Give Actors a Break. It’s Not Selling Out, it’s a Job
December 22nd, 2006 by Carole LevineIn the Native film community, it’s always out there. Lurking lurking lurking, just beneath the surface. Sometimes it rears its ugly head; sometimes in whispers; sometimes loud and accusatory.
The implication that an actor; let me rephrase that, a NATIVE actor, has a special obligation to speak up, speak out and walk out, if necessary, when the film role they’ve accepted perpetuates a stereotypical image of their race and culture. After all, they have been anointed as role models and as such, obligated to lead and fight the good fight for the benefit of all.
Sounds fair. If you’re not an actor, that is. Sounds fair. If you’re not worried about feeding your kids and paying for your car and rent and maybe your mom’s dental work.
Sounds fair. But, let’s be real. It ain’t.
Now, don’t pelt me with tomatoes; I’m not suggesting that anybody should succumb to the “S” word. You know, “sell-out.” What I am suggesting is that actors are employees, just like most of us, and as employees, who hasn’t held their nose and covered their ears to actions taken by the boss for a greater long-term reward? (I work for Catholic Charities, and we all know what the Catholic Church has been capable of in recent years, right?) So unless someone always walks the principled road, well, maybe they ought to stand back and sit down.
The reason I bring this up is because the “S” whisperers have surfaced again. This time, the target is the Mel Gibson blood scourge, Apocalypto. Many Indigenous people are mad as hell at the portrayal of Mayans in this film; although not all. Many Indigenous people believe the film perpetuates the lie of a savage civilization; although not all. But enough do, and that’s enough to give rise to the “S” word accusation. Again.
The irony in all of this can’t be ignored. The actors in the film have been receiving hosannas from the mainstream entertainment press; interviews, breathless accolades and the proud applause from the folks back home. Apocalypto star Rudy Youngblood, the young Comanche-Yaqui from Texas, went from being an unknown grass-dancer before his first real acting job catapulted him to the red carpets. I don’t know about you, but I’m happy for Rudy and I certainly don’t expect him to lecture Mel Gibson or Touchstone Pictures about their lack of cultural sensitivity.
What I’m getting to, in a rather roundabout way, is that it comes down to power. Actors, most actors, especially NATIVE actors, well, they don’t have much. Power, that is. The studios, the moguls, the big boys—they have lots and lots of power. This is what you call a disconnect.
This disconnect makes it virtually impossible for someone like Rudy Youngblood to fall on his sword for the cause and have it matter much at all, except to Rudy, who’d be committing career suicide. Explain to me—what good would come of that other than to quell the opportunities of a promising young talent?
For that reason, I beg you “S” whisperers to stop. Save your fire for an actor who has bridged the disconnect; an actor who has established the level of power he or she must have to make their influence worthwhile. And support Rudy and the scores of other struggling Native actors working and scraping by doing what they can as best they can to put an indigenous face in the public domain. They aren’t sell-outs at all; they are pioneers in Hollywood-land.
That sounds fair to me.
A provocative posting. Is it a response to something you read on Newspaper Rock?
You say Rudy Youngblood and the other Native actors were employees, not sell-outs. It would be interesting to know if they spoke up about their roles. Most jobs aren’t democracies, but they also aren’t tyrannies. Most employers let their people express opinions to some degree before laying down the law.
Consider the case of Raoul Trujillo, who played the ultra-evil Zero Wolf. Could his character possibly have presented Native people in a worse light? If he wasn’t a sell-out, what would it take for a Native actor to be a sell-out?
I’d say there’s a middle ground between being a sell-out and an Uncle Tomahawk who jives and shucks for Massa Gibson. I worked for a defense contractor once, and I spoke up when I thought something was wrong. Sometimes I got in trouble because of it, and it probably contributed to my being laid off, but so? The solution wasn’t to stop criticizing but to make myself so valuable that I didn’t have to depend on one company for a job.
Comment by robschmidt — December 23, 2006 @ 4:57 am
Wonder where I found the original article, hmmmmmm….
I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, Rob, but the analogy to your job at the defense contractor isn’t altogether kosher. Here’s why. First, maybe these actors DO speak up PRIVATELY to their employers on set.
