why has Anchor Bay dick-washed and whitewashed The Sapphires? (final? update)

Same old, same old.

I suppose the distributor is using the excuse of “but he’s the only famous one”.

He’s not that famous.

Yeah, but he’s more well-known in the US (and I presume UK) than others in the movie.

These people have no imagination and, yes, they are being racist.

lol, truly this is a cause worth fighting for, HA!

Sigh. Just because we can explain why a problem exists doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. If someone produced a DVD of Love Happy with a giant picture of Marilyn Monroe on the cover and a tiny image of the Marx brothers behind her, a lot of customers would complain that it was misleading, and they would be right. This DVD is worse, because it’s one of the few movies with interesting, substantial roles for women of color. Some people are desperate to find films like that, and this cover hides the movie from them.

We all know why the studio did it. People rationalize all kinds of things by saying, “We needed the money.” But it’s an excuse, not a defense.

There are bigger battles to fight. For example, it would be great to see more movies with interesting, substantial roles for women of color. But sometimes the little battles are worth fighting, too. And when a film like this comes out, it’s worth fighting to let people know.

Is the movie really that good? I saw the trailer and was so annoyed that it focused so thoroughly on the character development of the white male manager when it was theoretically supposed to be telling the story of the career of four ladies of color that I resolved not to see it entirely. This poster isn’t helping that impression at all. Does the movie itself focus properly on their lives and stories?

Guess what? You don’t get to tell me which battles I should fight and which battles I shouldn’t fight. You don’t want to fight them? Fine. No one is asking you to. But you don’t get to decide which battles *other people* should or shouldn’t find worthy.

And either this is the only post you’ve ever seen at this site, in which case you have no idea what other battles I’m fighting, or you’re perfectly aware of the other battles I’m fighting and you’re simply being obnoxious.

So seriously, give *me* a fucking break.

Yes, the movie truly is about the women.

The Netflix picture has Chris O’Dowd front and center, but the ladies are not blue-washed.

Sorry, but no.

1. I am from North America and I have no clue who Chris O’Dowd is. I didn’t recognize him at all.

2.
What caught my eye on this cover was the women in the background
because it channelled The Supremes and Dreamgirl. I would add that the
advertisements for Dreamgirl didn’t have a white man prominent on their
cover.

3. I am with MaryAnn in picking my own battles thank you
very much. I will choose to be angry when I want. And ain’t nobody
pissing into wind here. Sorry about your shoes though.

4. I could
give less of a rat’s ass what directors and producers want. If they’re
going to dare to use the words “based on a true story” perhaps they
should be true in what they are selling (I know… novel concept…) If
the story about these women is truly interesting, you don’t need to
dickwash it. If they are going to whitewash it, there could have been
any other number of ways.

This is a *far* more accurate representation of the film. Even to the degree that some of the women have more prominent arcs than others (as you would expect with so many characters to juggle).

Yup. Waaaaaaay better.

(I really enjoyed this movie, by the way.)

Not so much blue-monotone as *sapphire*-monotone?

Also, while black women being in the entertainment industry is fairly uncommon in Australia, it wouldn’t be that uncommon in America. Maybe whoever made that cover wasn’t knowledgeable enough about Australia to know this. Which in itself is would be problematic, but a different problem to what you’re describing.

Because Chris O’Dowd is a sellable name in Region One. Unfortunate, but nothing more

‘Even’ if it is because of marketing reasons it
is still offense. The story is about the women. The original movie
poster (and DVD cover) you can still
clearly see Chris O’Dowd, but manages not to demean the importance of
the other actors. Proud female Indigenous actors at that.

You really, honestly can’t see why this is a shitty thing?? No-one is complaining about Chris O’Dowd – someone’s pointing out the problems with making him/his character the main focal point of a dvd cover. He’s not the main character, as stated above, and it’s not a story about a white dude! So why make it look as though it is?

The film does tell the story of real band, The Sapphires, and is based on the stage musical of the same name.

That’s a bullshit excuse. Advertising writers and designers get paid a ton of money because they’re supposedly extremely creative and imaginative. They can’t come up with a way to sell the film that accurately represents it? Ridiculous.

Okay, you can continue to ignore the differences and particular problems with this – you’re clearly not going to realise that it’s an issue. As an Aboriginal woman, I can’t help but be upset by this – even knowing the possible reasons the people responsible for this design (whatever they are, it’s cynical and ‘dumbs down’ – not good enough). Also – Aboriginal themed movie? I’m laughing at you.

Everyone commenting on the fact that Chris O’Dowd is the most well known in the USA is correct. As to the “blue monotone”, this again is simple advertising. Certain colours affect the way we buy a product (look it up, there’s plenty of evidence) and that is all there is to it. Good god, some people look for any excuse to push their ridiculous agendas…

So you’re claiming this is race related? Well it’s most likely not, this happens. Stars get top billing. Marlon Brando appeared in Superman for less than 10 minutes. His name was plastered all over the posters and Christopher reeves face wasn’t even on the poster and didn’t even get his name above the title. Christopher Reeve is white.

