Not Every Film Should be a Platform

I'm a big Star Wars fan. Anyone who knows me even moderately knows that about me. Star Wars Episode IV had a material impact on my life at a very young age. Seeing Princess Leia running the Rebellion when I was seven years old taught me women could be strong and could be leaders. I also wanted to be Han Solo. I was really grossed out when he and Leia kissed.
     One thing I always appreciated about the Lucas-driven Star Wars franchise was that it was SAFE. Safe for parents looking to escape the stresses of every day life. Safe for kids seeking new ways to expand their imaginations and dream of worlds far, far away. Safe from all the pressures modern society puts upon us. Safe from all the sex that invades almost every other form of entertainment.
     So when I saw ScreenCrushes' article about Star Wars Celebration Europe, well, I was crushed. When did our world become so agenda-driven that even JJ Abrams has succumbed to the pressure to use our precious, safe Star Wars as a platform? You see, ScreenCrushes' writer pressured Abrams about including a gay character in the next episode and he said "Of course!"
     Wait! What??? Star Wars has NEVER been about sex. It's never been about the agenda du jour. It rises above our petty differences by NOT talking about things that would make a seven-year-old go "Blech!" Let's face it, when Anakin and Amidala got all mushy in Episode II, the target audience got the heebie jeebies. I mean, there was KISSING! How the heck is any character's sexual preference and/or gender identity supposed to fit into the Star Wars universe without alienating the biggest part of its dedicated audience? (Hint to Disney: you didn't buy it because the target audience was Starbuck's swilling 20-30 somethings with identity issues. You bought it because it appeals to the PG-aged set who also happen to buy tons of tie-in merchandise. Let's face it, if you're selling tie-ins at Toys R Us or the Disney Store, you're marketing it to kids despite MPAA ratings saying it's for 13+. You bought a franchise long marketed to 7+.)
     Here's another tip: 7-12 is NOT the appropriate age group to target gender identity or sexual preference messaging. At that age, kids are barely conscious of the fact that boys and girls have different equipment, and they're still convinced the other sex has cooties.
     Dear Hollywood, please don't destroy childhood innocence with your need to conform to every agenda out there. Star Wars and other child-friendly fare just isn't the place to talk about sex, and sexual preference is too mature a topic for kids under the age of 12. It is an excellent place to continue to show diversity by placing characters of varying race and species in close proximity. But let's not up the gross factor by making sexual preference a big deal where a simple kiss between opposite gender adults is barely more than kids can stomach. By forcing this into family-targeted films, you may be "including" 2% of the U.S. population, but you'll be excluding 80% of your current audience by forcing conscientious parents of elementary school cootie-believers to skip the next film. (Not because of the gay aspect, but because of the forced focus on topics too mature for younger brains.)
     Yes, there is a right place for including LGBT. Star Wars, which has long been marketed to kids regardless of rating, or anything rated G or PG is simply not that place. Disney, families trusted when you bought the property from Lucas you'd keep it kid-friendly. Don't break that trust, please.
     Filmmakers, I've said it before and I'll say it over and over again: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. That includes understanding who's going to see your film based on how you're going to market it BEFORE you decide to toss in your agenda messaging. I don't care if you're talking about racism, sexuality, violence or whatever - any film that attracts kids is simply not the place. Change your marketing or create a new franchise, but don't "message" kids. Ever.

Killing Credibility with Casting

Sometimes it's the screenwriter's fault, but usually not. Let's face it, as a filmmaker/ producer/ director, you have the final word on casting choices made for your film. This used to be a no-brainer kind of job since all women were young and pretty and all men were dashing and attractive by Old Hollywood standards. Age only mattered if the part called for a woman and it was once perfectly okay to restrict all female roles to 18-30 age group. By okay, I mean "accepted practice."
     I've said it before and will probably say it a million times: filmmakers need to take their casting choices more seriously with today's sophisticated audiences. Women now buy as many, if not more tickets than men do. More women make household buying decisions than men, buy a ration of 2:1. Your market is no longer Ward Cleaver, folks.
     If you want to be taken seriously as a filmmaker, you need to demonstrate that you can make good choices casting. Here are some of the more recent casting missteps that have left audiences fuming and actors befuddled:

