The Simpsons' Harry Shearer doesn't agree that white actors can't play non-white characters
Aux Features TV
Back at the end of June, the cartoon industry faced a bit of a reckoning with the number of white actors playing non-white characters. Jenny Slate stepped down from Big Mouth, Kristen Bell moved over to a different role on Central Park, and then Mike Henry decided to stop playing Cleveland on Family Guy and The Simpsons announced that white actors would no longer be playing non-white characters across the board—which is going to leave some big gaps that The Simpsons needs to figure out how to fill, since white actors have voiced nearly the entire population of Springfield for 30 years.
As it turns out, though, one of those white actors doesn’t completely agree with this idea. Speaking with Times Radio (via Deadline), Harry Shearer—who plays a ton of Simpsons characters, though the relevant one here is Dr. Hibbert—said that he believes an actor’s job “is to play someone who they’re not,” and that’s it. Everything else is some other person’s job, whether it’s a writer or a producer. He wouldn’t offer an opinion on whether or not he thinks the new role is a mistake, but Shearer does say that he disagrees with the “conflation” between representation and performance. He says “people from all backgrounds should be represented in the writing and producing ends of the business so they help decide what stories to tell and with what knowledge,” but the actor is just there to act and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for diverse representation.
This all comes a few years after The Simpsons responded to the mounting controversy surrounding Apu by quietly relegating the character to backgrounds after previously offering half-hearted meta-acknowledgements. We still don’t know how the show will handle this change for non-white characters, but it’s going to require something a little more thoughtful than just Dr. Hibbert, Bumblebee Man, Lou, and Judge Snyder never speaking again.
319 Comments
As a Mexican, I give Hank Azaria my express permission to continue playing Bumblebee Man.
I still demand that Gilbert Gottfried be the new voice of Krusty, however.
Yes! Get that Italian-American Dan Castellaneta (if that is his name…) out of there!
He’s not wrong. And yet, I do see the other side of it as well. Dang it. I’m a fence-sitter on this one.
Shearer’s argument, that being a versatile performer qualifies him for roles that demonstrate that versatility, ignores the questions of opportunity and privilege. It’s not great to take an “all things being equal” stance when things are very much not equal.
See also: the “we only cast a white actor because we didn’t have any black actors” excuse.
Which is why I said I see the other side as well? Politics and current events aside…I take the side of the artist. There are no limits to art, or at least there shouldn’t be. I take a very utopian view knowing full well that when money gets involved, the utopian view gets compromised. But I stand by what I said, I see both sides. I don’t know the answer to this. Getting mad at the artist doesn’t seem like the right take and yet, having white people dominate this area because it’s the way it’s always been isn’t correct either.But, Shearer is not wrong. It can be…two things.
“There are no limits to art, or at least there shouldn’t be.”I can’t agree with this. All things have to have limits, even art. If a piece of art is anti-Semitic or promotes hate or anything like that, it should be condemned, artistic freedom be damned. I get your general point about how this particular issue is complex, but there are always limits, and there should be.
There should be no limits for an artist. But there are consequences.
I take your point, but the problem here is that saying that there should be limits on certain kinds of art can start to become a bit slippery and worrisome itself, since that kind of suggests that someone has the power to set the limits (which in turn suggests that that someone also has the power to set some kind of punishment or deterrent for crossing those limits), and giving anyone that kind of power carries with it the potential for danger, especially when we’re going with rather vague things like “promotes hate”. So who, exactly, is trustworthy enough to set those limits and punishments?
We’re all for setting limits on art and speech that we consider dangerous and that should be condemned, myself included. The problem is — how do you know you can trust me to set those limits? How do I know I can trust you? Even if we agree on 99% of everything, how do you know that that 1% we disagree on won’t get either of us into serious trouble should we cross it? And that’s with someone who, if my previous experience with your comments here is a guide, I suspect I share a lot of views in common with. But there’s certainly no guarantee that either of us or someone who agrees with us will get or always have control of the red pen. To take one (possibly trite but no less significant) hypothetical, I’m sure Donald Trump would love nothing more than to have the power to set limits on art that promotes what he considers hate towards him. Which is equally not to say that I think anti-Semites and Nazis and the like should have free reign by default. Only that saying “there should be limits” is often easier and safer when said than when put into practice, and carries with it its own problems, complexities and dangers.
That isn’t his argument. He was defending all actors.
And again, his point is disingenuous. In real life, absent a well-designed quota system, white actors get more opportunities (not just through playing other ethnicities but by taking roles that aren’t specified as a particular ethnicity and get cast white by default) and that’s what we need to change.
Show me the quotas and how they would be enforced. Would it be by % of the population. Would it also be gendered? Every film would need x trans Asians and so on up to a certain number of over 60 cis white British men. Or do you see it as a bit less nuanced.
The idea is not to require that characters representing a certain identity only be portrayed by actors possessing that exact identity. That’s discriminatory itself. The hope is to equalize opportunity so that actors of color are considered for the same range of roles that white actors routinely ‘default’ into. And in this time and place, that means pulling back on the range of roles considered for white actors.
Agreed. On a philosophical level, Shearer isn’t super wrong, whomever can do the voice best should get the job. However, reality ruins the philosophy.
No, his argument is that the acting cast shouldn’t be the first-line place for such reforms, and I think he has a point.
incredible comment.
Dear Harry,You are kind of right, but as an old white man, you should probably stay out of the conversation. This isn’t about you.Signed,A 6000+ year old white “being.”
You’re right, Harry Shearer should stay out of conversations about who Harry Shearer is allowed to voice. It’s just not about Harry Shearer.
“No, no, no. We’re progressive woke people. We’re not authoritarian or anything like that. We’re just telling you what you can and can’t do, that’s all!”
Yes let’s limit who has freedom to speak and what people are allowed to say. That’s always worked so well in the past. As my grandmother used to say young people think old people are stupid but old people know young people are stupid.
No one’s limiting his freedom to speak (obviously or we wouldn’t have this article), Elrond is just giving some unsolicited advice.
Huh. Well your grandmother was right about her own offspring atleast.No one is limiting what the guy can say, just advising maybe he shouldn’t say anything in this case.
your grandmother sucked
Sir, if you’d just quiet down, I’d be happy to treat you to a garbage bag full of popcorn.
I think the general idea isn’t so much that Harry Shearer shouldn’t be allowed to play Dr Hibbert as maybe not every single character regardless of color needs to be played by a white person. If it were an occasional thing and POC were getting their fair share of voice work, it would be less of an issue.
This is the correct take.
OMG, a nuanced take! *faints*
The issue is that with the Simpsons particularly is that they hired voice actors with the ability to do dozens of different voices. Outside of that guy in the Police Academy movies who made sound effects noises I’m not sure there were that many POC voice actors with that kind of range around in 1989 when auditions taking place. Shearer wasn’t brought in to play a black character, he was hired because he could do the work of 15 other people.
I think the real problem is that until recently (last 10-15 years), the Voice Acting industry probably never even bothered to check and even then, it didn’t really matter. Voice acting in general seems to be a difficult industry to get into and the prominent PoC VAs I can think of were all actors of various status prior to becoming well known for voice work (Cree Summer, Kevin Michael Richardson, Gary Anthony Williams, Phil Lamarr…) while the rest are celebrities that tend to have their own shows/movies (Loretta Devine, Regina King, Eddie Murphy, Charlie Murphy, Samuel L. Jackson, etc). Just sticking to African-Americans, there really isn’t much in the way of representation. I think it is even worse when it comes to voice actors who dub anime. The only PoC I can think of offhand who had regular work is Beau Billingslea. Though looking at the Dubbing Wiki, I can see that there really weren’t that many African-American VAs. Granted, there are far more Hispanic and Asian VAs.
This is true too, but I think with a show like The Simpsons it’s important to understand that they were just working with the pool of actors who were readily available, and they were making a show about a white (well, yellow, but you know what I mean) family living in a mostly white suburban town. Characters like Apu and Hibbert weren’t envisioned first and then auditioned for; they already had cast members around and given they were working on a budget (especially season 1 when it was not a terribly high budget show), they just asked them “hey, could you do this voice?” because they were already doing a bunch. From the outset, they were hired mostly because they had the potential to do dozens of voices and fill out the town, not because of any specific voice they could do. I think if they hadn’t discovered that Shearer could voice a black doctor or that Azaria could (debatably) voice an Indian store clerk, they either just wouldn’t have introduced those characters at all or would have just made them white/yellow, because they were never going to cast separate actors just to play roles that were so minor at the beginning.
So it’s absolutely true that the VA industry did not make enough effort to bring in more actors of color into the fold, but it’s also hard to completely blame shows that were just acting within the pool of talent that was available to them. It’s obviously a bit different with modern shows which have celebrities doing the voices and only doing one voice each (and doing it poorly, but that’s another topic), and yet still cast people like Allison Brie to play characters of color.
I’m not sure there were that many POC voice actors with that kind of range around in 1989 when auditions taking place.
I imagine there were plenty “around.” The issue is they weren’t getting the audition in the first place. It’s not like POC voice actors with range suddenly became a thing after 1989.
While there’s certainly the argument that he’s the ‘exception that proves the rule*’ Uncle Phil from Fresh Prince (James Avery) was Shredder in the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles AND Fang in the english dub of Fist Of The North Star. That’s two Japanese characters being voiced by a (very large) African-American. He used to crop up in the credits of loads of cartoons I used to watch as a kid, so he certainly wasn’t starved of voice work back in the 80’s and 90’s.*Which is a dumb, nonsensical saying but thats a different story for a different time.
And Yeardley Smith has gotten away with doing just one for decades.
Talk about a sweet deal.
