peoples feeling and opinons on how they feel.
Obviously you can’t disagree with how people FEEL. However, you can disagree with their rationale.
You can’t disagree with my feelings on this… but you’re free to disagree with my rationale.
Not all people, black or white agree with you, and see past the hyper George Bush like hysteria over what this guy said vs. what he actually said.
For the record, my black girlfriend agreed with me (or I should say I agreed with her).
Like i said if the people find this offensive then you can’t disagree on how they feel period.
Hey Raphael,
That is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever read.
When I said Chris Tucker was a pathetic actor, a black person accused me of being racist for saying that.
According to your logic, just because that person SAID I was racist for saying Tucker sucks… that means I automatically AM racist for saying it?
Nice try… but fail.
Oh for fuck’s sake. It’s the same thing. If you reject a person because of the color of their skin, then you are fostering preconceptions of that person because of their ethnicity.
This is not that, and your attempts to make this bigger than it is says a lot more about the sad state of thing than this story.
John if black people find this offensive then its RACIST end of story…
“Racism is when you make assumptions on a person based on their ethnicity. This has nothing to do with that.”
I really hope you aren’t saying that it is not racist if you choose a white guy over a black guy for a job just because he is white (or vice versus). That is really what it sounds like.
Anyone who thinks Whitaker is overrated as an actor seriously needs to go watch “The Shield” season 5.
No George, it’s not racism.
Racism is when you make assumptions on a person based on their ethnicity. This has nothing to do with that.
This was an executive making a quantifiable observation about the facts of how OTHER people (the market) respond people of another ethnicity in the lead role of a movie.
This is only racism if the exec doubted Whitaker’s acting ability because he was black. That’s not what happened here at all.
it doesn;t matter that the guy said he is not bankable or that he is ugly.
he also said it was because he was black and that is racism. there is no debate.
He gave three reasons as to why he didn’t want him and one of those reasons WAS RACIST.
Ok if this is about getting the right bankable actor like Will Smith for the success of his movie and it has nothing to do with race then was it really necessary to insult a good actor like Forest Whitaker by saying he’s ugly & black? come on that wasn’t necessary he could of just said the That he wasn’t right for the role because he wasn’t bankable, instead of saying he’s black.
Again Raphael, you’re proving my point even more.
The very fact that you think I should EXPLAIN why i chose one person over another proves my point even more.
If I had said Zellweger (who i think is hot) or Streisand (who I don’t) would you be asking why I choose them instead of Goldberg? If not, then you’re racist because of your double standard.
No No No No, out of all the actresses like Renée Zellweger and Barbra Streisand why Whoopie Goldberg?
Hey Raphael,
That is the most ignorant thing on this board so far. I mentioned Goldberg because she’s ugly. Your comment just proves my point that people are far to quick to yell “racism”.
John WTF!!?! You said How much money do you think the Underworld Movies would have made if you put Whoopie Goldberg in the lead role instead of Kate Beckinsale? Would you have cast an ugly woman in the role of Selen? I didn’t think so. Neither would I. If this is about an actor who’s to ugly to play the role, then why would you pick Whoopie Goldberg out of all the people like Renée Zellweger and Barbra Streisand? WHY Whoopie Goldberg because she’s BLACK & UGLY. that’s racist man.
what is wrong with being ugly and black????? Tom Hanks is ugly and white. They choose him for roles.
youre racist*
Obama says I am the first black president but its racist if you say anything about my race. WHAT THE FUCK?
Answer: d) a bit of an asshat, with some racism and immorality thrown in for good measure…as well as c). (No.)
What do I win? : )
Little thought experiment. A very rich Democrat says he isn’t going to give money to the Obama campaign, because he doesn’t think a black candidate can win. (a) does that make him racist, (b) is it an immoral decision, and (c) is it any of your f*ing business what he does with his money?
Oh and Jonathan according to Josh Howard yes that exactly what I meant….hahaha JUST KIDDING
OK, I’ll bite: was the ‘despicable’ thing that was sad the racial thing, the looks thing…or the Box Office thing?
And I’m not saying that if you’re white or black you speak one way or another. But that guy was saying what do you mean he sounds white like everyone sounds the same.
I think it’s a despicable thing to say about a terrific actor.
I would say the exec is probably 2/3 in his assessment of Forest Whitaker. Obviously he’s black so he got that right, although I think that’s hardly a negative so if he actually meant it as such, the guy is a moron. Secondly, I think you could argue he’s not bankable. I mean I like the guy and he’s a good actor for the most part, but he’s taken so many questionable roles in the past, I would never say “Wow, a new Forest Whitaker movie. I need to see that.” But to say the man is ugly is wrong in my opinion. He’s got a unique and interesting look and the lazy eye or whatever that actually is might be off-putting to some people, but I don’t find it distracts from his acting ability personally.
