Envy unlike a lot of other vices has to be transitive in order for its consequences to unfold. One can hold onto anger, lust, pride without ever showing but envy has to be acted upon and is often a more covert undercurrent of whatever the displayed vice is. We see this with Solieri and Mozart, Judas Iscariot and Yeshua/Jesus and Snow White and her step mother. Envy as a feeling is pretty harmless but what we often do on account of it can be pretty blatant; Betrayal, murder, abandonment, condemnation. Envy is often rooted in entitlement. A sense that one is entitled to what another has or that one is owed something that another has. It can be in the form of something tangible like a garment, car, house or spouse to something intangible like a talent, gift or intelligence. Unlike a lot of other vices, envy is the least overt so when it shows up one can either quickly cover it up for fear of being exposed or take their shame further and admit to another vice entirely to avoid the horror of admitting to having done something atypical to their nature.

What does this have to do with Hollywood? Well, recently there is an envy culture that is being heavily supported by Hollywood studios. It is being masked as ‘DIVERSITY’. What do I mean? Hollywood decided to use film casting to subvert years of what seemed like an imbalance in casting for Hollywood projects in TV in and film. It seemed Hollywood was catering mostly to a “white” audience and barely anyone else. Of course, with the rise in artists from non-white populations in the US, there became a demand for a proportionate depiction of their existence in the culture. So Hollywood executives began casting lot of projects making sure to give appropriate consideration to people across the demographic spectrum for as many roles as possible. This was a very noble endeavor but it seemed to be oblivious or downright neglectful of a couple of factors; the role of folkore as an extension of specific culture and the objective identity.

When you hear the story of Beowulf, you are reminded of Norse mythology. When you hear of Athena, Helen of Troy, Medea, you are reminded of the Greeks, when you hear Shaka Zulu, you are reminded of the Zulu South African warrior king. Unless you were raised under a rock, you are aware the regions mentioned above are distinct in geography and demographic. Thus, telling any of the above stories would require respect for folklore and the objective identity according to the original text. Recently, Egyptians scholars were in an uproar over the depiction of Cleopatra in the eponymous Netflix documentary, who by their records was Macedonian yet was played by someone who was objectively of much darker hue than would be objectively Macedonian. Similarly, the Ridley Scott film EXODUS: GODS & KINGS, had Moses, objectively middle-eastern, played by a European in Christian Bale or Zipporah, Moses’ wife who was of much darker hue, played by a Spanish actress, Maria Valverde. We also saw in a recent Netflix production of TROY, where Achilles is played by Afro-British actor, David Gyasi. We even have in an upcoming production of Snow White, (a Disney princess from the Brothers’ Grimm tales origin which is from the Black Forest folklore in old Germania.) Snow White is cast as someone of Latin American origin. What is the problem here? Is her being a woman not enough?

Here is the issue, most audiences are willing to go along with the experiment as long as they are prepped appropriately beforehand. Theatres (as in Broadway/Off-Broadway etc) have been doing this for years and the companies always advertised their creative adventure early on. It was often understood due to the limitations in company, city, talent etc. Sometimes it would also be deliberate choice by the dramaturg as a means to explore the theme further. This could be seen the recent all-female production of MACBETH at New York City’s Shakespeare in the Park. Or the reverse casting of OTHELLO in which everyone is black except for Othello who is then white or European. However, unlike the theatre, Hollywood employs this license either through cultural appropriation, negligence or political justification. All this eats at the fabric of creating culture along with our stories. It leads to an Audience vs Hollywood discord. It ignores the reality that as a people, we are still tribal and in terms of justice we would rather opt into our virtues than to have them beaten over heads. Moreover, the paradox of universality with folklore is that often, the more exclusive setting, the more universal it’s central theme tends to be. So we have a folklore machine at war with its audience. If you have been paying attention, the revenue (or lack thereof) has been making things a little clearer. What does this have to do with envy?

A lot of cross cultural casting especially in the last decade have less to do with creative license and more to do with pandering to the voices of envy. It appears just on one front as it arose mostly from the decades of cultural appropriation and folkloric negligence when blackface and eye-narrowing and face painting were the standard measure of diversity in a Hollywood production. So instead of bringing about the truth, Hollywood upheld the deception under the pressure of those who envied the merits of those who rose to power by exploitation. I say this because the same way in which non-white audiences have spoken up against cultural appropriation, the same backlash is not always heard when a role written for a white folklore is cast by a non-white person. Among some it is viewed as a creative payback of sorts. Unfortunately, I call it ENVY. Envy because it is oblivious to the several stories that exist in non-white lore that can be explored and advocated for.

Truth be told, cultural negligence still makes its way into the most minority-serving movies out there. Think Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) instead of Django himself, being the one to kill the villainous character of Calvin Candie (Leo DiCaprio) in DJANGO UNCHAINED or the American CIA agent (played by Martin Freeman) in BLACK PANTHER being the one to protect the Wakanda from Killmonger’s (Michael B. Jordan) invasion.

Thus what we have swirling among us is envy-based casting and narratives sold to the audience as an attempt at social justice through the movies regardless of its relevance to the source material or core audience.

This unfortunate rotation has led to an aggregate of the most envious creative committees. Each one looking to secure for themselves whatever level the other group determines as the true cultural benchmark. Thus instead of telling stories that achieve universality via specificity, we find ourselves competing for superficial validation regardless of the themes thrust upon them. Thus we win the war of visibility at the expense of relatability. Stay tuned for Part Two.

by Julian Michael Yong