I reject that argument completely. It uses a circular 'market forces' argument to justify putting commercial interests ahead of an accurate or potentially empowering representation of an ethnic minority.
Hollywood is hideously white. What black activists argue is that, as a trade-off for film companies making money from appropriating and exploiting black history and culture, non-white characters should be represented by people of colour on the screen. This has positive consequences: it provides lead roles for ethnic minority actors; it allows spectators from minorities to see themselves represented and embodied in mainstream cinema; and it means there ought to be a cast member who is better disposed to correct any subconscious cultural biases in the story than a pissed white millionaire like Dépardieu. The argument that there are no black superstars recognisable enough to market the Dumas film internationally is both irrelevant — who had heard of Marion Cotillard? Jean Dujardin? — and self-perpetuating: if non-white actors aren't even hired to play mixed-race characters, how will they ever break into the big time?
The question of who represents whom is controversial even within minority ethnic communities. There are debates over hueism —
the casting of light-skinned actors in preference to darker-skinned ones — and whether black actors should be criticised for agreeing to play stereotypical, demeaning roles such as maids or mammies.
These issues extend to other minorities, too, for whom the blackface taboo does not exist:
cis-gendered actors playing trans characters, or the bizarre casting of a series like
Lip service, which is supposed to depict lesbians in Glasgow although all the lead actors seem to be straight and English (or Australian). Basically, media companies are still afraid that audiences will not tune in to see a lead character from a minority played by an actor from the same minority. Who are the straight white people going to root for? We must never exclude
them.