I love Harry Shearer, I think he’s very talented. But claiming that it would’ve been impossible to find a POC voice actor with his range and talent seems a trifle unsupportable. They were out there then just as they’re out there now–it just didn’t occur to the Simpsons producers to look.
It’s not even really that. Characters like Hibbert were not really important to the show at the beginning. They needed a doctor for one episode because Bart was in the hospital, and they thought it would be funny to make the doctor a Cosby caricature because they were up against The Cosby Show in their time slot at the time. Then they decided they liked the character and kept bringing him back when they needed a doctor scene, but that’s really the entire genesis of the character. They were on a budget and Azaria and Shearer were hired precisely because they could do a zillion voices, so roles like that were given to them. Had some network executive actually put their foot down and said “we will not air any more episodes where the black doctor is played by a white guy,” they would have just dropped the character and created a white doctor the next time they needed one. There was never any separate audition process for characters like that.
This is so stupid, and is used every single time a white person dares to speak up on racial issues, even if they have a reasoned and not hateful viewpoint. Stop repeating this nonsense.
nahif you’re right you’re right. doesn’t change no matter who says it.
Because context is for pussies amirite?
No, context has been considered, and he’s right.
Great discussion, man. Let me know if you want me to get out the sock puppet big enough to explain to you that “who said it” is a subset of “context.” Otherwise, enjoy thinking you won this exchange.
Go for it man, explain. I’ll wait.
Isn’t it literally about him? As in, the voices that he will or won’t be able to do?
A white old man who can probably get any voice acting gig he wants, and is worth $85m that he probably doesn’t want to feel bad about having earned. I think Mr. Shearer is the perfect person to talk about the artistic considerations involved, and pretty much the last fucking person that needs to be weighing in on the social justice dimension right now.
We’re quite aware that you think there’s no strength left in the world of Men.
but can black voice actors perform “white” characters?and WHY NOT?
He was asked a direct question about a character he’s played since the 21st episode of the Simpsons and he answered it in a truthful fashion.
Other than that, a one sided conversation is called a monologue and isn’t really a conversation.
And you’re the one who gets to make that decision?
Yeah. Deprive him of his right to voice his opinion. You know the Nazis did the same back then
It’s a conversation about a profession. One in which he has worked for decades. If he’s not allowed to be in the conversation then there probably shouldn’t be a conversation.
I think he’s right but only if we lived in a perfect society where there are equal opportunities for actors of all backgrounds. But that’s not the world we live in.
There are a limited amount of roles in animation for POC and they are greatly underrepresented compared to their percentage in American society. It’s not that a talented white actor couldn’t do a great job in some cases, it’s just that so could the many talented non-white actors and a POC is much more likely to bring lived authenticity to the role.Some fantastic white actors may be able to so as well, but until there’s a hell of a lot more equal opportunity, why not give the role of the non-white character to the non-white actor?
Describing Elrond as “white” is problematic as fuck. Just because he was played by a white, human actor in the film adaptaions of Tolkein’s work, doesnt not make the character “white”
True. English language terms for races really don’t apply here. Hell, I’m technically mixed species.
I think there’s a difference between someone like Kristen Bell or Jenny Slate, white actors who are hired to voice a single role which happens to be a non-white character, and someone like Harry Shearer who voices over a dozen characters one or two of which happen to be non-white.Of course this doesn’t apply with, for example, an Hank Azaria situation where his voicing of Apu was a racist caricature.
After reading Live from New York, I made the decision to absolutely never acknowledge anything Harry Shearer says, because I don’t want to let him ruin my ability to enjoy his work. That said, having read Live from New York, I am sure, without reading what he said, that his response was pretentious enough that even John Cleese would roll his eyes at it.
It seems very likely he’s bullshitting about having seen The Day the Clown Cried too.
I thought of Live from New York when I read the article. Someone in the above mentioned they wanted to see him say that to a POC going for the same role, and all I could think was: He definitely would.
Still don’t know why the solution to the racist police state is to change voice actors for PoC characters.
It’s not, really, but white people got really bored with retweeting the names of murdered black people, so here we are.
That’s just it; I’m glad these matters in show business is being discussed, but what sparked all of this was racist police violence, so this feels like a distraction tactic.
More representation is actually part of the solution to police violence.The media often represents black people as criminals and unfeeling murderers, and the police as heroes who are brave for breaking the rules to get the bad guy. That cultural image we have of black people, and of the police, is part of the reason for why policemen behave the way they do towards black people.Representation helps fix this.
Wouldn’t a white writer, taking Twain’s advice and “write what you know”, be guilty of cultural appropriation, when writing token black people, because of inclusion quotas?
Only a terrible soulless person would make light of innocent people being murdered in order to defend changes being made to a cartoon. Congrats.
Nice straw man you set up to argue with, but the problem it solves is the lack of representation in media. Are you still confused, or do you need a kindergartener to explain it to you?
There’s this nihilist brand of “progressive” activist who thinks the only problem worth solving is whatever specific bumper-sticker catchphrase they’re currently talking about.It swings from climate change to health care to police reform to immigration depending on who they need to hammer for not doing “enough.”So when they read about Hollywood taking steps to improve representation, they mock it because as far as they’re concerned “police reform” is the only important issue there.As if that’s something Hollywood can just “do.” And in shitting on this type of action, feed the arguments backwater conservatives use to mock and stifle this progress.
Meanwhile the activists on the ground who are fighting to be recognized as human beings take these types of victories and use them to stay energized for the bigger fights ahead.Because that’s how progress is made. One small victory built upon a previous small victory. Until enough of a foundation is built to land the big victory.
I’m wondering why you think the OP is a progressive.
Stop sucking yourself off while imagining this bogeyman
I don’t know if you actually know any black people, but we actually are really only mainly focused on police reform right now, don’t give a shit about who is voicing Dr, Hibbert’s tired ass catch phrases and at no time while I’m being tear gassed or called a racial slur do I feel energized in knowing that Harry Shearer has one less cartoon to play. We’re staying focused on things that are killing us. Only white people have time to be distracted by these useless, symbolic crumbs.
I would actually really like for you to articulate the inanity that is ‘lack of representation’ for a black cartoon character that no one will know is voiced by a white VA unless they look it up
If you didn’t know that all the actors on the Simpsons are white, you’re a fucking moron, and have literally no business commenting on the AVClub.I’m not going to articulate shit for you, Karen, because you are clearly not arguing in good faith or interested in broadening your worldview. Do your own fucking homework.
Sure, I know who voices who on the Simpsons. But maybe a kid might not, who hasn’t seen every episode of the show before. You know, the kind of person I thought all this was for – people other than ourselves, who may be younger, more impressionable. But I suppose you aren’t thinking of other people since this is all a performance for your own gratification.
When I was a kid, I would stay up to watch Conan, and was a big fan of The Simpsons. Harry Shearer came on and at some point does Dr Hibbert’s voice – I absolutely didn’t have the vocabulary or awareness of lack of diversity in voice-actors to fully understand/express why I was uncomfortable with what I just saw, but – as most people of color have experienced – I knew I didn’t like it? And I’d have to compartmentalize that discomfort to continue to enjoy The Simpsons.This was before YouTube and totally by coincidence, but I’m guessing with increased access to Any piece of media ever, more fans do know/were shown by their enthusiastic parents who the voice actors are for their favorite shows
I’m sorry that you stumble with enjoying certain programs. You are welcome to not watch them.
I think it was on Conan where James Doohan ran through a bunch of alternative Scotty accents. German? Huge laugh. French? Huge laugh. Japanese? Stone, squirmy silence.
Please find me this clip so I can watch it.
Seriously it baffles me that I’m supposed to take this as an argument.“TV show made me uncomfortable as a child”Fucking get over yourself.
You lack the ability to empathise with the struggles of others, got it.
I think you mean sympathize. I can empathize with the reaction of a child but I’m not gonna guide my adult life by it.
Sorry – that wasn’t my point(s), so sorry for not making it clearer -I was trying to say that – even as a child – I intuitively noticed something was ‘wrong’, but didn’t really 100% know why (and I think a lot of children who are not white, or white and male, experience moments of this). As I grew up, I logically recognized that there’s just straight up racism/white supremacy that leads to, say, a lack of diversity in voice actors (to literally say the least)If you’re a fan of Conan, his latest ‘Needs A Friend’s podcast episode with W Kamau Bell talks about this stuff pretty succinctly – (paraphrasing) -People in power always had their way, their voices heard, their complaints addressedPeople Not in power (historically in the US, anyone not white) have only Very recently been able to have complaints heard and addressed, or at least not outright dismissed People in power (who are still in power, bc they expressly are the ones who still make the decision to Not dismiss the voices of those not in power) should probably Not say, “ugh! There’s so much complaining!” – when, no – you just never had to deal with it, and now you Kinda sorta sometimes have to
Nah it’s not straight up anything.The stuff you say about people in power, that stuff’s all true, but none of it applies to cartoons, because the VAs for a cartoon are not ‘in power’. The reality of television is that it is an escape from reality, anything is possible in it, including [insert whatever pseudo-problematic thing a news article convinced you is actually a problem].And you and the other narcissists who keep trying to “fix reality” by fucking with TV shows can’t seem to remember that. I do, so this all amuses me.
Ah, so you’re not JUST a racist, you’re a psychopath who can’t experience empathy, too? Why didn’t you just say so?
