"White-washing" is one of the known traits of Biased Media- it is not only in motion pictures, it is also on television shows, even on the news. What "white-washing" basically is- taking characters that were originally diverse, but putting white actors in place. This has sparked quite a controversy, while people protest about it, some Hollywood actors/producers/filmmakers would either defend it or apologize for it. This isn't new- this has been going on for many, many years and it has to be addressed. An online article by the Huffington Post, "Whitewashing Was One of Hollywood's Worst Habits- So Why Is It Still Happening?" by Amanda Scherker, and what the article talks about is that Hollywood gets white actors to play racially diverse characters, and how that it is a sensitive issue that must be discussed and taken into action. The article mainly uses Ethos and Logos throughout. But there's another article that speaks about the other side of the coin of this issue. An article from BBC News by Elena Boffetta, "Crowe's 'Whitewashing' Sparks Criticism from Advocates", which mainly talks about Cameron Crowe's recent film "Aloha", which received backlash because of whitewashed roles. However, it also gives an economic reason why some roles are whitewashed. The article mainly used Ethos and Logos. Both articles have different takes and influences on the same issue.
The article by the Huffington Post, credibility is supported throughout by the fact that it cited many articles and books discussing biased media- such as Racism, Sexism, and the Media by Clint C Wilson II, Felix Gutierrez and Lena Chao, and the book Starring John Wayne as Genghis Khan: Hollywood's All-Time Casting Blunders by Damien Bona. There is also a USC study by Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper that discusses diversifying media. The use of Ethos in this article is stronger as there are many more articles from websites and magazines that state several facts about whitewashing films from the past and present. There are also films stated in the film that are examples of whitewashing- films like Othello, The Conquerer, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Cleopatra, The Prince of Persia, The Lone Ranger, A Beautiful Mind, 21, The Last Airbender, and many other films that are cited in the article. This raises the article's ethos.
There are many factual evidence against whitewashed films, including the said films, including statistics which raises the article's Logos. The article uses statistics and logic to persuade readers that whitewashing has in fact been going on for a long time in Hollywood, and it is allowed. The films shown as examples are clear evidence, including a statistic from the University of Southern California. This statistic was given due to the reaction from the film A Beautiful Mind, which the film's erasure Salvadoran-born Nash's Hispanic ethnicity and her immigration to America angered many, even though her immigration story was discussed in the book which inspired the film, she was still played by a white actress. The statistic stated that Latinos comprise of just 4% of lead roles in films, which is pretty troubling. Another example is the book Starring John Wayne as Genghis Khan: Hollywood's All-Time Casting Blunders, where it states that John Wayne, a white actor, played the role of Genghis Khan, which many people considered to be terrible casting. This continued into the 1960's where white actors continued to play Chinese characters, most notably Mickey Rooney's depiction of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's. The article's use of Logos continues to rise as it gives examples of whitewashed roles from films including backlash reactions from the audience and background of the original character, whether fictional or non-fictional. This definitely gets people's attention when they look closely, and it's very persuasive with all of the facts.
The next article's ethos is not as strong when compared to the other article. The credibility comes from Lisa Nakamura, who is a professor of American culture from the University of Michigan, who explains why whitewashing happens in Hollywood media and why it is good economically. Most of the article's credibility talks about Cameron Crowe's film Aloha which deals with whitewashed roles, and the director's apology to it. The only source who discusses the "good" about whitewashing was professor Nakamura.
Whilst the ethos in the article isn't as strong throughout the article, it's logos is pretty persuasive among readers. Professor Nakamura stated that back in the 1950's, there was a lack of Asian actors which would explain why white actors would have to portray the Asian roles. It continues when Nakamura states that Hollywood continues to hire popular white actors so that the film would get recognized and make money. The whole strategy is making money in that business. An example would be Ridley Scott's film Exodus: Gods and Kings, when Christian Bale was casted to play as Moses. It's pretty logical to get a big popular Oscar winning actor to play such a role to get the film financed and get attention from audiences. Nakamura finishes by saying Hollywood will continue to cast famous white actors to bring in audiences, when you think of the bigger picture- it all makes particular sense.
Whilst both articles lacked pathos, they both had credibility to support it and were very logically oriented. However, while both persuasive and convincing, the first article had more evidence and credibility against whitewashing in Hollywood. It's ethos supports its logos which only made the argument against whitewashing sound. The 2nd article's logos was not supported as much by its ethos but it still made a convincing standpoint. What both articles share is that whitewashing is a sensitive issue in Hollywood and it has to be looked into further. While it may be good to get attention worldwide and bring in money, the film stills needs to be accurate and convincing when it comes to the roles because it represents how viewers see themselves and that still matters.