Here’s the difference. You or me, or most people for that matter, don’t have the megaphone of the media to croak about our disagreements with the boss. If we did, I’m sure the majority of us would hesitate before using it. (Assuming it isn’t a Karen Silkwood kind of situation where the boss is doing something either illegal or dangerous.)
That really isn’t what I’m talking about here. I’m referring to the expectation by some, and the author of the article you posted is only one of many I’ve personally heard about, that Native actors have an obligation to speak publicly and even refuse roles that foster the "beads and feathers" stereotype.
Actually, some Natives actors do speak up and turn down parts, to their credit. Others, for reasons that require no explanation to any of us, do not. Maybe they have a family to support. Maybe they have medical bills to pay. No matter; it’s not a sin for them to want to find work and build their career. It really isn’t.
In fact, these folks hate having to accept these kinds of roles….which is all the more reason they are so encouraged by the number of young Native filmmakers joining the ranks. At this point, however, the reality is none of these filmmakers has the power and prestige of a Mel Gibson or TNT or Spielberg. But they’re trying…and we’re behind them.
Comment by Carole Levine — December 23, 2006 @ 9:14 am
I have to weigh in on this one too. I agree with Rob to some extent. The simple fact is if enough of the “actors” would refuse (and by the by many did and even quit on the job) roles in productions like these the powers that be would have a hell of a time getting these projects to the screen. Let’s face it, long gone are the days when producers hire white dudes for dress up as injuns. They wouldn’t even think of it and why should they when there are so many real live injuns to choose from in the U.S. and Canada who so gladly throw on a loincloths and literally shuck spears? Like, literally they shucked a helluva lot of spears in Apocalypto, which I still maintain is a highly entertaining film.
But the burden of representation hangs because of things like this:
“Yeah, like the Gibson movie is about Aztecians, right? they speak some Azrecian gibberish. hahahahaha right?”
and
“I don’t care about a movie with Mayans. Why would anyone want to see a movie about Mayans anyway?”
Two quotes from my nephews, ages 20 and 13. They are the poster boys for upper middle class America. I trust many such boys, for whom this film is expressly made, feel much the same way. How they contribute to this burden placed on Native actors lies in the dumbfounded looks on their face when I pointed out that the film is in fact not “aztecian” nor is it “about Mayans.” The film is an archetypical Gibson “aggrieved hero” flick. Both of my nephews balked. DUH! But they don’t get it and trust me others don’t get it either. That is where the damage lies, people literally believe what they are seeing on the screen as indicative of the culture. As for the actors, well they’re just “a bunch of Mexicans, right.” When I pointed out that several of the main leads where Native North Americans from texas and Canada respectively they laughed because they thought it was stupid for Gibson to cast North Americans Indians based solely on the fact that they see Native North Americans as horse riding, buckskin wearing arrow shooting warriors on the plains. Thank you Dances with Wolves.
As for selling out? A sell-out generally implies a long and distinguished career as a serious actor in independent, challenging cinema, for example, Johnny Depp, who for two seconds was considered a sell-out for taking the role as Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. Of course, he was brilliant, as he usually is and the notion of his selling out faded from the collective concious.
Rudy Youngblood was the very last to be cast from some 1800 people. His role at one point had already ben cast but for whatever reasons became available. He’s a lucky kid who caught a break. But the truth is, Youngblood has never been criticized himself. Not in the mainstream media and so far not in any Indigenous news or film outlet. I’m not sure where you read that he was called a sell-out unless it’s the haters at imdb message board. But may I remind you of the bitchiness of those who hated on little Q’orianka and how several turned out to be Native actresses who DID NOT GET THE PART. So if that’s where you got the news that Youngblood was being called a sell-out well consider the source.
Though any actor who takes a role in a TNT western for the 8th or 9th time is officially a SELL-OUT because they should know by now they are officially typecast as “western background material.” Don’t know if you heard the interview NAICA did with Tonantzin Carmelo but she talks about this tyopecasting that goes on with Native actors and it’s kinda sad. You can actually hear the sad frustration in her voice.
It’s a tough call, the whole sell out thing…….
Comment by Missy Editor — December 24, 2006 @ 11:19 am