Still waiting for you to explain something. Personal insults don’t bother me.
holy shit your rapid descent into petulant name calling rather than addressing the argument, has become random and doesn’t align with the things the guy was saying—you just look like you didn’t even read them, which is possible, you’re disrespectful enough to hurl specious insults, perhaps you are disrespectful enough to not even listen to others before trying to shut it all down with insults and shaming. Or maybe, and this is quite plausible, you just don’t read well or accurately because you have a dogmatic narrative already running in your head that drowns others out, especially if they have the temerity to disagree with you and therefore need to be dismissed and silenced with hostile noise. Is this sort of shitty bullshit part of your smug, “praise the virtues of inclusion, respect, hearing people’s voices, equality not authority. . .except with those we disagree with or who aren’t part of our approved groups” guided playbook. It’s intellectually and morally bankrupt, and acute hypocrisy that goes on daily with the self backpatting left and its wailing bile at anything less than obedience to their ideological revealed truths. Little spoiled children run amok. You represent your people well and transparently.
You’re so unbelievably full of shit.
You aren’t thinking of other people because you’re a racist – and I’m not interested in the opinions of obvious racists. Eat shit, history’s loser.
Still waiting for you to explain something. Personal insults don’t bother me.
also I love that fact that you are holding up Simpsons knowledge like some badge of pop culture intelligence while simultaneously bitching that they need to uproot their entire show cause it’s racistThe stuff that you think makes you cool for liking is now also the biggest problem in the world, ain’t that a predicament
Wow you’re a really really dumb person.
Kevin Michael Richardson, who has done 69 episodes of The Simpsons over the past 11 years, as well as 84 episodes of American Dad and 82 episodes of Family Guy, would like a word with you.
How about the fact that actors of colour don’t get represented within the industry because roles they could go for have already been taken by white people.
Black voice actors can only have black cartoon roles?
I mean, I’d be happy for them to be getting any roles. We might be having a different conversation if the majority of white voice roles were taken by actors of colour. But that’s not the case.
Okay, well in the past they have been murdered lion kings, very fast hedgehogs, inspector’s assistants, time traveling samurais, fat guys named Albert…one came all the way from the Boondocks to Oscar stardom!So boy do I have good news for you and your “one single black role” policy
The Simpsons are in a unique situation. The show has been around for over 30 years. It started off without a lot of money or recognition, but a ton of characters. You’re not going to hire an individual voice actor for every single role, especially when some may only have one or two lines every few episodes. It makes perfect fiscal and logical sense that on person would voice many characters on a show.Obviously these (and for the last couple of decades) the Simpsons have more money and resources at their fingertips. But when do you get to the point that you tell a guy he can’t keep doing what he’s been doing for decades for a decision that simply adds cost to production?
Woah, woah, kindergartener? Let’s not bamboozle Durango Savage with a bunch of ivory tower eggheads. Maybe start with a literal toddler and work up.
but can black voice actors perform “white” characters?and WHY NOT?this is a shitty hill you kids are making
This isn’t a straw man, you snide twatnugget. All these casting changes started happening right after George Floyd’s death because representation was suddenly a pressing issue? In animation? Good as the intentions may be, the gestures are pretty empty.
I don’t think it solves that problem at all. I think Shearer’s got the right idea: the solution needs to begin at the production level, with more people of color represented as writers, producers, and directors. Then more PoC characters will have their voice and their perspective come through in the writing instead of needing a PoC actor to try to create that in the performance.
Porque no los dos?
Nice straw man you set up to argue with, but the problem it solves is the lack of representation in media.
If someone were to argue that the current levels of representation are…let’s say pretty decent, what tangible benefits would further representation confer aside from the fixing the supposed problem of “the lack of representation in media”? Do twice as many PoC on television make for twice less racism? What does a “solved” lack of representation in the media look like?
Black genres such as hip-hop/R&B/soul/etc. have at the moment pretty much completely displaced six decades of the dominant ‘white people guitar music’ genres and has that really made anything better or even brought on that much tangible difference?
The increased levels of creativity are very cool, but I don’t think it’s that unfair to point out that once you get to a certain point the concept of “trickle down diversity” really isn’t some great enactor of social change and the silver bullet a lot of pop culture bloggers seem to think it is.
There’s literal representation in that PoC exist in these shows. I might be weird but I can’t tell a race by someone’s voice, so PoC can play white characters as well. If there’s an extreme bias where it only goes one way, the problem is not here, it’s with how people are getting hired into the roles.
Yes, there is bias in who gets hired into the roles… which is solved by removing white people from those roles and recasting them with PoCs. If you agree with my main point, what exactly are you contesting?
Great art doesn’t care about who it’s not representing. There’s nothing stopping someone who doesn’t feel represented to write, produce, act and their own films with their own budget.
I’m sorry you’re incapable of working on two problems at once.
It’s a solution in the sense that decisions like this help move the needle with regard to thinking of PoC as actual Human Beings. Consciously or subconsciously, too many people don’t seem to think that is the case and seeing/hearing them in pop culture can help to change that.
When people see a PoC voiced by a white person, do you assume they think of the character as white too?
More contrarian arguments from Dino Ironbody: Defender of Blackface and TERFs.
Have you ever watched a cartoon? You don’t see who is providing the voice, genius.
350 million people in the US and rounding off 0% are voice actors. So how exactly is increasing the diversity of voice actors in TV cartoons, where most people have little idea who is doing the voice, moving the needle.
Don’t bother arguing with Dino Ironbody: Defender of Blackface and TERFs. He’s just here to make contrarian and nonsensical arguments to derail and control the conversation. He won’t give you a straight answer to why he has these opinions and will instead fire back with more nonsensical arguments that have nothing to do with his initial claim until you give up debunking every single one. Best to hit the dismiss button on his comments.
Is it possible for someone to be more pathetic than you?
It’s not. But a lot of media companies wanted to change the subject with little things instead of dismantling our police system and creating something for true equality.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me what The Simpsons, specifically, would be able to do to “dismantle our police system.”
They could stop portraying the police as intelligent, diligent and heroic.
They don’t have to insert themselves in the largest civil uprising in decades and make it about them.
Because, as has been pointed out, it’s a bad faith straw man argument designed to derail the conversation. Nobody was asking Shearer about the police state. Some other, equally relevant versions of your question:“Still don’t know why the solution to the climate change is to change voice actors for PoC characters.”“Still don’t know why the solution to the Covid 19 is to change voice actors for PoC characters.”“Still don’t know why the solution to the Fermat’s last theorem is to change voice actors for PoC characters.”What having POC voice actors does, is allows them to participate in an industry that, while perfectly happy to profit off black culture and characters, has systematically excluded them from the process and the economic benefits.
Well, they could put this guy in charge, for starters:
Because people are all inside on Netflix and Hulu and they wanna make change but they don’t wanna have to stop watching TV
That is so unfair to reduce it to that. We also got rid of a bunch of sitcom episodes.
It doesn’t, but if you’re a TV producer you generally have more power over what happens on your TV show than you do over the police department, so you change what you can.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, but I agree it is a kind of virtue-signalling to a degree. I think standing in solidarity with racial disparities in opportunities for new actors to gain work is a worthwhile endeavor but this can be fixed in sooo many other ways as well, like giving white characters to black voice actors(as an example,which happens!!). I agree somewhat with his sentiment that actors should not feel the onus is on them to step down but rather producers should make these decisions. His position could be seen as actually backing up the Simpsons decision rather than agreeing that actors should be the ones to refuse offered jobs because of awareness.As an Asian, I’m not angry that an excellent voice actor of color played Samurai Jack. He is the best person for the role even tho I think Asians are some of the most underrepresented in western entertainment. However, I do think one of the better ways to fix this problem is to hire more diversely in terms of producers and writers. If an actor plays a character but his lines were written by someone who understands the culture or viewpoint better then this is a better solution than say, keeping an all-white writers’ room writing for people of color. This is one of the reasons I loved Dan Harmon’s approach to hiring more women for the Rick and Morty writers’ room. These women aren’t any less funny or “edgy” than their male counterparts, and just makes the show better all-around by adding more perspectives. Im not trying to be edgy, I just think there are bigger problems than actors can account for or even have control over.
Don’t know why, or don’t care why? I’m sensing the latter.
Because it’s way easier, and lets white liberals feel like they’ve “made a difference.”
It’s not. You’re presenting a fallacy. It’s just empathy and understanding of current social context. FYI.
I agree with Harry, as the role should essentially go to the one with the most talent, not to fill some absurd politically correct diversity quota, as that almost seems an insult really.
So all these years it was just that white people had proportionally more talent?
I’m sorry, I’m not as smart as you. We didn’t all go to Gudger College!
Well DUH…just ask all of the white people who were in position to decide who had talent. (The two are obviously not related, obviously)
You’re such a sanctimonious piece of shit
Or they make up like 65% of the US whereas black people make up 10%?
I agree with Harry, as the role should essentially go to the one with the most talent,
White dudes love this excuse because they know that pre-existing hiring biases mean there’s less opportunity for women and people of color to get roles and thus build the resume needed to “prove” they’re as talented as white men.But since we’re talking specifically about acting…it’s pretty stupid to come out and say “I think these white guys would be better at playing black guys than an actual black guy.”
A fat/ sarcastic Star Trek fan, you must be a devil with the ladies.
So, coincidentally, Harry Shearer was the very best person in the world for 30 years to voice each of the literally dozens of characters he’s been doing? Or are there maybe other considerations, including financial, involved? And once we accept that, can we maybe stop pretending there’s nothing happening but a pure merit system?
I am humbly embiggened by your perfectly cromulent response.
I liked your earlier, funnier comments better.
Kind of like how The Simpsons was way better in seasons 1-8 than it is now. I see what you did there.
So then I wonder why doesn’t the guy from Police Academy have every voice acting role ever?
I am assuming it is because he lost the bleeps, the sweeps, and the creeps.
And was surrounded by assholes.
You gotta do the sound effects. Plus, he played stereotypical Asian Kung fu guy in every police academy. Do we give him crap now?