All in all, it probably wasn’t the right way for the studio exec to make his point, but he’s not really 100% wrong either.
Name Blockbuster crushing black actors besides Denzel and the Fresh Prince………times up!
I’m curious as to what the reaction would have been if we’d been talking about a white actor with Whitaker’s ‘distinct’ looks and questionable bankability. (I’ll leave it to you to come up with possible candidates.) Because I’m assuming if Will Smith or Jamie Foxx had been suggested, the race aspect wouldn’t have been an issue.
This would almost be laughable if it weren’t such a serious issue – and it really is.
Mikey – “I mean seriously cultural differences actually exist.” So if you are black you automatically belong to one distinct certain culture? What is your argument here? That all black people talk a certain way and can’t talk “white?” Obviously, I am being facetious, but that is what you said reads like.
No one is arguing that there aren’t distinct cultures in our world, but despite the color of one’s skin or their ancestry, they can be a part of any culture. I have good friends that are black and Asian and Native American that share the same cultural world as I, and I have others that do not. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It has to do with their family, their friends, and where they grew up.
There is something inherently wrong with many of these things I am reading here, but then again, this is one of those issues that people have their mind made up on and nobody can change it.
He has a right to say he’s ugly or Unbankable, but saying because he’s black is not only racist, but stupid since WIll Smith is the biggest draw in the world of movies! PS: He’s not ugly at all but he might be unbankable, as most all actors working today are!
o ok…..thats dumb on their part
The Obama thing was a joke….kind of. I actually have met people who really think that and thats why they are voting the way they are. Not for platforms or issues.
and wow that obama comment came outta nowhere…lol
^lol they actually taught that…..insane
are u dense, a black man can say the same lines as a white man can, if its written that way it would be said that way…..yea certain parts of any communities talk differently…a white guy in detroit will prolly speak different than a white guy from philly….does that warrant “white philly vernacular”
@ Michael Dean
Are you dense? I mean seriously cultural differences actually exist. Different cultures talk think act differently. Thats what makes the world a great place that we arent the same drone. And didnt the school systems in Oakland start teaching Black English Vernacular? Im not sure but that may indicate that parts of the black community may speak differently then parts of the white community. But maybe thats just in Oakland……
” I envisioned him as white and wrote the character’s dialog and behaviours as such.”
What is white dialog? Also how would the dialog be different if the charactor was black?
John your my guy but…maybe you might want to slow down. :)
The only color that matters in the sense of what he is saying is GREEN. Execs dont care. They would put a purple monkey with SARS as the lead if they beleived that it would generate the most revenue. Johns right if he would have said I dont want any black in my movies then yeah racism but saying that one black actor specifically that he believes to be less atractive (and hollywood that does matter) isnt marketable across the board is not. And not voting for Obama isnt racist either.
ugly white guys do well though. Like Ed Norton
I actually agree with John on this one although I do find more similarities between discriminating against women and discriminating against Whitaker based on his look.
The whole premise of what Hollywood does with movies is based on appearance and public opinion. If the studios feel that their movie will fail because an actor is not as attractive I have to say that they likely have the history to prove it. I’m not saying it is right but it is the truth.
Why does Brad Pitt get so much money for each movie. It is because he is one of the most attractive people out there. Sure he can act but if he just had his acting but was not as attractive does anyone for one second think he would be making as much money.
There are so many character actors out there who are average looking who are incredibly talented but they do not attract the audiences like Brad Pitt does. Whitaker is one of these actors and it is a shame but its just the way it is.
The only way to fix this is for audiences to start paying more attention and to start going to the smaller movies and then things will change. Money is what drives this all and it sucks but it is the truth.
“What did they teach you about racism up there in Canada?”
Speaking of ignorant….
I cannot believe what I am reading here.
If one of the reasons the exec didn’t want him is because he is black then THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM.
Why don’t you want forest?
“hes ugly, he’s black he’s unbankable”
I couldn’t give a shit about the ugly part. unbankable fair enough but right there in the middle the guy says one of the reasons “he’s black”
thats racism john. end of story.
and I can’t believe your post.
“Now you’re just asking me to engage in speculation”
The entirety of this article and the comments following is based on speculation here.
