White, mediocre and unimaginative: Why the film industry insists on producing blank canvases.
It is exclusion, not profit that drives studio executives.
Art is a human instinct. It lives in us all. In spite of this, for centuries art has only reflected the white experience, an experience that is often at the expense of POC. Film is at the centre of this exclusion; White studio executives will spout every excuse in the book for only depicting blank bores on the silver screen. “No one is interested.” “No one will pay to watch that.” “We’d lose money.” Art should know no bounds but studio executives have ensured that art is very familiar with them as they continue to highlight profit as the main objective.
However, a recent report shared reveals a more sinister reason for studio executives excluding POC. Conducted by the consulting firm McKinsey, the report revealed that Hollywood loses $10 billion from limiting stories from Black artists, $12 to $18 billion dollars for preventing stories from Latino artists and $2 to $4.4 billion for neglecting stories from Asian and Pacific Islanders. This comes to a total of $30 billion lost due to exclusionary practices in the film industry. These losses are from the audiences that studio executives claim are not interested in watching films featuring, Black, Latino and Asian voices. It’s not just profit that is lost, it’s stories too. When studios spout these claims of disinterest in response to pitches of films featuring POC, they are still centering a White audience and their profit, closing off the opportunity to diversify art. We cannot expect logic and good business acumen from individuals who ignore art because it doesn’t centre White people. This report has shown what we’ve known all along: profit was the opaque mask they wore in an attempt to hide their bigotry.
‘Forced diversity’ or ‘Didn’t Earn It’ as racists are now seemingly calling it (their supposedly clever take on the initials Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) is the absurd notion that reflecting the existence of POC in film is somehow a negative thing. The gradual increase of films written, directed and starring POC is treated like a threat. The increase of POC behind the screen especially results in more in-depth characterisation in comparison to the two-dimensional, disposable, often discriminatory representation we’ve seen previously. It makes the complaints from White studio executives and audiences more egregious. The belief that the simple presence of POC in the film industry will dismantle the system of racism shows how unwilling White people are to combat discriminatory practices within the industry. It highlights the wilful ignorance White people express when confronted with their privilege.
This ignorance leads White people to believe that race-swapping traditionally White characters for POC is equal to the long and violent history of white-washing. White-washing is the practice of hiring a white actor for the role of a non-white character. Both real people and fictional characters have been white-washed. The film industry uses a many number of excuses for erasing the already miniscule representation of POC: they believe the film will do better with a more well-known actor or they’re remaking a foreign film for a Western audience. These excuses, like for exclusionary practices, are worthless. Often these films flop due to the outrage and/or the film is not very good. If anything in the industry is forced, it’s the insistence to present an image of the world that only includes White people. Race-swapping and white-washing are also not comparable because white-washing has worked side by side with the practices of Blackface, Yellowface and Brownface, in which a white actor uses makeup to portray a racist caricature of a non-white person. It is inane to compare these practices to race-swapping, when they are centred in the exclusion of POC.
Colourism also needs to be considered in conversations surrounding representation. Colourism is a form of discrimination against POC of a darker skin tone. Studio executives attempt to resolve the lack of representation by only centering stories around biracial and/or light skinned POC. This is not enough, as art is still limited to satisfy white supremacist views. Since we are only meant to be content with only a few things in the film industry, studio executives will only hire the few and same actors, writers and directors to tell stories. Colourism within the film industry is another example of the bias studio executives willingly perpetuate and also highlights what poor business people they are.
The main argument against race-swapping is that POC should make their own stories. But original stories are already under attack in the film industry and those featuring POC even more so. Original stories centering on POC are not immune from racist abuse because the problem has never been us replacing White people, it is our existence, full stop. We are faced with discrimination from the day we place the screenplay on an executive’s table and it doesn’t end, no matter how many years it’s passed since the film has been released. Crazy Rich Asians (2018) and Black Panther (2018) were accused of discrimination against White people. As highlighted above, that’s not how that works. White people are not victims when POC portray them as racist. It is something they have done and continue to do so. Pointing that out is not an attack and it is petulant to even begin to think so. Even when they’re portrayed as benign characters, White people complain and when they’re not included at all, all hell breaks loose. “When accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression.” White people understand the importance of representation in film perfectly well. They understand the importance of nuanced, diverse and a wide range of stories, they just don’t want to relinquish their power and privilege to allow POC the opportunity to write, direct and perform those stories.
The film industry lives and dies by supposed risks. The risk to create something original, the risk to create something that audiences want, the risk of prioritising art in an industry that increasingly prioritises profit. Risk gives art a little something, but we should have never accepted the narrative that inclusion in the arts is a risk. Assuming the inclusion of POC will dilute talent in the industry is racist and also mindless considering the amount of occasions that productions will hire a white person in order to exclude a more talented POC. It’s even more egregious when you factor in the prevalence of nepotism. The film industry will continue to rely on White mediocrity, no matter how many times it blows up in their face. To maintain the racist status quo, that is a risk they are always willing to take.
Art is categorised by its colour and vibrancy. It is concerning that studio executives desire that art should be mass-produced white canvases to maintain exclusion within the film industry. This recent report on diversity along with other recent issues within the industry such as the strikes and A.I have proven once again that many studio executives are ill-equipped to hold such high positions in any business, let alone the arts. Art is not sustainable if people such as Peltz remain in charge, pocketing unearned profit at the expense of artists and audiences’ desires for original, inclusive stories. Profit has never been at stake, artistic expression has. That should be the driving force of the film industry and that is impossible without the creative efforts of POC.