Want to make Harry Shearer’s voice work for a non-white character a lot less problematic? Make Bill Cosby the new voice of Dr. Hibbert.
The young people, with their hipping and their hopping, don’t know what the jazz is all about!
but the actor is just there to act and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for diverse representation.
Well, he’s not wrong. Animation is probably the only medium where that’s probably true. Animation allows for any actor to be any person/thing of any race/age/gender/species as long as they can… well, act. Actors shouldn’t be dissuaded from pursuing roles as if they’re the equivalent of Scarlett Johansson portraying Asian/trans people*. And yeah, diverse representation is the responsibility of showrunners and directors and especially in this case casting directors.
All that said, Shearer’s been with the Simpsons so long that he has a lot of clout. He’s not just “some actor” anymore, and could throw his weight around to change things if he wanted to, so now it kiiiind of is his responsibility. Dude should’ve kept his mouth shut, I don’t think this can of worms is something he wants to touch.*Full disclosure, I have several friends who are small-time voice actors so my opinion is a little biased on the matter. VAs (at least the ones who aren’t also screen actors) make considerably less than screen actors and I don’t begrudge them for taking every shot they get.
I just wanted to say a word on your comment that “Dude should’ve kept his mouth shut…” There’s been a generalized call now for decades that our country has to have a dialogue about race. We can’t have that dialogue on race if every time someone says something less than woke we answer with “he should just keep his mouth shut.” If we’re going to discuss race, we have to know that some people are going to need to be convinced of a new position. And, we also have to brace ourselves for certain positions of our own that may be untenable (though I’m not necessarily suggesting this is one of those times.)It strikes me that Shearer brought up a valid point. If you or I or anyone wishes him to believe differently, we have to make reasonable and cogent arguments to convince him of our point. That’s the exact dialogue that Progressives and Agents of Change, however defined, have been calling for.
I don’t think all that many people really want a conversation.
90% of the time, “have a dialogue” means “shut up and listen to me, and then tell me I’m right.”
“Let’s have a conversation about something” frequently really means “Let’s all just agree with me about something”.
It’s not so much that we need a dialogue as it is that one side has been doing all the talking for a long time and needs to shut up and listen
huh? this isn’t ‘sides.’ Everyone gets to share their own, individual opinion
Okay! My opinion is that your opinion sucks.
Like you? You literally never stop writing dumb bullshit.
We’ve been having a conversation about race since before the founding of the country, and I’m not aware of any point in time, anywhere, where white people were not intimately involved in that discussion, and in fact central to it. And now is no different. Maybe don’t take every turn of phrase so fucking literally.
My comment really caused you anger? That’s kind of what I’m talking about. If every comment in a discussion causes rage, then we’re not going to get anywhere.
Anger? Rage? What are you even talking about? Why are you trying to divert a discussion about race in America into one about your perception of my mood? Do you want to have a discussion about race, like you said, or would you rather just police my attitude?
I considered the basic tone of your comment, and this specific line — “Maybe don’t take every turn of phrase so fucking literally” — as hostile or angry. To the extent that I’m ‘policing your attitude’, my entire comment was about a generalized attitude that creates obstacles to communication. In other words, attitude and how we express ourselves was the entire point of my initial post.I wish to point out that the person that I was initially replying to welcomed my comment with an open heart and with acceptance of my overall point. I wasn’t trying start an argument; I was merely looking to start a discussion.Since your post reiterated my general point while at the same time attempting to dismiss it, it seemed a relevant point to make.
I mean, I addressed, substantively, your point (I didn’t dismiss it, you are misinterpreting disagreement as dismissal). If you wanted to have a discussion about race, well, we could be having that discussion right now. Instead, you have chosen to ignore that discussion and instead focus on your perception of my emotions. Who is the one derailing the discussion about race here? You claimed to want to have a discussion about race, and yet my use of a single expletive has managed to put you off of that entire topic. What it seems is like you don’t actually want to have a dialog about race unless it is on terms that you find acceptable, including (1) no one is allowed to have any strong emotion and (2) even a single expletive betrays strong emotion.
I did not ask to have a conversation on race in this forum or on this specific topic. I certainly do wish to do so on other forums or on other topics. (By ‘forum’, I mean this particular thread.)My comment here was on how the tone and language used in the initial post discourages such discussions on race in general. My comments have all been based around the idea that to have dialogue it must be welcomed in our language and tone. Your behavior is exactly the type of behavior that discourages generalized topics on race. The effect on racial dialogues of language and behavior such as you are exhibiting has been my focus on this particular thread of conversation. You do not know what terms are acceptable to me regarding race conversations as we have never entered such a conversation. You are deflecting rather than dealing with what I’ve said.
I mean, you whined about the lack of dialog surrounding race, and then when I offered you a dialog, including a contrasting point of view, instead of (1) addressing (i.e. engage in the dialog you claimed was not being had) or (2) politely explaining that despite complaining about the lack of dialog you did not want to actually participate in a dialog (??), you chose to instead attempt to police my mood. The next time you are bemoaning how we don’t have dialog about race anymore, I wonder if you’ll consider the time you started talking about the dialog surrounding race, someone was willing to engage you, and you dismissed that person’s entire substantive point in favor of attempting to police their emotion. I wonder if you’ll reflect that one of the things chilling dialog on race is white people, like yourself, telling black people, like myself, that they are not allowed to display even a hint of emotion when addressing race.
I think you should review my comments. Your description of them bears no relation to what I actually said. You’re arguing with your imagination, not the person who is actually talking to you. If you don’t believe me, read my part aloud and then have someone you know read your part aloud. I think it will be clear to you very quickly. Further, you keep describing your first post as offering a ‘substantive point’ or a ‘contrasting point’. However, you never once addressed how telling people that they should keep their mouth shut would not affect people’s ability to have a discussion on race.
You asked if I was really angry and complained that we couldn’t have conversations about race if people were going to react with rage. What exactly do you think I’m mischaracterizing?I’m saying white people can’t possibly think they aren’t being given a fair opportunity to be heard on racial issues just because of a rhetorical turn of phrase.
You keep saying I was trying to have a conversation on race. I wasn’t. That should have been clear if you re-read these posts. Honestly, guy, you seem really committed to having an argument and there’s just no need. Maybe we’ll talk again on some other issue. But talking to you right now has nothing to offer me.
That you’re not interested in having a conversation about race is obvious. You’d rather lecture at me about my emotion, which frankly is none of your business. It is frankly astonishing how long you’ve continued this conversation, which started with you whining about not being able to have a dialog about race (dialog that has been dominated by white people for this entire country’s history) just to argue about any and everything BUT race. If you’re not interested in a dialog about race, why are you concerned, at all, about the contours and parameters in which that dialog might take place? Why does your perception of “anger” or “rage” concern you *at all*?
Are you really this dense?
No. What I am is someone who recognizes the games little white boys like you play. You aren’t nearly as clever or unique as you think you are. In fact you’re wildly transparent. We are deep into this conversation, with you responding every step of the way. And yet you refuse to talk about the one thing you opened complaining about, that we are unable to have a dialog about race. Mediocre, insecure white boys use this tactic all the time. Get on their soapbox about some perceived censorship that prevents honest discussion of race (deliberately misunderstanding a common rhetorical turn of phrase). When challenged, attempt to belittle the person offering actual debate, in this case by trying to police my emotions and trying to pretend I’m misunderstanding your argument. I notice you didn’t answer the question. If you do not want to have a discussion about race, why do you care about the parameters in which that debate takes place? What even frame of reference do you have for judging what is and is not appropriate behavior that may or may not be stifling the debate you don’t even want to participate in?
Thank you for answering in the affirmative. I talk about race a lot. I’m not going to talk about it with you. I talked about what was relevant with you – your speech and tone. You want to fight. I don’t and I really don’t want to fight with you. Certainly I can’t be the only one who has told you this about yourself.
You talk about race a lot with who? Other white people who agree with you?How is my tone relevant at all? Why is it something you would feel the need to discuss? Why do you think tone matters? And whether you like it or not, this conversation is about race….it is about you, a white person, deciding that you get to police the tone with which a black person gets to discuss race, that you get to set the parameters of a discussion about race you claim not to want to have (despite the fact you keep continuing this conversation)! Unwittingly, you have exposed an actual underlying issue leading to the problem you claim to be pointing out….one of the reasons we can’t have a productive discussion about race is because white people like you, who have always dominated discussions about race, want to dictate the terms on which discussions about race take place so that you can shut out the voices of black people who are actually impacted by racism. You are the cause of the problem you are pretending to bemoan!
You are insane. Please leave me alone.
I can’t force you to continue this conversation, homey. All I am doing is replying to you. That is how a dialog works! You are free to not reply, and there is also a dismiss button. (Incidentally, you might want to examine why you insist on continuing a conversation you purport to find so distasteful, but self-awareness does not seem to be a strong suit for you!) I hope you enjoy your weekend. I do think it’s interesting how many basic questions you have refused to answer throughout this interaction that you keep furthering! Very telling.
I don’t believe a thing you say. I don’t believe you’re Black and I don’t believe you’re looking for a discussion. I do wonder about my compulsion to continue with people like you. I guess I find it hard to believe that an individual is unreachable to reason and honest representation. My interaction with Right Wing folk, though, should have convinced me otherwise. It’s just hard to believe that one who embraces a Progressive philosophy is so entangled in the same malady that has destroyed the Conservative movement in this country.I made one point, a point you have yet to address. If you can’t see that you are engaging in an anti-intellectual tantrum, I just don’t know what to do for you. I have continued because it hurts to think there are folks like you. I keep hoping you’ll come to your senses if I just talk to you reasonably. You seem to truly have no objective eye with which to see yourself. It is heartbreaking, so much so that I can only wish you better days.
