[Whisper]

Ethno-regional prejudices have been used consistently to shorthand characters in Hollywood films. This is an epistemic category of sorts, which does not necessarily have anything to do with race, but more of the idea of ethnicity and the cultural connotations of race. This does not come with the presumption of a fixed view of identity, therefore. Quite the contrary, actually. Regional differences are a continuation of tribal instincts. Whether used by the right or left, it is the same behavior regardless. I think that this is a prime example of neoliberal culture in action. I think that Hollywood’s neoliberalism is like a snake, slipping between right and left. In order to demonstrate it I would use several examples from a rather known Children’s film. I chose the Lion King as a case. The way I analyzed these things as prejudices are how I think the target audience would perceive it (being part of the audience when I was Child, too). However, this is a forum so obviously the point is to discuss, challenge  😉

There is ethno-regional bias in the casting of characters in The Lion King, for example. The character’s accents frequently fulfill regional and ethnic stereotypes, and are used in order to quickly inform us about the character’s roles in the movie. This is especially true in the case of Rafiki, who is voiced by Robert Guillaume. His African sounding voice is not the actor’s regular accent but it is put on to make him sound more indigenous and like a shaman. While he is not a villain, his character still fulfills a rather common Hollywood stereotype of the medicine man or wise shaman. What is biased about this depiction is the use of a fake African accent as an indicator of his role in the film, and how it allows the viewer to make assumptions quickly about the character. This is true regardless of whether or not the characters are morally good or bad, as they are still painted with a stereotype in either case.

Pumba and Timon’s are the comedic leads in the movie. They have stereotypical New York or New Jersey accents. Their accents appear to mark them out as comedic characters, who shouldn’t be taken seriously. The villains are also minorities, the coyotes which have Cheech Marin and Whoopi Goldberg in the lead roles. Their roles are villains, having invaded the land, making them seem hostile and alien. Zazu, played by Rowan Atkinson has a very distinct lower class British accent. This contrasts Scar’s upper class British accent. The lower class accent is endearing and somewhat goofy and innocent, while the upper class accent is interpreted as hostile. In all of the characters with different accents than the standard American English accent, their accents seem to set them apart in some way or another from the protagonist lions which includes Simba, Mufasa, and Nala. Whether it is in a good or bad way, it is evident that characters are distinguished by their voices, including their accents. To an extent, a characters’ role is determined by the actors and how they say their lines, including what they say. However many characters in the film with the exception of the lions do not have that many lines of dialogue.

One might try to separate the character’s behaviors and actions entirely from their voice actor’s accent. Why then, would Robert Guillaume intentionally put on an accent which was not his own, then? The accent was intentionally put on in order to suit his character’s role. Besides observing the characters’ roles in the film, there is also the fact that the actors come with ethno-regional accents of their own. Most of the cast uses their own authentic accent. Rowan Atkinson and Whoopi Goldberg are well known, and I would argue that their humor also carries their cultural background and mannerisms. These things will be included in their “acting portfolio”, meaning that their acting background cannot be completely separate from race or their ethno-cultural background. However the point of this argument is the subjective meaning received from cultural expression.

My objectors point out that this a children’s film, and that character’s need to be introduced in a simple way so that kids may understand. This may be perceived a problem, because the oversimplification of the characters comes through generalizing about their accents, which are the voice actor’s true accents in most instances. This is the meaning of bias, which is simply an unfair or perhaps “unwarranted” oversimplification. Bias may oversimplify people so that they seem like less of a person. To a certain extent, my objectors may be right when they claim that the viewer may not perceive this bias, or make the connections during the film. However, I am claiming that the film has ethno-regional bias intentionally in its casting and character roles, not a moral argument against the movie. People might downplay the importance of these relationships between character roles and accents, but nostalgia and “childhood innocence” does not nullify evidence.

In conclusion, an actor’s acting portfolio cannot be completely separate from race or their ethno-cultural background. The character’s accents frequently fulfill regional and ethnic stereotypes, and are used in order to quickly inform us about the character’s roles in the movie. Stereotypes undoubtedly exist in most movies which Hollywood has made. In this case, we have shown how stereotypes pertain to ethno-regional accents and bias or assumptions about people. It may shed light on the moral compass of the film to look at what characters and their accents are good or evil, but bias can be thought of as generalizing people based on their accents.

Anybody have any thoughts on Ethno-regional bias?

