Sunday, November 3, 2013

From the Victorian Era to Modern Hollywood: Egypt Never Gets a Break

Question: From one mythology nerd to another I felt the need to share my outrage over something. Have you heard of the upcoming movie "Gods of Egypt"? It's supposed to be a mythological epic starring the aforementioned gods, only they were all cast as white actors. Since I've seen a lot of your blog posts dedicated to correcting pop culture misconceptions about world mythology so I wanted to hear what you thought of this one.

Oh, Hollywood, what the hell are we going to do with you?

Yes, we're aware of Gods of Egypt, although it's still in pre-production and probably won't see the light of day for a while yet. And yes, although casting is only half-done, all the actors so far are as white as white can be.

This is not awesome, and the reason it is not awesome is that Egyptian gods would presumably look Egyptian, and the ancient Egyptians were emphatically not white. A lot of the perception of them as looking kind of Caucasian comes from the nineteenth century, when egyptology suddenly came into vogue as a sort of exotic, interesting pastime for the European elite. Egyptian artifacts were being dug up and taken to Europe by amateur archaeologists and private collectors, easily avoiding any trouble from an Egyptian government that didn't have much power to prevent them and was predominantly Muslim-controlled at the time anyway and consequently didn't much care; in fact, selling ancient Egyptian relics to European tourists was one of the most booming ways to make money in Egypt for a while. Europeans, especially in England and France, held theme parties where they dressed up as Egyptians (theoretically) and ate Egyptian food (supposedly) and discussed their latest finds. Some even actually procured mummies to display and even unwrap in their salons for such parties, and disposed of them after they were done impressing their friends.


Yes, that is some people posing proudly with the thousand-year-old mummy they just unwrapped and poked around in. Please have your Virtue Extremities in the designated areas.


This pop culture craze for ancient Egypt went hand in hand with the archaeological world really starting to seriously try to study and interpret the long-gone civilization. The Rosetta Stone had finally enabled translation of some hieroglyphs at the turn of the century, and the next several decades were rife with scholarly theory, investigation and intrepretation, some of it insanely wacky. There were the hysterics that mummification was a magical process meant to create the undead, the theories that the Egyptians must have been monotheists and that all their pantheon of gods were merely aspects of the same one deity... and the idea that the Egyptians were white, which has stuck around stubbornly for centuries now. The theory went that since the Egyptians had slaves from Nubia and other areas of Africa which were depicted as of darker skin than themselves, they must have been the white "master race" of the time period, using the lesser Africans as their servants while they concentrated on their great feats of art and culture - which, of course, could never have been achieved by anyone other than white people in the first place.

It's a pretty disgusting theory, but that's the early nineteenth century for you. Slavery was still common, people were still seriously and perniciously advancing the idea that Africans and other people of color were not actually humans or at the very least inherently inferior to Europeans, and science was still trying to prove things through phrenology. It was a weird time.

At any rate, what all this means to us today is that we've got this old, shitty idea of Egyptians-as-white-people still kicking around from the days of poor scholarship of yore, and apparently it's one of the harder ones to get rid of, in spite of how stupid it is. Egypt is, of course, in Africa, within spitting distance of the Canaanite- and Arab-dominated peninsulas to its east, and you know what ancient race lived there that was white? Nobody. The answer is nobody. This is pretty obvious when you look at Egyptian art; even thousands of years later after it's been through who knows how much weathering and fading, the people depicted in Egyptian painting and sculpture are clearly not in the neighborhood of Caucasian.


Pictured above: not white people.


Of course, exactly what color skin they had is sort of up for debate, since they've been gone for thousands of years and there have since been plenty of influxes of foreign blood, from the Greco-Roman arrivals from the north, African imports from the south and west and Arab influence from the east. The last is particularly prominent in modern Egypt, which was under Ottoman rule for a long time. But European, or European-looking, they definitely were not. (Except for parts of the Ptolemy dynasty who were actually Greek. But they're a late development.)

Which brings us back around to Hollywood and its total inability to not whitewash supposedly Egyptian characters. It's that same weird old misconception we have about Egyptians-as-Caucasians, only now it's also part of the Hollywood tendency toward making the vast majority of its characters white whenever possible unless directly marketing to an audience of a different race or ethnicity. Gods of Egypt isn't doing anything new, sad to say. Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra is one of our most famous images when it comes to Egypt, and have you guys seen The Mummy Returns? You know, the part where Rachel Weisz, one of the whitest people on the planet, is an Egyptian princess?

But, anyway: Gods of Egypt. Alas, it is full of white people. Very talented ones, mind you (guys, I would probably pay to watch Geoffrey Rush sit in a bus station for six hours humming to himself), but it's not hard to see why so many people are disappointed in Hollywood once again deciding to tell a story about a different culture and then cast nobody who bears even a passing resemblance to them. I'm sure Jamie Lannister will probably do a fine job as Horus, but how many actors of color could have done the same but never got the chance?

