caffeine wrote:
. Similarly, the casting of Twenty-One doesn't seem so important. The fact that the students were Asian isn't really relevant to their story (though I understand commentary about this as part of a wider point about Asian men in films).
This was a story about real people who are still alive. I'm sure if they had cast Mark Zuckerberg with a black actor in Facebook people would have found it relevant.
Also, race played a big role in the book. Part of the group's success was that they were able to exploit people's stereotypes. There was also a larger subtext about the invisibility of Asians in American life. Not to mention that the only major Hollywood release I can think of that featured an Asian lead actor in a non-martial-arts-related role is "Harold and Kumar".
I'm sure there's ever a case where race is entirely irrelevant in American public life.
Quote:
2. Does it clash with the setting? I find it inteferes a bit with the suspension of disbelief when film makers go for, say, black Vikings. In criticising these, though, you do have to be careful that your criticism isn't simply a result of your own historical ignorance - as when people complain about casting black men as cowboys.
If it's not an ultra-realistic, ultra-accurate historical depiction, you're probably already suspending disbelief for anachronisms bigger than the occasional black Viking.