Great, thanks for that! It’s amazing how often people will refuse to see the point.

(And looking at my post I realise it might have seemed a bit brusque and snarky. It certainly wasn’t intended that way, but apologies if any offence was caused!)

Well his more familiar than the unknowns in the background. And Sexism and Racism only exists because people like you stink up a storm over a DVD cover… yes… grow up please.

Just because other shitty things have happened doesn’t mean this thing isn’t shitty.

It just means that there are patterns that are not necessarily race related. If it is race related then you should be asking not “what’s wrong with anchor bay?” But “what’s wrong with those countries that need the poster changed to be marketable?”

Just be glad they’re showing the world this.

Then why the hell are people bitching about sexism and racism? And I’m Australian and I have no idea who they are. I know Chris though.

actually, the preferred terms are ‘Aboriginal people’ or Indigenous Australians – most Aboriginal people find the term ‘Aborigine’ a bit patronising and offensive. Love this post by the way :)

well whoppdy flippin doo to you!!

well you’re certainly doing a good job at that!!

Exactly. Good cal! Who’s was the brain dead market researcher (s) who thought this would be appropriate O’Dowd would never have agreed to this warped crap.

I am offended by this cover.
I hate to see a grown mans sex face all over the cover of a good family movie. It’s made worse by the footnote “A blast of joy”, which brings forward the idea that one will ejaculate if watching the film. It makes me feel frustrated that grown mature people cant just make a decent cover for a decent movie.

[quote]Sexism and Racism only exists because people like you stink up a storm over a DVD cover…[/quote]

Ummm, no. That’s the standard excuse of people who would prefer to sweep the discussion under the rug. Racism and sexism will endure unless they are dealt with. If you think MaryAnn is off the mark on this one, then make your case.

OT question to Rebecca or others w/ the knowledge: Are there different nations and languages among the Indigenous Australians as among the First Nations in the Americas? I’ve been wondering this for a while and keep neglecting to seek out the answer. (I’m in N. America, no regular cultural contact w/ Aus.)

Marketing that caters to racists and sexists *is* racist and sexist.

“Sexism and Racism only exists because people like you stink up a storm over a DVD cover”

You’re on the verge of getting bounced as a troll.

No, it’s naive to think that money-men are actually thinking about money when they ignore the audience that isn’t white and male. Why aren’t the money-men worried that women and black people who might be drawn to this movie if they knew it was about black women are being turned away?

Even ignoring the race & sex issues (which are clearly present), the cover is highly misleading. It’s reminiscent of all those Hollywood comedies where some flamboyant dick in the music industry makes it big by discovering a new group. This is a movie that is clearly nothing to do with that! i imagine that a bunch of people who pick the movie up expecting one thing will be disappointed to find out that it has nothing to do with the premise they expected- and a bunch of people who would have watched it would be put off by the cover.

From a graphical perspective, the fact that the lead actresses are barely visible with a low contrast pale blue while o’dowd is centre stage and mostly in full colour is incredibly misleading. It implies that he’s the main character as well as the most famous actor (I have no idea who he is either). Even if he was in the centre, surrounded by the girls, all in full colour, this would be a very different effect and a lot less misleading.

It’s bad graphic design and it’s poor marketing.

No idea, but it’s hilarious!

If they did actually think about it — rather than just assuming that everyone, like them, finds white men more interesting than everyone else — they may claim that more people will buy the thing with this cover than with a more representative one. But I don’t think anyone actually experiments with this stuff; it’s all assumptions and rules of thumb, which tend to be ways of justifying what they wanted to do anyway.

Again, you’ve covered your ears and refused to hear my argument. Mauboy and the other leads are not famous in America – period. Is that because they’re black? No, it’s because they’re minor actors in Australia who have nothing of an international career. O’Dowd is put at the front because people prefer to watch a movie with actors they know. How does that make Americans racist?

Maybe because a movie about a while male isn’t expected to turn away women and non-white viewers the way that a movie about women and non-whites is expected to drive away white males. That, plus white males tend to be more affluent, so they must be catered to over and above anyone else, who must be content to fill a niche market.

And if all the films look as though they’re about white men, those uppity womenfolk and black folk won’t have any choice.

Maybe black women in the entertainment industry are more common in the US (as part of “America”), but them getting whitewashed out of prominent positions in the marketing materials is also woefully common.