We have to say we don't have high hopes for the movie itself; mythology movies have been almost uniformly awful for the past few decades, and while we'd love to be proved wrong by this one, we're not holding our breaths. But only time will tell!

23 comments:

  1. Gods, when is Hollywood going to make a mythological movie about actual myths? I actually had hopes for this one before I read the synopsis: seriously, all of Egypt's vast library of legends and the best they can come up with is 'He's a thief, he's a God, they solve crime'?

    What I don't get is, the story of Ra creating the World and how his power eventually coming down to Horus is full of awesome stuff that is big screen gold! Sex, violence, femme fatales, sibling rivalry...and yet Hollywood feels the inane need to 'spice it up'. As if mythology needed spicing.

    Honestly, while I am sad at the casting decision, I'm even sadder at the scripting decision. I hate whitewashing as much as the next guy, but if they were telling the actual stories of the Gods, then at least something about the movie would have been authentically Egyptian.

    Hell, I have only ever liked one mythological movie, and that is Peter Brook's 'The Mahabharata'. Now that is a movie that does colourblind casting right. But most importantly it sticks to the story (as much as it can given it's only six hours long).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dunno, we have been waiting for the elusive Good Hollywood Mythology Movie forever. We've enjoyed a few, or at least parts of a few, but most of them are pretty much terrible.

      Delete
  2. I just wanted to say that I LOVE science. We look back at those people fussing around with mummies and say "My god, why are you idiots ruining so many things?! Do you have any idea what we could have learned if you preserved that for us?"

    Then 100 years in the future, we'll say the same things about our modern selves.

    Then 200 years in the future, we'll say the same things about our 100 year in the future selves. Hahahah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, it's so true. We have a lot of fun playing with that in our Eastern Promises game - the characters with high Medicine scores, in particular, have a blast talking about how the humors are affecting everyone and a good leeching would take care of all this.

      Delete
    2. One thing I can say for modern science, anthropology in particular is that we do have the race thing down cold. Biologically, there is no such thing as race. Alternatively, there's one race with lots of variation. There is so much overlap of traits that there is no nodal point for Caucasiaion, African, Asian, etc. You can't say "the measurements of this skull indicate it's Caucasian b/c it's doliocephalic, the proportions of the nasal aperture are thus and so, the mental eminence is characteristically this way, etc. etc." b/c each and every one of those traits can exist in every defined "race". As I've said again and again when teaching "race is a social construct". Albeit one that is based on some readily apparent visually distinctive features.

      So, on one hand, the Egyptians aren't Caucasian. b/c no one is, especially of an archaeological population. On the other hand, if you MUST try and shoehorn them into one of the pre-designated racial types, guess which one it's going to be?

      Caucasian. They certainly aren't African. At least not in that they would share most phenotypic traits with adjacent sub-Saharan African populations. They certainly aren't Asian, Austronesian, etc.

      Every physical analysis I've read of Ancient Egyptian remains indicates a persistence of type in the region. And we have a lot more soft tissue to help us out there than in most other populations. This is backed up by the genotypic studies. Meaning, like in most (but by no means all) places, all that invasion and migration haven't really affected the overall appearance of the population by that much. So, if you want to take the race issue off the table, the Ancient Egyptians probably looked a lot like modern Egyptians. Whether that fits with a personal conception of what Caucasian means is up to the individual. If you use the baseline definitions from the 19th century (which persist strongly in places like government checklists, police profiling, etc.), I'm afraid you are stuck with Egyptians as Caucasians (barring the Nubian pharaohs), because Middle Eastern populations are shoehorned into that really weirdly-broad- considering-the-inherent-racism category.

      Delete
    3. In my opinion, the issue isn't that they should be casting people who are ancient Egyptian necessarily. As I noted above, it'd be very difficult to figure out exactly what that looked like in ancient times. But what they should be doing is acknowledging that these are people of color and casting accordingly. Arab actors, African-American actors, Mediterranean actors, I don't particularly care; the focus isn't "you can never cast anyone who isn't the exact ethnicity of the original story" here, because that wouldn't be possible, but that this is a story about a major civilization that was definitely not white, and that should be represented. Casting everyone as white people erases, for the millionth time in Hollywood, the idea that people of color have major civilizations, stories and power in history; it presents it as yet another story about white folks, reinforcing the status quo that that's who all stories are about and who all important events center around.

      And that's bogus, yo.