“Racism would be to make an assumption about THE PERSON you’re talking about. In this case it WOULD be racism if the studio exec was making an assumption on Whitaker’s acting ability because he’s black.”
What in the world, John? What did they teach you about racism up there in Canada?
Not casting somebody because they are black for the shear sake of unbankability (not for reasons I mentioned above that are essential to the story) IS racist, ignorance, bigotry.There really isn’t an argument there, John.
Hey Jonathan,
Now you’re just asking me to engage in speculation. What if’s and could have’s.
I just held my casting auditions for my film… and although there is nothing in the script calling for Cid (the lead character) to be white… I envisioned him as white and wrote the character’s dialog and behaviours as such. I am WELL within my logical rights to only cast a white dude for Cid.
However, there were other main characters that I knew race didn’t matter, and so I opened up the casting call to people of all ethnicities.
The bottom line is, it’s his money, if he thinks one thing will work and another thing won’t, then no one has the right to tell him how he should or shouldn’t spend his money. Period.
Because – I admit I am assuming – but his being black or white has no bearing on the story of ‘Winged Creatures.’
In the case of films dealing with racial such as Crash, you would obviously not cast Catherine Keener in Thandie Newton’s role, because it would not make sense. In the script for the Kite Runner, you would not cast Will Smith in the lead role because it would not make sense. In The Namesake, casting Shia LaBeouf would also not make sense, because it is specific to the story.
If what the character looks like or his heritage is NOT specific to the story – in this case, they did not want to finance the film because he was black, and not because his being black was nonsensical or detrimental to the story – then that is bigotry, not a sound, just business decision.
I’m going to talk about this on the show tonight.
Hey Jean-Baptiste,
No, that really isn’t racism in the least. Not even a little bit. Racism would be to make an assumption about THE PERSON you’re talking about. In this case it WOULD be racism if the studio exec was making an assumption on Whitaker’s acting ability because he’s black.
However, what he was doing was making an assumption (correct or incorrect) on how the MARKET would respond to an actor in that role. An assumption that is (very sadly) backed up by verifiable numbers and proof.
Whitaker has NEVER lead a hit film. Not once.
John, I was really bewildered reading that article from you. You’re clearly missing the point here. See, you defend the guy: “Ok he mentioned he’s black. Well… if he thinks that will have an impact on his bottom line, then he has the right to object.” Now why would he think something like that? Too assume a movie would bomb at the box office because the main character is black is, believe it or not, racist. Would “I am Legend” have made even more money if there was Matt Damon instead of Will Smith in the lead? He might say that they need a bigger actor and he may be right with that, but the single assumption of a black lead endangering the movie’s box office success, makes this statement outright racist.
valid, but come on now john…..that was a pretty poor example whoopi in underworld…lol…the script prolly called for a young, sexy, female vampire….
but imagine im an exec greenlighting a flick about a young mother whose husband died or something…..the script doesnt call for the race of the character….the director says he wants maggie gyllanhal (great actress btw, not the best looker tho)
i turn him down, he asks why and i say i dont want some ugly, white, bitch in my flick….this gets printed online…..dont try and say people wouldnt be upset….like they should be about this…..
discrediting an actor because of looks even after the said actor proved his or her talent….and sayin it in a crass unprofessional level is ridiculous….even if it was in a private convo its an asshole thing to say….not sayin the guy should be fired, but hes an asshole that made a very insensitive, stupid comment and should be called on it
This is some bullshit. First of all, Forest Whitaker has been in plaent of popular movies The Crying Game, Panic Room, Phone Booth, Vantage Point were all very popular. Granted those movies all had a number of other stars in them, but if this exec thinks he has “the hottest ensemble cast in town” this shouldn’t be any different.
i understand your paying devilas advocate for the sake of conversation/blog purposes….but I dont see what it matters who was present, or where he was when he said it….??
so what an executive does privately, when still attending to his business, is automatically stricken from the record becuz we werent INTDENDED to know his viewpoint on this particular matter??
“business” decision or not John, a man in his position should be aware of the youtube/camera phone/blog world we live in and assume(unfortunately) anything he says is public knowledge…
this man im sure could have worded this better and possibly evan SUGGESTED a better actor, rather then point out what he DOESNT like about the one the dIRECTOR CHOSE…
Hey Jonathan,
That’s all well and good for YOU or I to say what should or shouldn’t matter. But yes, if the “money person” who agreed to finance a film read a script that had a white, or hispanic or hindu lead male, and that was what he signed on for…. then yes, he has a valid objection to make (if he so chooses… I wouldn’t… but I can understand why someone else would).