1. There’s a difference between how films are billed (usually related to contracts with actors based on popularity, or sometimes getting switched up if a star emerges, such as what they did with Dave Chappelle in Half-Baked) and how their covers are butchered when creating a different international version.
2. Who the hell is Chris O’Dowd
3. If you cannot see the extremely creepy racist/sexist undertones in taking a movie with a bunch of non-major stars which is mostly about 4 of them who are women of color but also has a white male (this is just from my understanding of the story as posted as it not being a story about him finding stars) and creating an entirely new cover that is 95% white male (but with floaty desaturated blue ghost women in the background) then you have to be either willfully not seeing it or stupid
4. Yes this is some random import studio blah blah blah but it is an EXAMPLE of how institutional racism and sexism still exist and color the media. Fixing this will not magically end racism/sexism, but still it is there

Because I don’t think chris o’dowd has the star power in america to make it not be a thing about race and sex. It has a white male on the cover because the most interest white males have in women/non-whites would be if the story is about a white man and how he either profits from or sexually uses them so they crassly play to the patriarchal norms with the cover, no matter the content of the film. It is all about women hating (in a subtle way, just like the million other ways women are put down)

RE: Again, you’ve covered your ears and refused to hear my argument.

People hear your argument, and reject it because it is clearly wrong. The cover doesn’t simply put O’Dowd in the front. It makes it appear that he is the lead singer and the women are his backup singers. Period. It gives a false sense of what the film is about, as even defenders of the poster admit. Further, there are other examples of graphic art for this film that still give O’Dowd a prominent place without displacing the women in the film, and which give a better idea of what the film is about.

No offense taken.

That, plus white males tend to be more affluent, so they must be catered to over and above anyone else, who must be content to fill a niche market.

You just made my head explode.

Must be content to fill a niche?! Fuck. That. Shit.

I like this article:

http://bankstreetcollegeccl.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/part-i-are-all-covers-created-equal-bank-street-6th-graders-weigh-in-on-race/

It’s part of a series in which sixth graders look at the covers of books and talk about the way they portray race and gender. One student said:

Do illustrators think that if a person of color is fully shown, it won’t sell as many copies?

Sums it up.

I’d add to your post this: “It has a white male on the cover because of the assumption that the most interest white males have in women/non-white…”

Didn’t you get the memo? The Government Organizational Board of Bundling Literary Exegesis (GOBBLE) issued that last year.

That was interesting.

All the bizarre presumptions in your comment.

Posters, DVD covers, and trailers are forever
misrepresenting the content, tone, casting, and even language of films, which
of course really pisses me off. The cover of THE SAPPHIRES R1 DVD is no
different; I find it as objectionable as any other wilful misrepresentation.
However, to make this age old problem suddenly about race and gender is
troublesome. Why not be up in arms about the prominent DVD cover positions of
the cameoing trio of Miranda Hart in TWELVE IN A BOX, Bette Davis in PHONE CALL
FROM A STRANGER, and Marilyn Monroe in LOVE HAPPY, or even about all those
dialogue-free trailers for foreign language films that are forever entrapping subtitle-phobic
rubes? Anyway, racist and misogynistic or just plain greedy, Bill Hicks had the
right idea about people that work in the ethical black hole that is advertising
and marketing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Hi, I’ve signed the petition. Thanks for taking the time to address this wrong-ness.

Yes! http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/

The problem isn’t that O’Dowd was foregrounded. It was that the singers were backgrounded.

These four women are well known in Australia, and certainly better known than Chris O’Dowd. I’d never even heard of him until I saw this movie. By your logic the Australian marketers should have backgrounded him and filtered him for the marketing material here, yet they gave him equal exposure.

Why is that?

Blue – sapphires. Not everything is about being black white or green! Get over it. If you watch the movie you know how wonderful these women are. these women are inspiring people, human beings. if we just stop dividing people into colours people will stop thinking its such a big thing.

They changed it to something that will sell. Sorry for you.

No, but I do know he doesn’t have star power in Australia whilst at least two of the women do. I don’t know anyone here who wanted to see ‘that new Chris O’Dowd movie’ but plenty who wanted to see ‘that movie where Jessica Mauboy is in a girl band with Deb Mailman.’

Your logic suggests that he should be backgrounded in the Australian marketing material yet he wasn’t.

Why not?

Well, at least you have given me a decent rebuttal. Why doesn’t this have more thumbs up then comments where people jump to call all Americans racist? And yes, people have either misrepresented my arguments before, or twisted them into their own version. E.g.: Marketing that caters to racists and sexists *is* racist and sexist.
That was in response to me saying why O’Dowd recieved top billing, because he is the biggest star in the film. Note how it has either ignored my point that O’Dowd is the biggest star. Either that or…? What? I’d like someone to explain it to me? Are they denying he’s the biggest star in the film? Do they think it’s racist that he’s appeared in more Hollywood films?
The fact that if it is a false sense of what the film is about doesn’t make it racist. Call it irresponsible, yada yada yada but honestly, don’t jump to the conclusion that it’s racist. I do agree that it does give a false representation, but is that a crime? Should it be a crime?