• Casting men over 50 with 20-something romantic interests. (This is male fantasy, not reality.)
• For that matter: any decade+ age gaps between the male & female romantic leads.
• Casting 20-somethings as high schoolers. Audiences aren't buying it anymore.
• Casting white people as minorities. We can see the make-up and don't buy the CGI, folks.
• Casting minorities as the wrong nationality. (Asians are NOT Native Americans. Not all Asians are Chinese or Japanese. Native Americans are not Hispanics. Native Americans are not Indians or Arabic. Need I go on?)
• One of my favorites: impossible parent castings. My daughter was recently called to audition for a film that was looking for a female child 11-16 and the mother - yes, biological - to be 21-25. Wait, what? Um, idiots: You do realize that mom would have been at MOST 10 years old when giving birth in that case, right? No one is going to buy that and I pulled my kid from the audition because the filmmaker obviously had a screw loose.
• Casting women 40-50 only in grandparent and elderly roles. Really?
• Everyone in the cast is blond or red-headed. I mean, everyone.
• All unlikable characters are minorities. Racist much?
• All dumb people are blond <> All blond people are dumb.
• All smart people are Asian.
• All rich people are white & speak with a British or "Harvard" accent. (Ever met Bill Gates?)
• All Asian people are martial arts experts.
• All gay men are flamboyant or pansies.
• Lesbians all look like men or supermodels.
• Police & military all look like body builders or NFL linebackers. (Tip: Navy SEALS are usually under 6' tall. Same with AirForce pilots.)
• Family members who share no visible genetic similarities. (I.e. if both parents have brown hair and brown eyes, kids probably should, too.)
• The funny/obnoxious fat person.
• The giant-boobed rocket scientist.
• The forced interracial couple.

In case this is confusing for you, here are some basic, simple rules to follow when casting in 2016:

• Your top priorities should be acting ability and character fit. Always screen test.
• Get the race/nationality right, or at least as close as humanly possible if it matters to the character.
• Avoid cliché stereotypes. (Dumb blonds, smart Asians, mean brunettes, black/Hispanic villains.)
• Use actors who are ACTUALLY the right age for the character. (Hint: most women CAN'T give birth before they're 12-15 years old, most are over 20 when they have their first child.) If the screenplay calls for a middle-aged woman, cast someone OVER 35. Duh.
• Reflect the real world.
• Most of your cast should be average looking, not twigs & supermodels.
• Pay attention to chemistry. Young, beautiful women aren't REALLY attracted to older, ugly men. Everyone outside of Hollywood seems to grasp this concept - so should you.
• If you must cast that talentless family member or person you hope to sleep with later, put them in a crowd of extras, PLEASE.

Casting in Color

The way things are today, you can't be too careful when it comes to racial sensitivity and attention to diversity. There are no rules, per se, yet everyone seems to be breaking them on a daily basis. In this overly PC, continuously offended world, how do you make the right decisions when it comes to casting roles? Do you cast based on audience draw or lean toward inclusion regardless of the story you plan to tell? Is there something in between? Will making the wrong choices hurt your film or does it even matter?

The answer to all of the above is YES.

There is a lot of noise out there about making movies to attract multi-racial audiences, and there certainly is some logic to that theory. If I'm a casting director working on a big Hollywood studio project, I'm naturally going to be sensitive to two huge facts: 1) more than 70% of Americans identify as Caucasian and 2) 18 of the top 20 grossing films in 2015 featured Caucasian leads. While item one is indisputable, it's easy to say fact #2 could be driven by the plethora of films featuring purely Caucasian casts or at least white leads.

That aside, several of the top 20 films this year have shattered traditional blockbuster casting molds. Okay, let's face it: Will Smith shattered those molds years ago. But is that repeatable? The jury is still out.