[Socrates]

Excellent thread. Indeed, it’s difficult to say whether or not a child can grasp the biases towards particular ethnic groups during the movie, but I would say that the movie begins a ‘script’ to use a term from Katherine Nelson. These biases are implemented performatively (Judith Butler), built into each accent is an expectation of what comes next.

These ethic stereotypes are negative whenever a group of children in a school or general cultural setting encounters ambiguity. The newcomers to a group who have the accents previously heard in the movies, will be negated with a nickname – usually the character in the movie who has that particular accent.

I’m always hung in the air on the use of movies to boost status of minorities. I understand neoliberalism promotes PC culture in Hollywood, but I’m more in favour of children and adults getting to know difference through 1 to 1 experience. Intentions don’t always equate to consequences.

[atreestump]

Stereotypes undoubtedly exist in most movies which Hollywood has made.

I think you nailed it with the Rowan Atkinson accent. English accents are always evil in the movies. Do I sound evil? ;D

Typical examples include Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs and Kiefer Sutherland in Phone Booth. Hollywood likes to portray English accents as evil geniuses.This obviously plays into the historical factors of English-ness, the British Empire is an ugly ghost that never seems to fade. I also think the American Mind myth of ‘smartness’ has alot to answer for in this regard.

[Whisper]

Stereotypes undoubtedly exist in most movies which Hollywood has made.

I think you nailed it with the Rowan Atkinson accent. English accents are always evil in the movies. Do I sound evil? ;D

You sound like a comedic relief character

[atreestump]

Haha, nice.

The Shaman character part reminds of my analysis of ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’. The colonialists feared the Aboriginies as they were ‘closer’ to nature. Their cause was to fight to nature through eugenics (the tactic was a kind of artificial selection to ‘breed out’ the dark skin of the Aboriginies). I know they are not Africans, but this ‘witch doktor’ kind of stereotype plays into the idea that Africans and Aboriginies are somehow closer to nature and possess a power that white people don’t, which then leads to a fear of this demographic.

[Descartes]

Great article. There is so many things to be taken into account when we’re talking about online activism. The Internet and hashtags make for a more decentralized type of activism, true; it is good in some regards (you can maximize your impact in very little time) but can be really counterproductive in other ways. Like what we have seen lately with the so-called BLM kidnapping, for example. It can be used against a movement just as much. And, I mean, anyone who would want to destroy the reputation of BLM, could go out and do horrible things and say they represent BLM, and then BLM and all their work could be tarnished by that. It is not clear exactly who BLM is because it is decentralized. Is it the organization, its leaders and affiliates; or is it everyone at large who identify as BLM followers, including even radicals who interpret and may change the core values of the movement? Some cities take the movement to a more radical place than what the core leaders had in mind at first. Like when BLM Toronto asked for cops to be excluded from LGBTQ events (which means excluding at the same time LGBTQ people who work as police officers from a community they belong to). Who do you blame then, who do you address with this problem? BLM local, or BLM at large? Decentralized movements make for a lot of micromanagement.

The role of social media is crucial now for political mobilization. Anyone can be the leader to a movement or protest. As it can be used as a tool to recruit as well. Just looking at how Ala’a Basatneh who led a revolution in Syria from her home in Chicago, using YouTube and Twitter.

It’s going to be really interesting to see where people take cyberactivism. Thanks for the article!

[Whisper]

 It can be used against a movement just as much. And, I mean, anyone who would want to destroy the reputation of BLM, could go out and do horrible things and say they represent BLM, and then BLM and all their work could be tarnished by that. It is not clear exactly who BLM is because it is decentralized. Is it the organization, its leaders and affiliates; or is it everyone at large who identify as BLM followers, including even radicals who interpret and may change the core values of the movement? 

Agreed. Though it is spreading conspiracy theories and also misinformation that I’m worried about with slacktivism. There is BLM activity that I don’t support. Many movements have a rowdy bunch associated with them, that isn’t unique. The people I am worried about in general tend to be more authoritarian. Not permitting cops to go to LGBTQ+ stuff is authoritarian. Creating a law out of their resentment towards cops doesn’t fix institutional bias.

[atreestump]

I liked South Park’s take on tribalism as of late, that we all get blamed for the actions of others who others believe are in the same group. The same thing happened before both wars too, one murder was enough to blame an entire country or ethnic group. There is definitely a revisionist movement going on that excludes groups who conveniently are minorities, exclusion is a means of accumulation.

[atreestump]

I am bumping this thread.

[Author]

Posts