We’re not the ones “dividing people into colors.”

And, the other funny thing is – because of the way the photo is on the DVD cover, it really doesn’t look that much like Chris O’Dowd. But suddenly a character (a white guy) who was a manager in the movie is made to look like he’s a singer, and the real lead singers (black women) are made to look like back-up singers. Hate that kind of crap.

Actually australian aboriginals are on average light brown – olive unless suntanned – many aboriginal australians are white – to insist that we are black is very very colourist of you

Speak for yourself. This has nothing to do with sexual frustration on my part.

Thanks for the link.

Wow. Who knew that my off the cuff remarks would end up online down under. But it is crappy that MAJ and her site was not appropriately sourced. But props that the issue was raised and acknowledged as problematic.

You think I was calling you racist? I didn’t.
(I’ll put aside my own experiences in your country. A place with good people but with a lot of systems in place set to discriminate solely on physical traits.)

I said that identifying as non racist makes you blind to racism.
A good argument for this is your defense of the term “American”® while avoiding the obvious implication to privilege I was making.

“Just because something is done for money doesn’t mean it has sinister purposes…”
You seem to be saying that having good intentions automatically leads to good actions.
But we both know that’s a straw man at best.

It doesn’t matter if its being done for whatever some people call, “good reasons”. What is the effect it has on reality?

Anyway, answer me this.
if it was wrong to falsely imply that Brando and Pitt starred in their respective movies, why is it right to put O’Dowd up front in this one?

Oh, so they’re both wrong?
Well, this one’s misleading. And racist to boot.

Wait, its being done for money?
Oh that makes it all right then.

RE: That was in response to me saying why O’Dowd recieved top billing, because he is the biggest star in the film.

Again, the point is that you are simply wrong. The original marketing for the film did not place O’Dowd front-and-center. And he is at best a mid-level star in the US, not particularly well known. Yes, more well known than the women actors in the film, but still hardly a well known commodity.

But it is clearly not about O’Dowd or his filmography, so your question “Do they think it’s racist that he’s appeared in more Hollywood films?” is simply irrelevant. You should also dispense with the hyperbole “should it be a crime?” nonsense. Something can be unethical and distasteful and worthy of condemnation even if it is not criminal.

You might better have written about the possible desperation in the marketing. “The Sapphires” did well in Australia and was often well reviewed elsewhere, but it failed at the box office in many markets. So, yeah, it is likely that some of the marketing was a last-ditch effort to appeal to people who know O’Dowd. But since the film is specifically about the women and their struggle to find some fame, it is yes, racist, sexist and UNCREATIVE to fall back on the lame misdirection that the marketers have tried here.

You might want to improve your writing skills before you think people can “obviously” pick up your “facetiousness”.

Let me get this straight Sammy. You’ve never browsed DVDs and had a look at ones you’d never heard of before?

Agreed. It’s great to see the ‘big two’ sides of the Australian media (Fairfax and NewsLtd) agreeing that this is completely inappropriate marketing and sends completely the wrong message!

your comment was perfect btw :D

Her writing skills are fine. Her awesome use of the compound word “blackety-black” (which I intend to use in conversation once a day from now on) really didn’t tip anyone off?

Would a racist even have noted the problem with this DVD cover in the first place?

Of course I have. But I didn’t make my decision to watch it based on the front cover. I read the summary on the back, I look atthe actors, the director, the producers etc. Who would rent/buy a DVD soley based on the front cover??? By the sound of it, you.
P.S. Any chance you could answer my first question?

The repetition was a tip-off too, I’d have thought.

Oops – I usually don’t use “America” when referring to the US. Ironically, I probably used it because I’m learning Japanese, and the most common Japanese word for the US is アメリカ (Amerika).

In Australia, Aboriginal people were “protected” under the ‘Flora and Fauna Act.’ Right up until 1966, the year my mother was born. As well as now being included in census data, we were now Official Citizens in a country our ancestors had walked for tens of thousands of years.
As other commenters have noted, some state governments have taken a better turn in promoting bilingua, but even that has been largely due to the work of communities and grass-roots groups.

Good point…we have a region 1 DVD player.

It must be nice to live in a world where Orson Scott Card is the only person who comes to mind when you talk about good intentions automatically leading to good actions. :-)

Well, he’s not the only person who comes to mind, just the one I’ve been thinking about lately. ACtually, the entire Evangelical Christian “Faith > Works” subculture also comes to mind.

Please. Someone who has starred in Bridesmaids and Friends with Kids is as well known as an Australian soap star and musician and to unknowns?

A brilliant voice of reason!

Good question. My brother and I both shut our eyes and cover our ears when the trailers come on in the cinema. We don’t read reviews until after seeing a film. I ask friends of course, but don’t let them tell me plot details. Trust your instincts and see who made the thing. That’s usually enough.

Business.

