I've become one of those people who writes letters to the editor.

[wolven7]

So I just wrote to NPR's All Things Considered about Bob Mondello’s Piece on the “Controversy” Over Aronofsky’s Noah. So here’s what that looks like:

'If the movie-going public would read the Christian Apocrypha and the Judaic Midrash, then they would know that earthbound angels & their human-paired offspring, known as the Nephilim, are not controversial. In fact, even in canon, they're Why god sent the flood, as seen in Gen 6:4— even if we find out in Num 13:33 that it didn't quite take.

'What I and others find far more controversial is the fact that every single face in Aronofsky's mid-Asiatic Biblical epic is white or what is generally referred to as “white-passing.” Even with Russel Crowe in the lead, were there no middle eastern actors, no ethnically Jewish actors, who could have played supporting roles? A disappointing lapse by director and studio alike.'

That being said, here’s a piece by the Rev. Wil Gafney, PhD, that does go into great detail about the ethnicity of the time and place of the story of Noah: “NOAH: A WHITE SAVIOR EPIC OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS”

So. Yeah, this has been on my mind, a lot.

Comments

[strdibeis.livejournal.com]

What the hell? The movie co-stars Logan Lerman, who is 100% Jewish, and Jennifer Connelly, whose mother is Jewish. What is this racist bull about the film having no "ethnically Jewish actors"? Lerman is the grandson of Holocaust refugees, you incredible ass. I better you see write about how The Social Network starred "no ethnically Jewish actors" next.

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Is there a sufficient amount of Jew-cred (or, for that matter, acting ability) a person can have to cover the fact that they're a white guy playing the progenitor of the African nations?
Is it, in your opinion, racist to want the people of a story set (roughly) in the ancient Middle East region to not be portrayed entirely by White Folks?

In my opinion a fella's allowed to want someone dark-skinned to play a role (and preferably not the single villain role - I'm looking at you, History Channel Goliath) in a setting where fucking everybody had dark (or at least "bronze" or "swarthy") skin, without being labeled a "racist."

It's true that "ethnically Jewish" is a bad term to use. You google it and you find a ton of faces every bit as white as the cast of Noah. And somehow I doubt Wolven (or anyone, really) is concerned about Jewish people having enough representation in Hollywood.

[strdibeis.livejournal.com]

They said "ethnically Jewish". This is what I am addressing. Anything else in the post is irrelevant to this discussion, as I was not talking about it.

P.S., Ham was obviously born the same race as the rest of his family. The "Curse of Ham" and being the progenitor of the African nations came later.

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Dude, you're the one who jumped the rails on the topic. You're the one who brought in something irrelevant to the discussion.
The discussion was of the lily-white film representation of a people who, historically and canonically, just weren't white.

Again: Yes. "Ethnically Jewish" isn't the best word choice. I'm not 100% sure what he should have used - "Accurate Representation of Middle Eastern Jewish Ancestry" is quite a mouthful - but sure, there's probably something better; Something that wouldn't have gotten you into a froth thinking he was declaring the actors not Jewish enough.
But picking apart word choice cuts both ways. "Racist" was a bad word choice on your part, for example.
And if you want my explanation for why it's bad, have a look at the stuff I said in the previous post. You know, the stuff you declared "irrelevant to this discussion."

[strdibeis.livejournal.com]

I'm commenting on a statement made in the original post. Simple as that. The statement was blatantly false.

For example, you know how politicians or other famous people get in trouble for saying this or that? Generally, what they get in trouble for is one line out of a long, long, speech, in a series of long, long speeches, most of which have nothing to do with what they get in trouble for.

That's how it works.

I have no issue with the rest of the comment but the line about the Jews is inaccurate and unacceptable.

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Just so: The statement was false, and it is as simple as that.
Which makes terms like "racist bull" and "incredible ass" rude, unproductive, unnecessary, and themselves inaccurate.

[strdibeis.livejournal.com]

They're necessary because he wouldn't have written that if Lerman and Connelly were annoying comedians, instead of attractive actors. Somehow, they always "miss" the latter being Jewish and not the former, even when it's comically easy to find out, as it is in this case. I don't accept this behavior as normative, and of course it's absurdly racist.

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Your first sentence isn't accurate. Swap in someone like Sandler or Rogen or Midler and this exact complaint - complete with the phrase "ethnically Jewish" - would still be present.
Your assertion that it's racist is based on your assumption that you understand what he intended by the phrase "ethnically Jewish," and I don't think you do.
MY assumption here is that he meant "physically close to accurate to the Jewish people of the location and time period." (Lerman and Connelly aren't.)
That assumption's based on the fact that the larger context of the complaint is the whitewashing of the film.

I agree that the behavior you describe would be racist, or at least indicative of racial bias. And I agree that's not the kind of behavior you just sit down and accept. But I don't think that's what happened here. My understanding of what happened here is that he - while in the process of not sitting down and accepting a racist behavior, and standing to challenge it - used a phrase that meant something he didn't intend. And not "something he didn't intend because his head was full of antisemitic biases," as you appear to accuse him of here. Just something he didn't intend because the same terms mean a shit-ton of different things to different people.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Hello strdibeis. You're right in that "Ethnically Jewish" was a poor choice of words. My apologies for that.

That being said, I also clarify it with the phrase "white passing." The point being not one of "annoying comedians" vs "attractive actors," but of the fact that people who resemble the time and place purported by the story of Noah should perhaps be given the opportunity to portray as such.

Was there a singular racial or ethnic characteristic, for which I'm looking? No, but pale-skinned and light coloured eyes were probably rarer than are depicted in the film, is all I'm saying.

Thanks for your comment.

[strdibeis.livejournal.com]

Why would light-colored eyes be rare? Blue eyes are a genetic mutation that originally developed in the area that is now south Bulgaria. The southern part of Bulgaria is literally almost next door to Turkey, where I think the Noah story is sometimes said to have been set.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You're right! This is actually really neat: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm In fact, the idea of a "single common ancestor" from which blue eyes developed could easily be used as positive evidence for the Noah theory.

So, in that, I perhaps should've phrased it "…pale-skinned WITH light coloured eyes," my point being that the commonality of their combination depended on a level of migration that hadn't been seen, yet, in the context of the Noah story.

Thank you again, for your comment! :)

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Apologies for getting into an argument on your blog. Ironically, most of the time one sees a post and wishes the poster would chill out and quit flying off the handle...if one gets riled up enough to actually respond that usually indicates one should take the same advice.
Ah, well.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's okay. Deep breaths all around. ;)