The truth is, when you're casting a film that includes time-tested characters, your first loyalty needs to be to your existing fan base. Does it make sense to cast Idris Elba as James Bond? No, it doesn't. Why? Because there is no way to "explain" the change to loyal audiences, no matter how awesome Idris Elba may be. (And we all know he is.) Every Bond in the history of Bond has been similar in look and feel. It makes no more sense to cast a black man as James Bond than it does to cast Tom Cruise as Wonder Woman. Iconic characters generally need to be left alone. Consistently we have seen "progressive" filmmakers attempt to recolor classic, well-known characters only to fail miserably. (Anyone see "Fantastic Four" lately? Yeah, I didn't think so.)

From a psychological perspective, audiences develop an "image" of a character based upon how they're used to seeing that character. Cinderella will always be a pretty blond white girl, assuming Disney wants to keep making hundreds of millions at the box office on Cinderella-based fare. Seeing a major change in a beloved character causes watchers to experience a kind of psychological dissonance that simply makes them uncomfortable. They may go see the movie, but those first viewers won't feel good about it, won't know why, but will tell their friends to stay away. Even a brilliant movie may bomb because of this.

Your second loyalty in casting needs to be to your story. If your film is a coming of age story about a boy growing up in China and dealing with the conflict between tradition and modern life, casting a person of any other race isn't going to make sense. Audiences will get stuck on that rather than seeing what an awesome story you have to tell. The recent backlash over the casting of Mara Rooney as Tiger Lily in "Pan" is a great example. Ms. Rooney did an amazing job from an acting point of view, but it was completely overshadowed by the fact that she just didn't fit the character. Her father was clearly Native American. She clearly is not. Even children pick up on these things. (My child is no Tiger Lily loyal but quickly realized that she and the band of natives didn't look like a tribe.) Casting choices should fit the story at all times, regardless of how badly you want to be inclusive. Now, that DOESN'T mean you cast to stereotype. There is a major difference between stereotype and character, and all good filmmakers can sense the difference.

Finally, you need to be aware of the character. Suppose my story is about a Southern girl who wants to be the belle of her high society ball in Redneckville, USA because it's a long-standing family tradition. I HAVE to cast that girl and her friends as Caucasians. Now, suppose my Southern girl wants to BREAK tradition and become the belle of the ball? Now, I can cast any race I like in that role and may even lean toward African American because of the natural conflict that will arise from that choice. If my character wants to play basketball professionally but must overcome the fact that he's short, again, race won't matter. I can cast black, white, whatever, and be successful. I might even cast the character as Asian to make the character stand out even more than his height alone. Before I cast the role, I need to understand the character: history, motivation, and how s/he fits into my story.

Let's face it: Hollywood's practice of casting white actors in non-white roles is a long-standing and irritatingly senseless tradition. However, audiences are more outspoken and sensitive to Hollywood's attempts to dupe them. So, if you want diversity vs. travesty, make sure you first tell a story where diversity makes sense, then cast based on the characters and the stories they have to tell, not upon whether or not it will make you appear to be politically correct in your choices. It's always PC to stay true to your story and character and audiences will appreciate your choices.

FYI - SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS COMPLAIN. There is nothing you can do about that, so just accept it and move on.

In the end, a typical cast in a modern American field shouldn't be monochromatic, but your casting choices should always serve the story and the characters foremost. No actor should ever be placed in the cast to serve as a racial token, nor to fulfill a stereotype. If the character is race-less as written, then cast the person who does the best job auditioning for the role, regardless of color. Audiences appreciate a film that feels true, not just politically correct.

The Big Studio Casting Catch

Recently headlines have told the sad story of the on-going culture of discrimination in Hollywood. Idris Elba is too "street" to play Bond. Maggie Gyllenhaal, at 37, is too old to play the love interest of a man old enough to have fathered her. Anne Hathaway at 32 is losing roles for characters written as older than her to women in their twenties. The still insanely gorgeous Salma Hayek feels she has been written off by Hollywood because she's nearing 50. Melissa McCarthy faces constant criticism over her weight.
     While there is little doubt these stars have experienced the negative side of a middle-aged-white-male-friendly fickle Hollywood machine, let's check the stats for the most visible studio films of 2015 to see just how pervasive the problem is today (with love interests highlighted in multi-lead casts):