Have you seen this movie? He is not the main character. He is not central. He is part of an ensemble. He doesn’t even appear until a good 20 min into the film, disappears from it for a bit later.

And obviously the marketing reinforces the problems that exist. That’s what’s being discussed here.

RE: Someone who has starred in Bridesmaids…

O’Dowd is not the star of “Bridesmaids,” nor does he appear on the cover art for that movie. He is even listed well down before other performers in the IMDB listing of the film.

But it is not about O’Dowd or the marketer’s attempt to use him as marketing bait. The cover does not simply trade on his supposed greater fame; it is misleading, and makes it appear as though he is the lead singer of the group.

Here is why the cover is crap: the marketers said, “OK, we have a movie about 4 Aboriginal women singers fighting a’gainst marginalization. So, let’s marginalize them.” This stinks because it is cynical, uncreative, and racist and sexist. And because it violates the spirit of the film that they are trying to sell. So let’s add stupid to everything else.

And coming back to Bridesmaids. Let’s say that the studios decided that even though John Hamm has only a small role in the film, he should be on the cover of the DVD art because he is more well known than most of the other women actors in the film. Most people would howl because of the sexism and brain dead marketing.

Same thing with this sorry exercise in crappy marketing for The Sapphires.

He’s come out as saying the cover is vile!

That’s good logic, but swallow your pride and get it, anyway… it was the feel-good movie of the year, Laurie :)

yawn , wouldnt even bother to dload a torrent of this rubbish , haha all the PC hand wringing and crying is entertaining though

Whoopi GoldbergVerified account
‏@WhoopiGoldberg

saw really great film The
Sapphires Fantastic performances&singing Chris O’Dowd,Jessica M
,Debora M Shari S & Miranda T fabulous
C THIS!!

Should we boycot Whoopi for listing Chris first?

Almost everyone has come further than the US in lots of things in recent decades.

This isn’t about the “pride” of the individual purchasing a DVD.

Stop it. Just stop MaryAnn. You have too much time on your’re hands.

No one’s forcing you to come here. You’re not interested in her comments? Stop reading.

seems to me you have a lot more and really don’t mind wasting it. at least maryann is using her time for something she sees as wrong and is calling it out. you’re just trolling.

This is always the whining excuse of someone having their views challenged. “Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do!” As if I did that, or I’m someone that has the power to do such a thing. I didn’t and I can’t, so put the straw man to bed.

Your argument is tenuous at best and ignores the realities of how foreign films are distributed for the home video market. If you’re OK pressing forward knowing that, be my guest. All I’ve suggested is that it’s YOU who’ll be taken less seriously for your efforts. So knock yourself out. I just find it worth calling out people who complain ignorantly about the industry in which I actually work and attempt to ascribe nefarious qualities to otherwise hardworking people. Ditto to the people who think their anecdotal “evidence” (“Hey, I don’t know who Chris O’Dowd is, so that probably means NO ONE DOES!”) somehow gives them any clue about this issue.

And, just FYI, I HAVE only read one article on your site, and that’s all I’ll ever read. Not only was this rant hackneyed and ill-informed, it was also played off with emotion over common sense and annoyingly written (which is where MY “give me a fucking break” came from – that painfully amateur “dick-washing” line). So my guess is that you’ve got the lockdown on obnoxious, and far be it for me to encroach on your territory.

Try again? I made my point, and you clearly missed it.

All I’ve suggested is that it’s YOU who’ll be taken less seriously for your efforts.

Ah, a concern troll. You’re very considerate to be so worried about my reputation.

Actually, I’m not being attacked at all. I’m…not sure how you got that. The point I was making is that it’s very easy and depressingly lazy for those working outside the bounds of the industry to cast stones at people who are just doing their jobs. You can try to make that into something else if you want, I guess.

And thank you for the lesson, Professor. I’m quite aware of accidental racism/sexism, and I’m not even remotely arguing your point. What I take issue with is the author’s attempt to accuse a group of people of INTENDED racism/sexism, despite her awkward attempts to obfuscate it.

But thanks for playing? You guys are running out of talking points, though.

Classic trolling. A babbling boy who doesn’t use his full name, throws apples (a person’s comments, but who knows if Whoopi really wrote them) when you’re discussing oranges (a marketing campaign for America).

Do we know who runs the official Facebook page and created that image with Chris front and centre?
Do we know if the producers supplied the artwork?

dickwashing?

I follow Chris O’Dowd and if he tweeted this, he didn’t do it from his regular Twitter account.

The current episode of the slashfilm podcast (After Dark Episode 238) talks about and ultimately condemns the “dick washing” going on with respect to the Sapphires cover art and gives full credit to Flick Filosopher.

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-filmcast-after-dark-ep-238-revisiting-only-god-forgives-and-correcting-wolverine-inaccuracies/

Please read through the other comments before posting something that has already been discussed to death here.