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself to dismiss the opinion of someone who offered a simple, basic counter that you don’t want to engage with because it undermines your shallow worldview. If thinking I’m lying about my race and lived experience (???), along with policing my tone and openly lying about whether I’m addressing your point helps resolve the cognitive dissonance in you thinking you’re a rational, open-minded person even as you go to incredible lengths, including lying and evidence-free accusations, to avoid so much as entertaining a thought that conflicts with your mediocre white boy worldview, more power to you. Do what you gotta do man, no skin off my back!I’ll remind you again, not replying and dismissing are two options fully available to you!For the record, and just so you don’t think your lies are working, your point was that saying things like “Dude should’ve kept his mouth shut” discourages dialog about race, and I directly addressed that point in my original response to you! You are the one who chose to divert that conversation into your perception of my emotional state when I replied.
One more comment — LOL!
cool, enjoy your weekend!
I think the pushback here is not so much meant as a conversation starter so much as denial preceding a begrudging acceptance. No one will actually offer an argument to the contrary because censorship isn’t progressive and they know his perspective holds up so they’ll just attack him personally to blow off some steam.
I totally agree on basically everything you’re saying. I more meant he should keep his mouth shut for his own sake, because unfortunately there are a lot of people who aren’t interested in that dialogue, call it “too woke” or whatever you want. By starting this conversation, he’s putting his neck on the line in a way he doesn’t have to. I admire him for doing it though.
They only say “Dude should’ve kept his mouth shut” because they’re jealous that other people might wish to speak.
.
yeah people with experience and authority should have LESS of a right to speak about things they know
Voice actors also tend to be more likable and humble from the few I’ve interacted with. I wish they got paid more.
but can black voice actors perform “white” characters?and WHY NOT?
He’s not entitled to an opinion? It’s only his living and care for the other billion fans who don’t give two craps
I think if we had a more diverse set of voice actors, it probably wouldn’t be that big of a deal to have somebody do a voice-over for a character not from their own ethnic or racial background*. I certainly don’t think it means they can’t do it well – Alison Brie was excellent as Diane Nguyen despite the controversy, and James Avery iconic as Shredder in the original TMNT animated series. But under the present circumstances, it kind of translates into non-white voice actors just getting fewer parts, period. So I think when you’re voice-casting for a non-white character, you should always audition someone from the same racial, ethnic, or gender background first at least. * Also, I don’t think this applies to dubs of foreign animation, where the whole point is that you’re giving an American translation/take on the vocals. I would not support a rule saying that only Japanese-Americans can voice anime actors in dubs, for example.
From my admittedly limited experience, non-white VA don’t even get the same options as white voice actors. White VAs will get all sorts of sides with a variety of backgrounds for them to “try out” while non-white VAs usually only get sides that represent their background. (And let’s not even get into how terrible breakdowns are for basically any character’s who’s not a white man (esp if the piece is written by a white man)).
Here’s an elegant solution to basically every problem The Simpsons has faced in the last ten or fifteen years: cancel The Simpsons. At this point you’re not just plugging holes in a sinking ship, guys; the ship has sunk. Even you know it. Maybe try something new, keeping in mind it’s a new world. You might just do OK.
The idea of cancelling a program that is still a global money-maker is absurd, no?
Ah yes, the Arli$$ strategy of media. Keep pumping it out even though no one else likes it anymore because it makes money because some people out there still watches and likes it.
Seinfeld walked away. Cheers ended gracefully. And they’d probably have let the Friends stay on TV for another decade. Is The Simpsons so different, just because we can’t see the actors age? It’s not like they won’t keep making money off of it forever regardless.
“Is The Simpsons so different, just because we can’t see the actors age?”Yes.
I get this sort of response more and more on the A.V. Club the past few years. I think that’s a shame.To be clear, I’m happy to hear why I may be wrong — truly, I am — and there certainly is room for wit in a terse rebuttal, or even a rude dismissal. But when did mere contradiction become worth the bother of typing it?
Sometimes I think it’s worth answering rhetorical questions if I disagree with the implied answer.
Pro tip: It’s not.
If you’d phrased it as a statement(“I don’t see how The Simpsons is so different just because we can’t see the actors age”) would you have a problem with someone else contradicting it?
It’s not personal, sir, as I don’t believe I know you — the who and else of it matters not at all. If I did know you (and respect your opinion to begin with), I suppose so bare a response may well have been of some value to me. But even then: such dismissals do little to help discussion threads turn into the sort of intelligent (and often surprisingly polite) analyses that used to be so common under Phipps’ stewardship (and which I, as a simpleton, used to find so enlightening).Which is to say… Meh.
Couple reasons why I began with such a short response: a) I thought it would be amusing, and b) sometimes I begin with a brief response so as not to seem too aggressive in my questioning(perhaps I should’ve made it clearer that I was trying to get you to explain why you didn’t think The Simpsons being a cartoon makes much difference).Anyway, there’s a pet peeve of my own that’s coming into play here, and that is sometimes commenters act like you’re giving them the third degree if you challenge their opinions(there’s a frequent commenter here who keeps calling me a “contrarian”, I think basically for giving opinions contrary to his). I don’t wanna come across like some “Debate me!” edgelord, but I do appreciate helpful explanation of views.EDIT: It appears my stalker has posted in the comments for this article, so you might expect a visit soon.
I do appreciate helpful explanation of views….which, see, is very much not the impression I got from your response. Unless you really meant to claim for yourself the privilege of not being expected to clarify your views (in which case, I daresay I’ve already been much too generous).
Possibly, though, I am overthinking it, and possibly it’s to justify my own grumpiness. I believe I can live with that.Best to you and your stalker.
those shows got to the point where they were paying the actors millions of dollars per episode. and the actors wanted to do something else.voice acting is basically a part time job for all the people involved with the simpsons.
But you can hear them age. Homer and Marge sound more like their parents with every passing year.
Aslo it less stress and time on the body then actual acting and filming of episodes in a studio under hot lights and reshoots and retakes.
You can basically do your part for the Simpsons in your bathrobe.
This. If the show had ended with, season 11, its legacy would have been cemented as a god-tier sitcom. We’d shrug off stuff like the stereotype gags as “eh, it was the 90s”. As part of an ongoing show though, that’s just more baggage on a show that’s already limped along way past its expiry date.
I think I’ve got a solution for this: only have white animated characters. Boom.
Sorry, the Simpsons has yellow rather than white characters.
Please don’t make this a racial thing.
We tried that. It was called the whole first half of the 20th century.
Uh, if there’s one thing you definitely can’t accuse the first half of the 20th century of, it’s being unwilling to make cartoon versions of non-white people.
50 years ago liberalism was promoting the egalitarian notion of ‘one world family’ where all men are brothers. Now its pushing a reductive brand of chauvinism, dividing and sudividing groups into smaller and smaller untouchable enclaves. Liberalism has gone conservative.
It’s creepy to me how much modern Leftists are beginning to resemble pearl-clutching ‘90s-era conservatives that thought the corrupting influence of Mortal Kombat and Marilyn Manson were to blame for society’s ills, and that censorship is the answer. Remember way back when the left-wing used to actually be cool?
leftists are not doing that, liberals are.
The post-material left took over. These are the people who don’t have their actual day-to-day existence (food, shelter, companionship, purpose) threatened, so they’ve taken up something else to pretend to care about so they look better.In short, to them, progressiveness is a fashion accessory, not a necessity. And the whole point of any fashion movement is to become a leader in it that gets to lord power over others and dictate what they do within it by defining yourself as the paragon of that movement. That’s why they tend to focus on issues that don’t really have clear, more simple solutions that would actually make an impact, issues that can’t really be easily qualified or quantified – so they a) look like they’re thinking much bigger-picture than anyone else, dealing in abstract issues, and b) don’t really have to be expected to enact anything that would bring about meaningful, positive change.
You’re forgetting – the PMRC was co-founded by Tipper Gore.
Being cool was never cool
The political spectrum is a circle
“where all men are brothers”that’s non-egalitarian for 51% of the population. you see the problem?
it’s what happens when one very specific set of folks get to make the decisions for all of us.
Remember when you defended raping drunk girlsAlso the choice of “all men are brothers” is hilariously revealing
Lol this is maybe my top five favorite recognitions comment.
So, what you’re saying is you used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what you’re with isn’t it, and what’s it seems weird and scary to you, and it’ll happen to us too?
Couldn’t agree more. It’s quite disturbing.
This is one of those debates where if you say you don’t agree with the solution, people understand that you don’t agree that there is a problem at all, which sucks.
It would be so easy to fix the lack of diversity among voice actors because anyone can theoretically voice any characters. Just put in place some system of quotas and voilà! Having voice actors always match the race of their characters feels pointlessly restrictive and will only affect shows with human characters, while a quota system would affect every project. It just feels like everybody went with the first solution proposed without thinking about whether it was effective or not.
What’s your opinion of the great James Earl Jones being the voice actor for Luke Skywalker’s father? Should activists have demanded the role go to an English/Scottish/Welsh/Swedish ethnicity actor to match with Mark Hamill?
Who remembers something that long ago 🙂 How about Phil LaMarr voicing Samurai Jack?
Or, along that note, how about basically every non-Asian person in an anime dub ever?
James Earl Jones is of Irish ethnicity. Are the Irish not good enough for you?
Insert “power differential/Punching Up vs. Punching Down” argument here.
Insert made up bullshit that isn’t an argument but a forced stalemate
Wait, was rich Hollywood star Julia Roberts punching down when she played a disease-riddled streetwalking whore?
I believe the preferred nomenclature is “sex worker.”