So basically, he said what he said… private conversation when asked by the director why he didn’t want Forest… we all agree appearance means something… we all know bankability means something… so what is your problem with what he said?
John,
That wasn’t my point in the least. Perhaps I should have just put “black” in quotations.
Hey Chris,
I disagree. He was having a private conversation with the director who I’m sure asked WHY he didn’t want Oscar winner Forest Whitaker as the lead in his movie.
He was open and honest with him. He didn’t say it in front of press, he said it in a private conversation.
You also said:
“i bet people would be pissed if an exec said they didnt want some ugly, white broad”
I 100% disagree. How much money do you think the Underworld Movies would have made if you put Whoopie Goldberg in the lead role instead of Kate Beckinsale? Would you have cast an ugly woman in the role of Selen? I didn’t think so. Neither would I.
“What if the script initially called for a Caucasian male and that was his objection?”
This is an original story. If it was an iconic character (i.e. blond haired, blue eyes Captain America / Spider-Man) or if an actor needs to be white or black or Hispanic or Asian for a specific reason (i.e. Crash), then okay, that argument can probably be bought – but otherwise, it should not really matter in the least if the script calls for somebody being “Caucasian” or not really, should it? Would Eagle Eye be any different with a black lead actor?
Hey Jonathan,
You’re confusing comments made publically vs comments made privately.
Of coarse, if you’ve NEVER in your life EVER called ANYONE ugly before, then I guess you can throw a stone.
And if you don’t think an actor being ugly may have a direct impact of a character (if it’s called for or not), then I’d like to ask you if you would have cast a 240 pound woman in Wedding Crashers instead of Rachel McAddams. Just a thought.
well thats bullshit however the context…..i can care less if the guy was an exec, he made a really insensitive, douchebag comment and he should be called on it if he said it…..now it would make sense if the script called for a white actor and whitaker was simply turned down, but it doesnt seem that way…..the director wanted an actor and the dickhead exec said some dumb shit…..and dont try to give that “its a business” bullshit, that statement didnt seem very professional or business like….
and john a makes a good point….female leads dont make money either….and i bet people would be pissed if an exec said they didnt want some ugly, white broad thats unbankable….tilda swinton or maggie gyllanhall (sp)
*sigh* i don’t get people sometimes
I’m sorry, but it IS insensitive, i’m not going to assume anything cause from the quote it sounds like he’s an asshole.
whether or not there is a truth to it it’s HOW HE SAID IT that makes what the exec said wrong ultimately
“I can’t judge this studio exec for making… well… a business decision.”
Umm. I can when he reasoning includes an actor being they are “ugly and black.”
This is tabloid bullshit though and I don’t really buy into it for a minute, just some people trying to make some noise. But if it is true, then this studio executive has no business being in the position he is in and should be canned for making such a comment. It’s 2008. Being a “business decision” does not make it excusable.
Hey John A.
That would be a good point if you were still talking about the same context… which you’re not.
In that post about women’s roles I SPECIFICALLY said:
“I don’t blame WB or any studio for looking at any script and deciding againt them for whatever reason… but to flat out say, without so much as giving those projects a reading or opportunity, that they wouldn’t even consider scripts with WOMEN in the lead, is socially unacceptable and harmful to a social standard.”
The only way your example would be applicable here is if the studio guy said “Under no circumstances will I allow a movie to be even condiered if there is a black male lead”. If that was the case, then we’d be talking about the same thing… but we’re not are we?
This is an example where the studio guy gave 3 reasons why didn’t want Forest Whitaker in the lead of this movie. Are you going to argue that Forest is exceedingly attractive? What if the script initially called for a Caucasian male and that was his objection? Can you argue with Whitaker’s bankability?
So no, these are two totally different scenarios entirely.
The “hottest ensemble cast in town” really? There is no one in that cast that would make me want to watch a movie (maybe Guy Pearce-maybe)-so Forest Whitaker is not a big problem. Him being in it or not is not going to make the difference.
And yet when a studio exec says that he doesn’t want to make any more movies with the leading character being a female you get up in arms. Its the same exact thing.
https://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/who-cares-if-broads-dont-get-leads
poor toto. 8[
You put Kate Beckinsale in any movie and I’ll go see it. I would imagine most guys would agree with that. So put who ever you want to in the male lead. I’m in
“Forest Whitaker is one of the best actors out there, no doubt”
I doubt. I think Whitaker is overrated. He is weird looking, has a unique style and is hard to substitute. But I don’t think, overall, he’s a very great actor.There’s more strangeness to his style than there is quality to his acting.