No.

the web site Jezebel also picked up the story, again, with proper attribution, and has some interesting notes about reaction and followup to the issue of the crappy cover.

http://jezebel.com/the-sapphires-us-dvd-cover-relegates-black-female-stars-1031697027

A lot of good conversation sparked by your original posting.

Not a chance.

It shouldn’t be too embarrassing for Jessica – great performer but her Javanese born Father and Timorese born Mother will also quickly get over it.

It looks like the official twitter account is run by Hopscotch Films, the Australia and presumably first distributor. They may have begun the process of moving Chris to the front. For the record my preferred poster is https://twitter.com/SapphiresFilm/status/217475103091466240/photo/1 – looks like they went for, the more in vogue?, Jessica Mauboy for the Australian release.

Your reading too much into what I’ve said. My arguments do not resemble your paraphrasing in the slightest. Simple argument. If it can happen to any culture or race and it does happen, then it cannot logically be racist. It’s very simple. Anchor bay are apologising because they want to sell DVDs. It’s PR. nothing more. Also Denzel washington got top billing and an Oscar win for training day when the film was about the training of the Ethan Hawke character. Is that racist?

I’m reading exactly what you’re saying. Maybe you’re not thinking it all the way through.

If it can happen to any culture or race and it does happen

You have yet to support this assertion.

it cannot logically be racist.

That doesn’t follow logically. What does follow is that it’s racist every time it happens.

Anchor bay are apologising because they want to sell DVDs. It’s PR. nothing more.

Yeah, there’s no possible way they could have looked at the criticism, realized “Wow, you know what, that is kind of crappy what we did.” Because unusually institutionalized racism and sexism are so obvious that everybody sees them.

Regarding “Training Day”, First, good, you came up with an example. Well done. Second, major, A-list, international stars negotiating top billing over actors playing ostensibly larger roles is a common film industry phenomenon, and one that is also occasionally fraught with racism and sexism. But that’s not the issue at hand here. The issue here is the visual construction of the marketing art. Now, the art for “Training Day” does present Denzel Washington more prominently Ethan Hawke. So, yes, you could make the argument that the “Training Day” marketing is racist. Significant;y less so than “The Sapphires” example, given that Hawke is only placed behind Washington, nor is either actors’ ethnicity clumsily disguised, nor is the nature of the characters’ relationship misrepresented. But yeah, you could make it. If you ignore the entire concept of institutionalized racism, of course. Otherwise, you might instead see Denzel’s ability to negotiate himself the more prominent role in the marketing of a film in which he has an arguably supporting role, despite being black, as progress. That argument could also be made.

Hopscotch probably has nothing to do with this cover. Anchor Bay is the US DVD distributor.

you got moxie, I like that.
*moonwalks out the room*

You’ve reduced yourself to a troll, my son. Resist the urge to have the last word on this and prove otherwise.

Your arguments are made, and answered. Whether the answers satisfy you is not a metric for winning. You’ve taken a stand here on foreign soil. Now, your points made (so very eloquently), fuck off.

it’s monochrome darling monochrome……..”monotone” you are really disrespecting them…….we’ve all tried being a smart arse and failed a few times in our lives.

And by that logic the actors who played the sapphires do not have the same star power of Ethan Hawke who had a 16 year career in a range of internationally acclaimed films prior to training day. No, they have no star power at all in the international market. I had never heard of Jessica Malboy, before seeing the promos at the nova last year. Hence why they were in the background of this marketing poster. The colour tinting was unnecessary. I do agree on that.

And, a friendly ribbing? At what point did we become friends?

Try going beyond Wikipedia sometime.

“Monotone: …Sameness or dull repetition in sound, style, manner, or color … Of or having a single color” – American Heritage Dictionary

Oh fondue spears!

ha ha i didn’t need the dictionary, but quickly posted a copy and paste on the first thing i found. You quote American Heritage Dictionary, ptffffff try the Oxford English Dictionary old chap, much more knowledgeable and trustworthy.

Here is the definition of MonoChrome, you tell me the best fit.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/monochrome?q=monochrome

Have you seen the film? He is not “front and center.”

I’m a troll because i point out you should be using Monochrome?

Anyway, I disagree, PC gone mad. The original DVD cover looks old and dated. There are many DVD covers out there, black actors turned in to monochrome and in the background, is it racist or just a design? Most normal people would have the opinion it is a design, but you would have us believe we are racist………. take a look at these, are you fuming about these, no probably not.

tinyurl.com/krcesle

tinyurl.com/nxvg8yp

http://tinyurl.com/m6ep6m9

sorry i wanted to add a comment to the Dwayne Johnson cover. He is airbrused so much he looks silly, and almost white, also pushed to the back.

The 2 over covers have black actors in monochrome, no-one is offended.

The Sapphires cover looks fresh much better than the old one.