WE’RE NOT TALKIN’ ABOUT THE CHICKS THAT LET CEO SNORT COKE OFF THEIR TITS ON WALL STREET, WALTER.
What do you mean by playing?
Huh, well, if she actually spent several nights gobbing off commuters as they slowly idled their Saturns around block in return for a fistful of crumpled twenties to spend on smack, then good for her for going full method.
Are you against that casting because James Earl Jones was not actually a robotic voice synthesiser built into a suit of armour?
I have been saying THIS for YEARS. Finally the culture is catching up to me! Darth Vader really should’ve sounded like the speech bot on an old Mac. Anything else is unbelievable & takes me right out of the movie. Suspention of disbelief only goes so far…
If Hollywood was generally diverse and people of varying backgrounds were represented reasonably well then we wouldn’t even have to think about it.Given that the example you are referring to is a rare exception as opposed to a rule (such as – pretty much all white people being the voices for the entire Simpsons cast), it really just goes to show that it’s not an actual issue that black people are overly advantaged when it comes to being selected for voice roles. The fact that you had to reach back a number of decades to find that example is rather telling.
James Earl Jones was cast before Lucas decided that Vader was Lukes father, so that point is pretty dumb.
How do you feel about Empire Strikes back WHITEWASHING a beloved black character?
I think it’s symptomatic of George Lucas’ mind: brilliantly creative but also kind of a clusterfuck. It’s not some sort of pseudo-clever, edgelord gotcha point that justifies racism against black voice actors, now and forever.
The role should have actually gone to a former Jedi who fell to the Dark Side…
In the mid-1970’s, Scatman Crothers voiced Hong Kong Phooey, a crime fighting, martial-artist dog. I don’t even know what to make of that.
It’s not a 1-1 thing, the issue is that minority actors are more likely to be typecast. When straight white actors are getting those parts too, there’s nothing left. It’s about balancing the numbers a bit.
At least three other white guys still played Darth Vader at the same time Jones was playing him, so it seems even when black actors are playing white characters they’re being under-represented.
But…the James Earl Jones Darth Vader voice isn’t supposed to be Anakin’s actual voice; it’s supposed to be what it sounds like filtered through a breathing apparatus and who knows what other machinery. They didn’t dub over Sebastian Shaw’s voice with Jones’s when Luke takes off his helmet in Return of the Jedi.
Not if you understand history and context. We live in a world that has a specific history, not a fantasy world where everything is equal and theoretical. This is a profoundly stupid and ignorant take, you’re presenting.
It’s an easy fix: Just make all animated characters white. Then nobody can complai…oh, boo yourself!
I was Boo-urnsing myself.
I heard that Clint Eastwood wasn’t a cowboy OR a rogue cop that plays by his own rules! Why won’t the MSM pick up on this story?
I would literally pay money to see him say this to some of the non-white voice actors who’ve lost roles of their own race to white actors.
I would watch you pay money to hear two actors say something obvious to each other
I mean, have you read Live from New York? He probably would. He probably has.
Who are these mythical people? Does it bother you that you’re making a strong point about something you very little about?
it’s going to require something a little more thoughtful than just Dr. Hibbert, Bumblebee Man, Lou, and Judge Snyder never speaking againAnd by ‘more thoughtful’ we mean reactionary surface level censorship which makes no fucking sense or difference at all.
Harry Shearer—who plays a ton of Simpsons characters, though the relevant one here is Dr. HibbertExcuse me, you’re forgetting someone:
I generally agree, I mean this show also has adults playing children. Where’s their reps demanding that kids get actual voice recording roles?
I don’t know what gave Harry Shearer the idea that it was okay for white actors to voice PoC cartoon characters — besides, you know, the fact that millions of people watched his beloved show for 30 years before suddenly deciding the practice wasn’t woke enough.
It probably would be alright if the casting people found better voices to play the PoC on The Simpson’s.Just giving someone the role because of skin color seems a little hypocritical. To add to the absurdity, Bart needs to be spoken by a 10-year-old boy from now on (not a 63-year-old woman). Lisa, by an 8-year-old girl (not a 56-year old woman).
What people want to happen: more diversity in casting voice actors. What will happen: a less diverse cast of characters within the shows. If you were starting an animated show, would you rather hire a few voice actors who can each do a lot of characters? Or would you want to hire a separate actor for each main and supporting character?
Why did I have to scroll down so far to find someone with some fucking sense? People don’t get it.I’ve seen this happen personally in the writing community (meaning those semi-pro workshops and groups I sometimes participate in, over the last several years): when people would write stories involving diverse characters, all and sundry would offer critiques on issues of portrayal and representation and whether it was really the author’s place to write such-and-such story, references to “authenticity” and “write what you know,” etc.
I’m sure they meant well. I’m sure they meant to achieve something positive. What they did achieve was a noticeable increase in characters conforming to their authors’ identity, and a marked reduction of anything that could be called diversity. It was the easiest way to avoid those complaints/criticisms and the community-eroding fights they sometimes engendered.I don’t know if it’s what people really want, or if they can even see it coming, but current progressive politics is pushing us towards a new segregation.
Yeardley Smith voices exactly one character on ‘The Simpsons’; Julie Kavner just does Marge and the other Bouvier women. They’re clearly happy to hire people with limited range if they can do great work for those characters. Besides which, why are you assuming that the voice actors of colour out there are going to be limited in their ability to produce several different voices? Phil LaMarr, with his 462 iMDB credits, seems to do just fine.
Is Phil Lamarr boxed into just voicing characters of his own race? That seems where it’s all headed.
I was gonna say “he’s still got Samurai Jack” but I guess that’s over now…
What don’t people get about historical context?How many hundreds of years were white people oppressed by blacks again? It’s so ingrained in our black supremacist culture and society, it’s almost like you can forget and be blind to how it pervades everything, so you’ll please forgive me for not remembering the exact length of time…Everything being equal is aspirational. That isn’t where we pretend we are in order to get there…
Well the Simpsons started as a short on Tracey Ullman. So two of the main voice actors were on that show. There wasn’t an intention to make a half hour show out of it originally.
Kavner and Smith were different situations. Kavner was hired because she was already on The Tracey Ullman show so they were essentially saving money and time by casting her. Smith was cast to play Lisa because it was the Tracey Ullman shorts era and there were like three characters outside of the family. (Initially none but it went about that high through the course of them.) Also, Lisa and Marge are main characters. You absolutely have to have the right voices for them specifically, whereas minor roles are dependent mainly on whether someone already in the cast can do such and such voice; if no one can you just don’t introduce them or create a different character.
When the show went to SERIES, they decided one way to make it work in a full series format was to greatly expand the roster of characters and expand the world around the main family, so actors like Shearer and Azaria were hired because they could play a zillion characters and do whatever random characters the writers happened to think up. The Simpsons has like 80 regular characters at a minimum. You really think they were ever going to hire individual actors to play each of them?
To be fair, Kavner and Smith are show leads. They are in every episode with majority lines. From a practical standpoint, hiring exactly one actor for all the supporting characters with less appearances/lines would make for a more cumbersome and tedious production. Ideally, we could hope there are a lot of multi-talentied VO artists like Phil LaMarr out there, but the truth is the pool is quite small.
Kavner was already on the Tracy Ullman Show. I don’t know how Smith got cast, but I’m guessing they just wanted a grown woman who sounds like a little girl with nobody assuming she’d still be doing it 30+ years later.
Well not if they hire more minorities to write and voice these characters. I can see where Harry is coming from, and in an ideal world I would agree. But the idea is to create more opportunities for POC and hiring them to voice characters of the same ethnicities is a start. The fact of the matter is white actors have more opportunities available for them, as most of the characters on mainstream television are white. I don’t see this changing anytime soon as most of the writers, producers, execs are also still white. Look at Kristen Bell and Harry Shearer, they are still gainfully employed, still making a lot of money. While I am not offended when an animated character is voiced by someone not of their ethnicity, I appreciate opening the door for more opportunities.
Why would it be difficult to find minority talent to play minority characters? Who cares if a white person doesn’t get it? I don’t see much difference in a live action role and vocal role. If it’s not okay for a white person to be in blackface and pretend to be black, why is it okay for a white person to voice a black character? I’m not equating blackface with vocal performance; I’m just saying there’s no need for a white actor to play a minority role when there are so many minority actors available. Again, this isn’t a big deal. It’s not like the role will completely fail without a white actor. So what if the woman has the better voice to play a male character than a male actor does? Find a female actor. It’s not that hard: there are tons of minority actors. The white actors won’t suffer: there are tons of white characters.
Assuming you want the best talent, who can portray a particular ethnicity better than a person of that ethnicity?
There are a lot of people in this comments section who seem to be tacitly suggesting that the best person to voice a black person is a white person, which is … interesting.
Well, they’re wrong, and so are the quotes above from Harry Shearer. An actor’s job is arguably more than just “to play someone who they’re not”, and if he said “the actor is just there to act and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for diverse representation” then he’s saying he’s not responsible for what roles he does, which is a lie.
They are also suggesting that’s AOK for white creators and actors to profit off a black character while excluding black people from that process.
Do they have a sign out the front of their production offices saying “NO BLACKS”?
There are a lot of white people suggesting that every single fuckin’ person on the planet can only be one single ethnicity.
I think that’s on a case by case basis, personally. You can say that a black actor gives a certain unique perspective to a black role, but I think that’s less true with VAs.
If you want better representation of PoC in animated media, I think you have to start with getting more of them in as writers, producers, and directors. Not only is that a more effective way to get characters who reflect minority sensibilities (vs. the actor having to try to add “color” in their performance at the end of the production line), it also by proxy opens up more opportunities for minority actors.