      Delete
  3. I honestly don't think this is case of Hollywood being stupid enough to buy into that anarchic theory of ancient Egyptians actually have been white. Even for that mediocrity-pooping machine, history raping, brain-meting industry, that just seems ridiculous and offensive to a whole new level. No, no, this to me smells of pure commerce and demographic marketing. Most Americans (or even my fellow Canadians, sadly) aren't going to watch a film with mostly or entirely Egyptian actors that they've never seen or heard of before. It's just not going to happen, and in a most likely big budget film like Gods of Egypt, Hollywood definitely isn't going to risk it's cash on a long shoot, historically accuracy be damned.

    Honestly, can you even remember a big budget Hollywood film that didn't have Egyptians as A) Extremist Muslim Terrorists or B) Superstitious extra's that try to warn our cast of white stars that entering some tomb will release some horrible curse. Ugh, it's just so depressing. So yeah, don't be surprised that a film about Egyptian culture stars white people, that's been the norm for since the original Mummy in 1932 and it ain't changing anytime soon.

    (Damn, do I sound pessimistic or what.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds about right to me.

      Profit is the main motive, while accuracy is a secondary or perhaps even tertiary concern. Hollywood isn't going to care about accuracy unless their customers care about it, which is improbable at best. Even if it did happen, change would be slow because Hollywood seems pretty conservative as a business, which is somewhat understandable considering the sums involved in big-budget movies.

      Delete
    2. The problem here is that if you say that "people won't watch actors of color" so you don't cast them, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nobody ever casts them, no one ever gets the chance to see them, so of course nobody "wants to watch them". Hollywood shapes the public movie image with the movies they make, and if they only make what people are watching right now, they'll make the same movies forever.

      But even if we aren't worrying about that, I call bullshit. There are plenty of actors of color people like to watch - Samuel L. Jackson, Idris Elba, Gina Torres, Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Zoe Saldana, Will Smith, Laurence Fishburn, Halle Berry and so on and so forth. Big names and big box office draws all on their own, to say nothing of all the unknowns who could be greats one day.

      But you're right, change is depressingly slow.

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, Hollywood has no moral obligation to do anything at all. So they are going to continue to make whatever they think is going to give them the most money.

      We just don't pay as much money to watch people of other ethnicity unless they are in the leading role or a love interest. Ethnicities that are not raging stereotypes are extremely rare unless you are in one of those two roles.

      It's pretty much up to us to reform our perception of how ethnicity should be treated equally, before we will pay an equal price to see a full ethnic cast in our movies. Hollywood will follow wherever the money goes.

      Delete
    4. Oh, I disagree. Hollywood's made up of people, and people do have a moral obligation not to be assholes. That doesn't mean they don't do it anyway, but the movie industry isn't somehow blameless because it's an industry instead of the public.

      But I do agree, that kind of social change has to come from everyone - the audience has to participate just as much.

      Delete
    5. You're describing censorship though. This does happen as a consequence of moral outrage from the public, and because some moral outrage hurts their bottom line. But as an industry? They have the right to create any kind of art they wish.

      Delete
    6. Censorship and not being racist assholes is not the same thing. No one is censoring anything. We dont allow blackface in america....do you think we should? How about minstrel shows?

      Im mostly a big fan of any art being fine, but if you're gonna pull that card you have to go all the way with it(and as a random anonymous person, I dont really think you can).

      Delete
    7. We should allow blackface. We should allow minstrel shows. Just because these things are offensive does not mean they should be censored. If the artist's intention is to offend, then it up to that artist to deal with the consequences of his offenses.

      But he shouldn't be prevented from offending in the first place.

      Delete
    8. Shot in the dark that Anon is a white person, doesn't have to deal with the consequences and effects of racism.

      I'm not seeing censorship, I'm seeing just what you're saying: the artist to deal with consequences of their offenses. Is blackface actually banned? No. You could go outside with your face looking like goddamn Mr. Popo, the practice is still common, especially as this recent Halloween went to show. People don't do that because they know the consequences they'll face and want to avoid them. Some bitch and moan about it because they don't believe the consequences necessary, but that's not the immediate point. Right now you're coming off as an the type of person who thinks censoring something terrible is worse than the thing itself, a belief so idiotically wrong I wouldn't know where to being.

      And yeah, Hollywood has a hell of a moral obligation considering how media shapes society.

      Delete
    9. Anon's exactly right. It's not illegal to do horribly racially offensive things, and when people call you out on it, they're not "censoring" you or infringing on your freedom of speech. What they're doing is using their freedom of speech to tell you what they think of what you're doing. That's what freedom of speech is all about: you can say A, and I can say B right back atcha.

      So sure, moviemakers and anyone else can constantly do racially offensive things, and nobody can stop them. But people can and should point out that those things are offensive and not morally okay, because otherwise they'll never change.

      Delete
    10. @Anon "A belief so idiotically wrong I wouldn't know where to being". It's clear we have nothing further to discuss, then.