A case of much ado about nothing.

I didn’t say “monochrome” was wrong, or wasn’t the best fit. But “monotone” in reference to color is also accepted usage, something you didn’t acknowledge. (Also, google “monotone color schemes” to see how widely used the term is in interior design, graphic design, etc.)

Basically you’re trolling MaryAnn for an acceptable vocabulary choice that does the job of conveying her meaning. That would be as trivial as me trolling you for not following proper capitalization or punctuation. But hey, if that floats your little boat, knock yourself out. *shrug*

Yes, seen the film.

He’s very much a lead/main character, in just as many scenes as the girls, if not more if you’re talking any single one of them – that’s what I meant by “front and centre,” obviously not in the sense of on-stage performing.

The point I’m making is that the producers and writer created a white male manager who teaches them how to sing soul which is the key thing they do in the movie. Like… they couldn’t do it without this white guy showing them how to.

And isn’t that just as much “whitewashing” these women’s story as the DVD box artwork?

Look, the movie tanked everywhere except Australia – so for the DVD release, Anchor Bay is playing it safe. O’Dowd’s the only bankable star (sort of) so that’s what they went with. To label it racist is to just not understand the reality of them having to try to move DVD’s by yelling “it’s got the guy from Bridesmaids!” Compare it to the “Dreamgirls” (same movie) box art – one of them’s Beyonce. So you show Beyonce, not Eddie or Jamie.

And… what is “dick-washed” by the way (just noticed it at the top…)? You mean like something male that replaces something female?

He’s very much a lead/main character, in just as many scenes as the
girls, if not more if you’re talking any single one of them

Really? He doesn’t turn up until about 20 minutes into the film and even disappears for a while. We don’t know his history, he’s there as a foil for the sisters/cousins and provides the MarySue for one of them to tell us all her history with her cousin. I don’t consider that a lead.

you try being a designer………try and put 5 people on a dvd cover and make it look good. The original was crap and no wonder it got revamped.

O’Dowd was awarded “Best Lead Actor” at the Australian Academy Awards (AACTA.)

His character’s listed first on the film’s imdb and wikipedia pages and everywhere else (Amazon, Rottentomatoes, etc.)?

try and put 5 people on a dvd cover and make it look good.

Oh, please.

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1677/194510-commitments_dvdcover.jpg

http://www.rockshockpop.com/screencaps/MagnificentSeven/cover.jpg

http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/08_01/1999/200276/l_200276_7138a7c9.jpg

http://c3.cduniverse.ws/resized/250×500/movie/978/8608978.jpg

Yeah show me one that looks good.

I take it you think the new cover is racist?

If so, we might as well end it here.

Well, it’s good thing we have you around to explain these things, isn’t it?

Hey, everybody, Drew just let us know that we’re the racist ones. We can all go home now.

Maybe not a troll, but pedantic for sure.

Do you seriously believe that racism (and sexism) in the name of making money isn’t racist and sexist?

Why does it bother you so much that I’ve complained about this? (And yes, you’ve caught on to what “dick-washing” means.)

What “original” cover do you keep referring to?

Unless you start to behave yourself and stick to the topic, you will not be welcome here. Shape up or ship out.

At first I thought he was talking about how “whitewashed” is also a derogatory term used by some to refer to nonwhite people who are “ashamed of their culture” or “acting white,” whatever that means. But that doesn’t seem to be what he’s after. And it should be blindingly obvious that that’s not the meaning of “whitewashed” being employed in this thread.

To be very specific (as you keep sidestepping it) – I’m asking you why – in a discussion of racism in regards to this film – it doesn’t bother you that the filmmakers created a fictitious white male character to teach these aboriginal women how to both sing soul and be “black.”

That’s a perfectly reasonable question, and a legitimate criticism of the film. But you also said:

So why go so aggressively after the video release company – who are simply trying to push the film’s most marketable star (the guy who was in “Bridesmaids”) – when the fault lies in a story that places a fictitious white man in story about four aboriginal women?

Your argument appears to be: The film is racist, so it’s unfair to complain that the DVD cover is racist.

I would understand if you were making a slightly different point: If someone complains about the marketing, then for consistency’s sake, she ought to complain about the film as well.

Instead, you seem to be saying that MaryAnn has no right to be upset about the DVD cover. You seem to be saying: It’s just marketing. They only did it for the money, so everything’s okay.

And maybe that’s not what you meant to say, but it certainly comes across that way. It sounds as though you’re dismissing MaryAnn’s well-justified anger, and that’s why some of us object to your comment.

RE: O’Dowd was awarded “Best Lead Actor” at the Australian Academy Awards (AACTA.)

You failed to note that Jessica Mauboy won Best Supporting Actress, and that Deborah Mailman won Best Lead Actress at the AACTA. Why the omission?

So, even by your own “evidence,” the women should be featured more prominently on the DVD cover.