You can say that a black actor gives a certain unique perspective to a black role, but I think that’s less true with VAs. Again, assuming you want the best talent (with the best results and have the best resources to achieve that) then a black VA will inarguably give the best portrayal of a black animated character.
Personal opinions don’t matter as much as actual reality here.
This perspective seems to closely rub elbows with “people are reducible to their race.”
How about disproving what I actually said, instead of making a false equivalence.
You seem to be implying that an animated character of a particular ethnicity (i.e. the show’s creators have deliberately chosen a real-world cultural background as part of this character’s story) is best portrayed by a VA of a different ethnicity. While it’s obviously possible to do this, you can’t argue it’s the best approach.
As that’s a total horseshit characterization of what I said, I’m not addressing it.
Like what you did to me? At least I tried. Oh no, wait, you’re still going…
I wrote a post explaining why I think your initial position is stupid, actually. You want to carry on like I’m speaking Greek and you have no idea what’s going on, I guess that’s fine.
Another false equivalence.
Your purportedly inarguable essentialist position would be odd and dodgy even if this were a conversation about serious portrayals of real people. But it’s a conversation about comic portrayals of animated characters that were drawn to go along with a silly voice that a comic actor came in with. Bee Man does not have subtle qualities that are missed when he is portrayed by a voice actor without a rich Hispanic heritage.
Making fun of other cultures is a dodgy position.
An actor who makes fun of their own culture isn’t.
Yet that wasn’t your original position. You came out guns blazing that it is “inarguable” that the ethnicity of the voice actor must match the ethnicity of the silly goofball animated character they’re voicing in order to achieve the “best portrayal.”
Conversations can grow with additional information, but I never changed my position.
That’s very much not “inarguable” if you mean that any black actor will give a better performance than the best white or Asian actor. If, say, Carlton Banks was a voice actor (or, you know, a black actor from Britain or Nigeria), he could very well be a worse choice to play an animated character from a majority-black, poor neighborhood than, say, a white actor who grow up in one of those. The important measures shouldn’t be skin color or heritage, but life experience and talent. Does one’s ethnicity impact one’s experiences, and therefore also one’s performances? Of course (though talent can compensate for lack of individual experience, more so when it’s only about acting and less about writing the character). So ideally, you get everything to match, which requires diversity in casting (which I’m not sure most people disagree with?). But reducing everything that goes into casting to a performer’s race is, indeed, reductive. Personally, I applaud more diversity in hiring for new shows, especially when it comes to main roles where the actor may have some influence in shaping the character, but don’t really think already established roles should be recast. And I’m perfectly fine with voice actors of any heritage voicing unimportant bit characters of, again, any heritage as long as the performance WORKS (usually: is funny). A nuanced position, how horrid.
To be clear, I mean any actor of a particular ethnicity (i.e. the show’s creators have deliberately chosen a real-world cultural background as part of this character’s story) can give the best portrayal of that ethnicity. So for example, a Jamaican actor – who grew up in Jamaica – will give the best portrayal of a Jamaican character.
Ah 2020, the year the obvious needed to be stated and was either argued against or ignored.
What determines one’s “ethnicity” in this context? You’ve already altered and qualified your original claim with “a Jamaican actor – who grew up in Jamaica”. The only more or less objective way to define “Jamaican” is as a nationality (you have the passport or you don’t, as recognized by the country of Jamaica), whereas things like culture and place of origin and ethnicity (or, to a degree, skin color, which was the quality you focused on in the comment I replied to), exist on a spectrum open to disagreements as to who belongs where. And you are once again completely ignoring socio-economic circumstances and other life experiences. It certainly seems like you see skin color – or ethnicity or whatever you ultimately decide on – as the determining factor when it should really be only one of many. There are white (and Indian, and identifying as mixed) Jamaicans; if the choice is between a white actual Jamaican and a third-generation black Jamaican-American, with the role calling for a black Jamaican, who is the best choice among those two? Or what if the role is deliberately designed to poke fun at stereotypes white Americans have of Jamaicans (e.g. in a cartoon within the cartoon), might it then not make the point clearer if the role was played by someone with zero connection to Jamaica at all? Your sweeping absolutism cannot possibly fit every single situation, and that lack of nuance is exactly the problem. Like I said, I’m fine with more diversity in casting to enable better verisimilitude – when needed and called for, which is not always – AND to give more opportunities to underrepresented actors (if they actually are underrepresented). But your attitude is too simplistic.
I think we’re talking somewhat cross purposes here. I thought it was obvious I was speaking generally, but people seem to be bringing up specific examples as if that completely negates my point, which it can’t because we’re talking on different scales.
I’ve altered nothing. I’ve had to give examples of “black” and “Jamaican” because some people seem to not understand what “particular ethnicity” means.
Can we agree (to use your words) that to portray a particular culture/place of origin/ethnicity with specific socio-economic circumstances and
other life experiences, that the best actor would be of such culture/place of origin/ethnicity with specific socio-economic circumstances and
other life experiences? They can draw from personal experience to provide authenticity for their performance whereas other actors by definition can’t.
As you said, “ideally, you get everything to match”. Obviously this is not always possible, but getting the culture/place of origin/ethnicity right is at least a start. And it aids the thing we seem to both want: diversity.
You can keep bringing up more micro-examples, but you still haven’t convincingly answered my original macro-question: “who (in general) can portray a particular ethnicity better than a person of that ethnicity?” Any answer other than “in general, no one” is missing the point at best.
Your original statement was (and following ones were) absolutist, and that is what you’ve been criticized for here (be precise in your language if you want to argue a precise point). It’s nice to see that you seem to have come around to the position that not everything is (so to speak) black and white. But you continue to use the phrasing “the best”. As long as you do so, I won’t be able to agree, because “the best” is really dependent on context and I don’t think you can or should generalize. Life experience (of which, as you say, ethnicity is only a part, though one that I find overemphasized these days if it’s not important for the character) plays a role, but so does talent. An actor, or at least a voice actor (live action is another can of worms, though I suspect we wouldn’t have the same opinion there either) MAY well have enough talent, experience and willingness to do research in order to empathize with a culture different than his or her own that they’ll do a “better” job of convincingly portraying such a character, than a less talented actor with a more precise superficial cultural match. Whether that has actually happened (or will happen), is open to debate, and therefore very much arguable (counter to your original point). And that doesn’t even take into account extraneous circumstances like availability and financial considerations.
I freely admit that thinking like this gives casting directors an “out” for why they keep casting the same (white) people. But it shouldn’t. You can still rightfully complain that, all other things being equal, a show is voiced mostly by white actors and written by white writers in an unrepresentative way, without demanding that the most visible characteristic (which is NOT visible in a voice!) be the primary determinant in who (real) can voice what character (fictional and, more importantly, NOT IDENTICAL to whatever actor is responsible). That’s not the start of something good, but the continuance of something bad. I dislike blanket rules, because edge cases will always exist and absolutist views tend to lead to “righteous” (but really mindless) purging. Holding animation producers’ feet to the fire in order to diversify a, by all accounts, really very incestual part of the entertainment industry is fine by me, but leaving no room for nuance is not, in my opinion, a good way to achieve the presumed goals or to progress culture as a whole. Essentializing people’s backgrounds is a worrying trend (not just in animation) I do not wish to be part of.
It seems to me some people will misinterpret words, whether through ignorance or deliberately.
A general statement is not absolutist. e.g. Things that affect people commonly don’t happen to everyone without exception.
Ethnicity means: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. So generally speaking it’s a good word to use to cover culture, nationality, and even social background. I’m yet to find a better word. It doesn’t just mean skin color.
I will concede I perhaps could have used the word ideal instead of best, as ideals are often easier associated with generalisations, while being “the best” may be associated with unrealistic elitism. Ideals, whether realistically achievable or not, are still something to strive for.
I also concede some people won’t like that I think my general statement is inarguable. Of course you can argue against it in specific terms, but in general while any actor can perform any character that doesn’t mean they should. Especially to give an authentic portrayal of a culture you don’t come from.
As for being “precise in your language if you want to argue a precise point”, hopefully you can now see I was arguing a general point. A point which evidently many people agreed with without the need for lengthy explanation.
You can’t complain about being misinterpreted (in your view) if you don’t express yourself properly. “Inarguable” is not general and allowing for exceptions. “The best” is not general and allowing for exceptions. Neither are “actual reality”, “any actor of a particular ethnicity” or (though I suppose that one actually is arguable) “the obvious”. You admit as such, great. But don’t pretend like you SAID that all along (and as if it’s the readers’ fault when they take you at your word) when “in general” or something of that meaning did not come up from you until almost a dozen responses in. Regarding the difference between ethnicity and similar words, you’re the one who blurred the lines when you started with one and moved on to skin color later, only to switch again. But regardless, a catch-all rule is problematic in and of itself. If the character’s skin color is important to the story (e.g. if it is about racism based on how you look), I do agree that GENERALLY someone with that skin color would be IDEAL casting (though there may be exceptions) because of their likely life experiences, but then the specific ethnicity or country of origin shouldn’t matter at all; this goes even more for live action, naturally. But if it’s more of a cultural background that’s important, someone from that background (or someone who can connect to that background in a different, interesting way) would be better regardless of skin color, even if the actor’s skin tone or seeming ethnicity doesn’t match that of the character. And if the character is an individual whose background doesn’t play into the story significantly (or a character that’s just there for a joke and doesn’t have a personality), the person with the most fitting voice should get the job no matter where he or she comes from. And so on (though not indefinitely; at some point the contention stands that an actor is supposed to act, not just play him- or herself, and people shouldn’t be considered collections of atomized identities, anyway, which is where taking this too far would lead). So my view is that IT DEPENDS. When talking about a particular show, I don’t have a problem with criticizing the producers for choosing a specific actor if one feels that the actor doesn’t fit the specific role (based on the actor’s background, talent, vocal range, height for live action roles, or whatever) or someone else specific would have done a better job in one’s opinion. I do have a problem with criticizing producers based on one’s supposedly perfect and across-the-board valid rules that deal only with the superficial external qualities of the actors and don’t allow for nuance, particularly when those rules are defended as “obvious” (instead of merely another in a range of acceptable opinions), deviations from them are deemed akin to moral failings and the rules make society as a whole worse by emphasizing differences instead of commonalities.