References
- Scherker, Amanda. (2014) Whitewashing Was One of Hollywood's Worst Habits- So Why Is It Still Happening?
The Huffington Post retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/hollywood-whitewashing_n_5515919.html
-Boffetta, Elena. (2015) Crowe's 'Whitewashing' Sparks Criticism from Advocates
BBC News retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33017006
The article by the Huffington Post, credibility is supported throughout by the fact that it cited many articles and books discussing biased media- such as Racism, Sexism, and the Media by Clint C Wilson II, Felix Gutierrez and Lena Chao, and the book Starring John Wayne as Genghis Khan: Hollywood's All-Time Casting Blunders by Damien Bona. There is also a USC study by Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper that discusses diversifying media. The use of Ethos in this article is stronger as there are many more articles from websites and magazines that state several facts about whitewashing films from the past and present. There are also films stated in the film that are examples of whitewashing- films like Othello, The Conquerer, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Cleopatra, The Prince of Persia, The Lone Ranger, A Beautiful Mind, 21, The Last Airbender, and many other films that are cited in the article. This raises the article's ethos.
There are many factual evidence against whitewashed films, including the said films, including statistics which raises the article's Logos. The article uses statistics and logic to persuade readers that whitewashing has in fact been going on for a long time in Hollywood, and it is allowed. The films shown as examples are clear evidence, including a statistic from the University of Southern California. This statistic was given due to the reaction from the film A Beautiful Mind, which the film's erasure Salvadoran-born Nash's Hispanic ethnicity and her immigration to America angered many, even though her immigration story was discussed in the book which inspired the film, she was still played by a white actress. The statistic stated that Latinos comprise of just 4% of lead roles in films, which is pretty troubling. Another example is the book Starring John Wayne as Genghis Khan: Hollywood's All-Time Casting Blunders, where it states that John Wayne, a white actor, played the role of Genghis Khan, which many people considered to be terrible casting. This continued into the 1960's where white actors continued to play Chinese characters, most notably Mickey Rooney's depiction of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's. The article's use of Logos continues to rise as it gives examples of whitewashed roles from films including backlash reactions from the audience and background of the original character, whether fictional or non-fictional. This definitely gets people's attention when they look closely, and it's very persuasive with all of the facts.
The next article's ethos is not as strong when compared to the other article. The credibility comes from Lisa Nakamura, who is a professor of American culture from the University of Michigan, who explains why whitewashing happens in Hollywood media and why it is good economically. Most of the article's credibility talks about Cameron Crowe's film Aloha which deals with whitewashed roles, and the director's apology to it. The only source who discusses the "good" about whitewashing was professor Nakamura.
Whilst the ethos in the article isn't as strong throughout the article, it's logos is pretty persuasive among readers. Professor Nakamura stated that back in the 1950's, there was a lack of Asian actors which would explain why white actors would have to portray the Asian roles. It continues when Nakamura states that Hollywood continues to hire popular white actors so that the film would get recognized and make money. The whole strategy is making money in that business. An example would be Ridley Scott's film Exodus: Gods and Kings, when Christian Bale was casted to play as Moses. It's pretty logical to get a big popular Oscar winning actor to play such a role to get the film financed and get attention from audiences. Nakamura finishes by saying Hollywood will continue to cast famous white actors to bring in audiences, when you think of the bigger picture- it all makes particular sense.
Whilst both articles lacked pathos, they both had credibility to support it and were very logically oriented. However, while both persuasive and convincing, the first article had more evidence and credibility against whitewashing in Hollywood. It's ethos supports its logos which only made the argument against whitewashing sound. The 2nd article's logos was not supported as much by its ethos but it still made a convincing standpoint. What both articles share is that whitewashing is a sensitive issue in Hollywood and it has to be looked into further. While it may be good to get attention worldwide and bring in money, the film stills needs to be accurate and convincing when it comes to the roles because it represents how viewers see themselves and that still matters.
References
- Scherker, Amanda. (2014) Whitewashing Was One of Hollywood's Worst Habits- So Why Is It Still Happening?
The Huffington Post retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/hollywood-whitewashing_n_5515919.html
-Boffetta, Elena. (2015) Crowe's 'Whitewashing' Sparks Criticism from Advocates
BBC News retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33017006