      @Anne I actually agree with you! Calling people out on the offensive things they do is exactly what should happen, and how we arrive at a moral majority in any society. That's not censorship.

      Actually forcing them to do it is censorship. That's one of the very definitions of obligation, moral or otherwise. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do anything of the sort, no matter how much you or I wish that they would become sensitive and caring to the needs of others.

      So it is up to us to hit them where they care. As soon as we start paying just as much for predominately ethnic movies, they will start making them.

      Delete
    11. That's where our disagreement is - this isn't an audience-only problem. Hollywood doesn't operate in a vaccum, enslaved to the wishes of a public they can't control; they have very real power to shape popular opinion and taste when it comes to movies. Yes, the public should pay more attention to ethnic actors, but on the flip side Hollywood could definitely help drive that change by putting them out there in major roles, and because they don't, the public continues just seeing the status quo in their movies and that's what they both expect and are trained to be interested in.

      One of the ongoing issues with Hollywood not wanting to "take the chance" on actors or movies about different cultures/ethnicities/whatever is that they seldom commit to that chance; when they do make a bold new film with a cast of unknown people of color, they invariably don't give it as much of a budget, don't market it nearly as aggressively, or even give it limited release. They're foreseeing that it might not succeed and deciding therefore not to really support it in case it loses money, which in many cases guarantees it'll lose money because they didn't actually do a very good job of making it or telling people it was out there. For every surprise breakout like Slumdog Millionaire, there were a hundred other movies that never had a chance, and that's on Hollywood, not the public that wasn't even aware they were out there.

      My point is that all the parts of our society have to participate in this thing. Audience members need to be ready to accept that there are awesome actors of color our there who are every bit as talented and deserving of attention as white people, and moviemakers need to do their part by putting those people where they can actually be seen. If Hollywood just says, "We'll do it when it's profitable," they're not just ensuring that the process will take a zillion times longer, but also actively damaging it by continuing to perpetuate the image of only white actors as being important/interesting/talented since that's all they ever let people see.

      Delete
    12. Hollywood is failing. For every massive blockbuster they put out, very few of them turn into serious cash cows and we grow increasingly more entitled about the quality of plot and special effects in the movies we watch. The revenue is drying up and Hollywood is posting smaller profit margins every single year. They have grown so incredibly risk averse that almost nobody with a few billion dollars to throw around wants to even consider funding the kind of projects you propose.

      I can definitely admire the desire to see Hollywood become more philanthropic and make long term decisions about how the future of media perceptions are shaped. But not only are people with a hell of a lot of money more interested in shaping media perceptions to suit their own agendas, but the majority of investors are just trying to stay afloat. The number of special effect companies alone that have gone out of business is staggering.

      But you want them to take a chance? To invest a large amount of money with little chance of return for the betterment of society in the hopes that our children grow up encouraged to like movies with more diversity? So that we will finally be willing to pay for those movies so Hollywood can begin to make decent returns on their investments?

      It's a good idea from a macro perspective. That's pretty much how recession economies work. But convincing all those countless thousands who are living from paycheck to paycheck to lose their jobs in the meantime? That's going to be a really tough sell. I'm don't think telling them it is for the greater good is going to help.

      Delete
  4. Goddamn. I promised myself I wouldn't be that guy, but I'm totally going to be that guy and argue.

    You're totally right Anne, there are actors of color that do manage to be be big box office draws that bring in both minorities and Caucasians. Hell, Will Smith used to know as the 'King of July" because of all smash hits he would bring out during that month. But, those black actors have the benefit of being able to usually draw in a African American (and Canadian) demographic that represents a large and growing part of the movie-going pie. Just look at the return revenue of Tyler Perry films. They have a built audience that ensures that Hollywood is going to get its money back and more. Egyptian Americans don't have that yet with only a population of 450,000. Add that to the fact that there really isn't a visible community of Egyptian actors leads Hollywood to look at their statistics and say, "no one is going to see this movie with an all-Egyptian cast, let's just call Gerald Butler, he's somewhat profitable."

    Going back to the self-fulfilling thing you mentioned. Your right on the money again. If Hollywood never takes that big risk and actually tries to be authentic with the film, then movie-goers never get the opportunity to see how awesome Egyptian actors can. Unfortunately, with how things are now in there, I'm not seeing that happen. Seriously, when Steven Spielberg is having major problems trying to make Lincoln, because executives don't think it's going to sell well to audiences, you know their not going to take any chances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It sometimes feels like 'Any role not specifically African-American goes to a white person'. I mean, look at all the hype around the Princess and the Frog, declaring Tiana Disney's first Princess of Colour. It was like everyone forgot about Pocahontas and Jasmine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mulan's a princess? (runs off to check Disney Princess list)

      Oops. Sorry about that.

      Delete