A daily chronicle of creativity in film, TV, music, arts, and entertainment, produced by Southern California Public Radio and broadcast from November 2014 – March 2020. Host John Horn leads the conversation, accompanied by the nation's most plugged-in cultural journalists.
Ridley Scott's latest film, “Exodus: Gods and Kings," is a $140 million Biblical epic starring Christian Bale as Moses and Joel Edgerton as the Egyptian pharaoh, Ramses.
The movie has been widely criticized for casting Caucasian actors — some of whom wear dark makeup — as Egyptians, while relegating people of color to play slaves and background characters.
Vulture.com senior writer Kyle Buchanan joined The Frame to discuss the buzz and criticism already surrounding "Exodus," before it hits theaters on Friday.
What has been the main complaint with this film?
The movie is set in Egypt, and the leads are played by white actors, Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton. Once pictures [from the set] started to leak during production earlier this year, there was a little bit of a murmur, and then that really became intense this past summer. There was a Huffington Post article that essentially accused Ridley Scott as straight-up whitewashing this story. I think that the more materials have come out — and it seems apparent that the darker-skinned actors are resigned almost exclusively to slave and servant parts — the more the controversy began to spread. I've got to say Ridley Scott stoked it himself when he attempted to explain the situation. He talked to Variety and said, "I can't mount a film of this budget where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain and say my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such." He's expressing an economic reality of the industry — certainly it is not the most progressive industry in all respects — but to phrase it that way in almost a callous, indifferent manner just sort of fanned the flames.
What do you expect the reaction to be from faith-based audiences?
Certainly, Fox is trying to court the faith-based audience. They want to tap into the vast amount of Americans who have made "Passion of the Christ" — and even some movies that came out earlier this year like, "Heaven Is for Real" — major hits. But they're going to run into some problems. They already are. I don't think it'll be on the scale of what Darren Aronofsky hit earlier this year when he put out "Noah," which was a much more extensive retelling with some major liberties taken of the Noah story. He ran into a lot of controversy, and I think that movie underperformed what Paramount had wanted. Already there's been a little bit of controversy about "Exodus," which is comparatively more straightforward and earnest, but takes its own liberties with the Moses story. So we'll see. I think Fox is hoping that this is going to be a giant blockbuster that's just going to appeal to people who want to see big battle scenes with swords and sandals and also draw that faith-based crowd. The danger is they might end up with something that's neither fish nor fowl.
Are there similar complaints about the more modern elements in this film?
I think its more of a concession for what it takes to get a movie at this budget financed, which is, "Yes, we'll finance it, but Christian Bale isn't going to have white hair and a long beard. He's going to look fairly studly, and he's going to march around, and he'll stab a lot of people with swords, and we'll have those sort-of 'Gladiator'-type battle scenes."
What does Joel Edgerton as Ramses look like in the film? How is he treated when it comes to makeup?
He looks ridiculous. I think that even he would have to admit that. He's painted gold. He's bald. He's got ridiculous mascara and some really crazy Joan Crawford-type eyebrows. ... It's quite the look, and considering how pasty Joel Edgerton is in his off hours, to see how ridiculous he's painted bronze in this, you've got to admit that the people who talk about whitewashing have a point. This is a role that is filled by Joel Edgerton, who is an excellent actor, but I don't think known at large to most of the world. It's a role that probably could have gone to a great many actors of color.
"Gladiator" is a film that won the best picture Oscar. Do you think critics will be as kind to this film as they were to some of Ridley Scott's films in the past?
Oh, I know that they won't. I've got to hand it to Ridley Scott for being able to mount a movie this massive and to do it in essentially only three months. But, that said, I also don't really know why he made it. It doesn't feel like it needed to be made. This story has obviously been told so many times before, and maybe there is this notion of, "Yes, but we've never seen the parting of the sea done in CGI!" And yet if I just put that notion to you, if you try to imagine the computer-generated version of that, what you're imagining is exactly what appears on the screen. That's the problem with this movie — it really doesn't take that essential leap forward and surprise us with visuals and notions and ideas and themes that we haven't seen before. It feels a little bit been there, done that — just with this high-tech CGI gloss.
I guess if you're telling this story accurately, you have to include God. How is Ridley Scott dealing with God in this film?
It's the one major leap in this movie. He doesn't portray God as this overwhelming spiritual force. In fact, he's sort of this petulant British schoolboy, and he's literally played by a young, white British actor. Which is maybe one step forward, two steps back as far as diversity goes. It's intriguing to see God portrayed in this manner, but it's another white actor.
There have been complaints about this kind of casting for decades in Hollywood, going back to 1961 and Mickey Rooney playing a Chinese character in "Breakfast At Tiffany's." is this consistent with that or does it feel different?
I think the dark face is a little bit more subtle in this, although I don't think you can call what Joel Edgerton looks like in this at all subtle. But I think it's just about having a broader template when you're casting. It's about having the wherewithal and the knowledge and the perspective to realize that you've just set up a tableau where white actors are in the center of it, and behind them are somewhat darker actors, and then way out of focus behind those people are black people playing servants. I think we're reaching a point where people have a very legitimate complaint against that sort of casting, and while it won't be solved overnight, or in the next 10 years or even ever, it's important to have those discussions.