Understood. Have a nice weekend.
Reading through these comments, I want to mention the now-ubiquitous, “Shut up and listen,” that has become the response to so many people saying things people disagree with. Even if you are 100% correct, saying, “Shut up and listen,” immediately serves to put the other person on the defensive and is not a part of conversation meant to bring about an agreed-upon resolution. “Shut up and listen,” is, “I am right and you’ve talked but you’re wrong,” which immediately makes that person angry and even more stubborn in their defense. My dad is in his 80s and will not change much, but I can slowly try to get him to see things from a different perspective if I do it in a way that allows him to retain his self-respect and still move from his position. If I tell him to, “Shut up and listen,” then he’ll get angry and yell at me, like everyone from the idiot who won’t put on his mask in a store to the man holding a rifle on his front steps while peaceful protestors march by. “Shut up and listen,” serves no one – it only serves to aggravate and forces both sides to dig in to their positions even more fervently with no hope of mutual agreement or understanding. Not to mention, someone younger yelling that to an older person immediately loses their status in the conversation and is seen as a brat instead of the thoughtful person they were trying to be (or perhaps not trying to be.). We are never going to make the advances most of us are hoping to see in our lifetimes with “Shut up and listen,” as our rallying cry.
To paraphrase Dr Ian Malcolm — he’s so busy thinking about whether he could he doesn’t stop to think about whether he should.But anyway, this doesn’t really matter since it’s just yet more grist for the “surely they should have ended this at least ten years ago” mill.
You know what’s gonna happen:They will stop the series before they decide to spend money on getting MORE voice actors to compensate.Which is a shame cause I, as a Simpsons fan, LOVE the idea of having actors who fit the nationality play the character. But also: This show needed to end like 15 years ago. So it isn’t that big of a deal if FOX just decides to axe the series entirely.
the Jojo Rabbit Rule:if a New Zealander can play Hilter, anybody with the SKILL can perform the ROLE of anybody
who dares stick a finger in my bags of mush?
I really don’t care about this, but I always laugh at this issue when it comes to this one particular show, because – and I’m sure it’s been mentioned before – there are no white characters. Yes, occasionally the yellow have been referred to as white (the fake Michael Jackson in “Stark Raving Dad” comes to mind), but in a literal sense, there are no whites on “The Simpsons,” (I guess you could stretch for Wendell, Sherri & Terri, and their respective parents) which renders the whole argument silly to me.
He’s technically right, but the more relevant question is why there are so few non-white voice actors voicing white characters?Is it that minorities aren’t talented enough? Not available? Don’t want to? No? None of those?
Hc’s absolutely correct! Look at Close Enough, that show has an African American woman playing a white person. Get the person whose best for the job and stop subjecting to PC and Socialists conventions.
Besides. The people complaining don’t even watch these shows. It’s only a problem when someone brings it up who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Dr. Hibbert hasn’t been a relevant character since the mid-90s. He’s a spoof of Cliff Huxtable from the Cosby Show. If we never see him again I wouldn’t care. Apu at least is interesting, especially when Homer occasionally buddies up with him.
Because he’s a sane, intelligent person.
Hey whilst we’re on the subject of POC Voice roles, what’s everyone’s consensus on ‘Panthro’ from Thundercats? If that role had gone to a white voice actor, would that be seen as stealing a POC actor’s job? I mean it’s an alien feline-humanoid that’s based on a cat that’s noted for having jet black fur but you still can’t quite escape imagining him in a beret holding a clenched fist aloft which I presume was intentional on the part of the writers. Also wtf was up with Lion-O? He was quite clearly ginger. How in the hell would he ever survive under the blazing sun of an alien Serengeti? Shouldn’t he have been voiced by a Scotsman?
The problem with increasing representation in voice acting is that it quickly devolved from affirmative action into racial essentialism. It went from hiring more non-white voice actors to exclusively hiring non-white voice actors for non-white roles.There’s this underlying assumption in much of the woke subculture that any white person is interchangeable with another white person, and also any non-white person – I wholeheartedly refuse to use the white-centric term “person of color” – is interchangeable with another non-white person. It’s actually anti-diversity if you think there’s more than 2 sorts of people in America (or, you know, on Earth).
Oh he must surely be a racist then. Cancel him!
He’s correct. You get the right voice for the role, if it’s a voice-only role. Skywalker is a white guy who became Vader, but NOBODY can ever do a better job than Earl Jones.
It’s unfortunate that great characters like Apu and Dr. Hibbert are being sidelined due to this issue. Millennials are way too sensitive about everything. 30 years ago no one gave a shit as long as the show was funny. Now that The Simpsons sucks I guess there’s more time to ponder voice actor representation
A monochrome writer’s room of people with similar life experiences and a monochrome cast creates a limited scope of what any show can be. The reason Apu needed to change is it was a caricature of an Indian immigrant given a caricature’s voice. Imagine if you turned on The Simpsons and every person in the show coded as white looked and acted like Ned Flanders. That’s the sort of stuff that non-white people and other out groups—religious minorities, people with disabilities etc.—have to deal with.
Nice try. I like how people pretend its a level playing field with the whole “Any actor should be able to play any role” BS. A person with half a brain could see how disrespectful it is to have white actors voice characters who are Black, and or non white. Simply because there is obviously a disproportionate number of roles made available for voice actors who are White compared to the opposite. Shearer gave a half hearted effort to make that point, but if he really felt like more diversity is needed talent and production wise, then he would have spoken up about it years ago. Instead he shifted the blame and did the Dr Hibbert laugh all the way to the bank for three decades. Nope. Not convinced that he gives a damm.
of course he’s right, but dont tell this to the THE PRODUCTS ARE MY FRIENDS!! losers that comment on this blog
I may be wrong, but I think Futurama cast voice actors according to the ethnicity of the characters themselves.
As a person of color – I don’t care at all who voices what – as long as the voice, or character; is not a racist or bigoted stereotype.Going forward with new media, yes let’s have more inclusivity if they’re right for the job in question.
For established media with characters literally as old as I am, no, I do not think it’s terribly important to recast them. Especially if, again; they are not racist stereotypes or horrible characterizations of a race/religion/gender identity/sexual identity etc etc.
Whatever happened to ‘hire the best person for the job’?
In a world where a similarly representative number of black actors voice white characters, as white actors voice black characters, then Harry Shearer is, of course, correct. Sadly that world seems as far away as it was when The Simpsons started.
Not a word about Dan Castenella playing a Jewish clown.
As a black man from New Orleans, the most irreverent city in America (and also where Harry lives), I totally give him permission to play Dr Hibbert. Voice acting is completely a different ballgame. It’s not tantamount to blackface…even though I’m sorry, I fuckin love Orson Welles’ Othello. That shit is so weird and magical.Also there’s a fear mongering racist in the White House right now and everyone needs to vote him out! Thanks y’all! Be safe!
I agree with the idea that actors should be able to play all kinds of characters. But its not an equitable system and actors who benefit from that system bear some responsibility for it. The “just following orders” argument that Shearer is making for performers doesn’t really fly.
Now let’s take all this wokeness to Bollywood, where the recent musical romance ZERO expended a lavish special effects budget towards having superstar Shah Rukh Khan play a dwarf, and lead actress Anushka Sharma worked to the verge of a breakdown under the tutelage of an occupational therapist and an audiologist to play a woman with cerebral palsy…
Does every big, black, imposing or fat, character HAVE to be Kevin Michael Richardson?
He’s not wrong.The best actor should play the part, unless race is important to the role. Fuck this shoehorning white/black ppl into roles.
It’s a voice on a fucking CARTOON show!!!!! Grow up and find a different motherfucking hill to die on!!!!!Is this REALLY the issue that plagues the nation and the world? Does changing these voices REALLY have anything to do with some sort of playing-field leveling? Or is it just convenient cancel culture in action?Why not go after the so-called “liberal” suburban HOAs that are actively opposing lower-income housing because it will lower their property values? How about adopting Oregon’s model of unarmed response teams, trained in deescalation and empathy? How about going full Beirut on the shitbird anti-masker parties in Trumpland communities? Wouldn’t these things have a more meaningful, lasting, and concrete impact on society than heaping “shame-on-yous” on Dr. Hibbert and Carl Carlson? Cry me a fucking river, assholes. I’m voting Biden the DAY I get my ballot, and I’m going to risk my job as a public school teacher by telling every single kid in my classes (online) that BLM is the opportunity for real change and a defining event in humanity’s history.But FUCK YOU if you think that ANYONE can play Hibbert better than Shearer. FUCK YOU if you think ANYONE can play Carl better than Azaria. FUCK YOU if you think the tiiiiiiiiiiides of racism will be tuuuurning once we excoriate and tar and feather Julie Kavner for impersonating Flip Wilson saying “Here come da beep, here come da beep!” on “This Little Wiggy”. I mean, how fucking DARE she denigrate the legacy of the late Mr. Wilson like that?Or …. and I’m just spitballing here…. it’s just a VOICE. Get the fuck over it and grow the fuck up. Find another hill to die on…. (and then, please, die on it.)