• Jurassic World: Chris Pratt (36), Bryce Dallas Howard (34)
• Avengers, Age of Ultron: Robert Downey, Jr. (50), Chris Hemsworth (32), Mark Ruffalo (48), Chris Evans (34), Scarlett Johansson (31), Jeremy Renner (44), Linda Cardellini (40)
• Straight Outta Compton: O'Shea Jackson, Jr. (24)
• Furious 7: Vin Diesel (48), Paul Walker (41), ...Michelle Rodriguez (37)
• Kingsman, The Secret Service: Colin Firth (55), Taron Egerton (26)
• Mad Max, Fury Road: Charlize Theron (40), Tom Hardy (38)
• Ant-Man: Paul Rudd (46), Evangeline Lilly (36)
• Cinderella: Lily James (26), Richard Madden (29)
• Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation: Tom Cruise (53)
• Trainwreck: Amy Schumer (34), Bill Hader (37)
• Spy: Melissa McCarthy (45), Jude Law (43), Jason Statham (48)
• The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: Henry Cavill (32), Armie Hammer (29), Alicia Vikander (27), Elizabeth Debicki (25)
• Pitch Perfect 2: Anna Kendrick (30), Rebel Wilson (35)
• Fifty Shades of Grey: Dakota Johnson (25), Jamie Dornan (32)
• Terminator Genisys: Emilia Clark (29), Jai Courtney (29), Arnold Schwarzenegger (68)
• McFarland, USA: Kevin Costner (65), Maria Bello (48)
• Magic Mike XXL: Channing Tatum (35)
• The Longest Ride: Scott Eastwood (34), Britt Robertson (25)
• Insurgent: Shailene Woodley (24), Ansel Elgort (21), Theo James (31)
• Ricki and the Flash: Meryl Streep (66), Kevin Kline (68)
• Fantastic Four: Miles Teller (28), Michael B Jordan (28), Kate Mara (32), Jamie Bell (34)
• Hitman, Agent 47: Rupert Friend (34), Hannah Ware (32)
• No Escape: Lake Bell (36), Owen Wilson (47), Pierce Brosnan (62)

 

     This chart shows that, although there does appear to be some opportunity for women over 32, the big studios still generally cast older male leads with younger females, shying away from similarly-aged female leads or love interests. If you're an actress who's hit her 35th birthday, the outlook isn't so great when it comes to the big-budget Hollywood movie machines.

     Oddly enough, recent studies showed that women in the 30-45 age range have more disposable income and are more likely to head to the theaters if there's something there to draw their attention. Just look at the box office success of female-friendly films like "Cinderella" ($201.1M), "Pitch Perfect 2" ($183.8M), "Fifty Shades of Grey" ($166.1M), "Spy!" ($110.4M), and "Trainwreck" ($105.7M), all currently in the top 20 gross list for 2015. As early as 2011, movie ticket sales were split 50/50 between male and female buyers, with a trend toward females purchasing more often than males. More recent numbers show a trend toward 55% of ticket buyers being female, and the this chart proves that movies featuring female leads are pulling those audiences in where they're available. (Note the slightly higher per/screen average for movies with female leads than those with males.)

     Logic would dictate that the big studios should be scrambling to produce fare that appeals to the increasing 30-45 female movie consumer base. Instead, more than half of the major studio releases in 2015 have been action films, though they have clearly attempted to win female viewers by casting stronger female lead roles and expanding female roles overall. On the flip side, most of the ensemble casts in the big studio films were still mainly male, typically out-numbering female lead roles 2 to 1.

    So what to do about the lack of quality roles for all of the outstanding actresses out there over 32? The fix lies in the hands of low budget studios and independent filmmakers. Releases like 2014's "Cake" (starring Jennifer Aniston) and "Still Alice" (Julianne Moore) fared well with female audiences. "Alice" raked in $18.6M on a budget of $4.1M and both films earning a bevy of nominations and awards, including a Best Actress Oscar for Julianne Moore.
     Now, what about the whole Idris Elba/Bond fiasco? Can black leads pull the box office draw their white peers do? Hmmm...I think the $141M over 3 weeks speaks volumes. Smart filmmakers should pay attention, even if the big studios decide to cling to their 1950's-era casting practices.