And oh, yeah, Deborah Mailman is the first Aboriginal actress to win the Australian Film Institute Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role.

“In the true story of a singing group composed of women of colour, I don’t have a problem with the creation of a fictitious white male character who teaches them how to sing soul and “be black””

That’s just about the opposite of what I wrote. I said that your criticism of the film was legitimate.

But even if you hadn’t distorted my comment, I would still have trouble following your logic. Why isn’t it possible to object to the film (or one aspect of it) and also object to the cover of the DVD?

just chatting really but I’ll focus…
Do you think the first design change was ageist? Would it bother you if it was?
Did you know about the Cannes image before you wrote your article?
Some
assumptions seem to have been made in assigning guilt. I think you
need to find out what Hopscotch were responsible for and maybe revise
your accusations against Anchor Bay.

Don’t feel obliged to answer any of this I’m sure you’ve got other things to do.

See how we’re trading questions, let me turn that around on you (ha!) – Why simply say the DVD box art is racist without discussing – AT ALL – the key factor that set it in motion?

“also problematic” “worthy of discussion”? These are weak, gloss-over-it words, right?

On the one hand we get screams of whitewashing and ball-washing (oh, I mean dick-washing – Mary Ann’s term still gets me all in lather) and “CNN didn’t cite me!” yet on the other hand, we refuse to even acknowledge the elephant in the room…

That had the producers/writer of the film not chosen to create a major fictitious white character to teach these real-life women to sing soul, the box art could never have been what it was.

You create that character (let’s see a story of colour through a white surrogate character!) and then you cast that actor – AND you have an understanding about the way the film business works – and 100% inevitably… you get that DVD box art.

Get where I’m coming from?

Now… anyone want to discuss this racist aspect of the film? Anyone? It’s a white guy teaching women of colour to sing soul… c’mon! Mary Ann? I dare you! Anyone?! (insert sound of crickets…)

Why then is Jessica ‘front & centre’ and not Deb? Was that a marketing decision? If so why doesn’t anyone here have a problem with that?

I feel as though you’re asking the question in order to set up a bizarre and misleading argument. If I say that the film is racist, then you can say: The DVD cover is a fair representation of the horribly racist film that was being promoted. And I don’t believe that. I think the cover distorts the film rather badly.

I do think that one particular aspect of the film is racist, whether the filmmakers intended it that way or not. But I think that the film as a whole is clearly not racist–it’s very much the opposite–and any criticism has to be seen in that context. The overall tone and message are tremendously empowering, and the promotional artwork should reflect that.

You can criticize the film for its flaws. You should. But the DVD cover is still a terrible piece of marketing. I think that’s worth criticizing as well. I’m confused as to why you don’t.

I don’t have a problem with the film. I thought that was obvious. I wasn’t “sidestepping” anything.

(oh, I mean dick-washing – Mary Ann’s term still gets me all in lather)

Good. It’s meant to be shocking.

Yeah, but it’s not really “shocking” though. It’s just sort of dirty in a juvenile way, something a high school boy would come up with… you know, a cross between “not that clever” and “kind of creepy” but gets a reaction nonetheless?

Let’s just say you’re not heading to the New Yorker any time soon with that one.

Just so we get past this bogus “interpretation” thing, and so we are both on the same page here -

In the film, “The Sapphires”, a white male manager (a person who didn’t exist in reality, created by the filmmakers) teaches the women of colour (composites of the real-life Sapphires) how to sing soul and in many ways how to “be black” by discussing the African American origins of soul music.

Correct me if I’m wrong – “interpretations” aside, this is literally what happens in the movie, right? Just so our memories are clear.

You crush me.

Why use the word gender-washed right after white-washed if it wasn’t mean as a descriptor of what was “washed”?
Also whitewashed in the real meaning, means, something that was bad, was made to look good. So saying they were whitewashed means they are bad, but now they look good. Just pure ignorance to the meaning of the word.

You are, if you think white-washed means making minorities look white. And if you use the made up word, gender-washed or this blog writes even more crass Dick-washed, along with white washed, in this context, there could be no other interpretation.

If you read what I wrote, you’ll see I was making that same point. The url of this blog is racist.

Dick-washed? what does that mean? Women played down by the covering up with men?
Or did this blog author just witness anchor bay washing a dick? ‘Cause if she said I stand corrected.

But if she is saying what seems obvious, then she is also taking a word, “whitewashed” and using it negative way other than it’s meaning and applying it to race.

Using “whitewashed” would have sufficed, albeit ignorant to actual meaning of whitewashed, and wrong.

Do you really need this explained to you?

The DVD cover whitewashes the film in making it look like a white person is the subject of it, and it dick-washes the film in making it look like it’s about a man.

“Whitewash” has *absolutely* been used in this sense before, by many other writers on pop culture.

As far as I’m aware, I coined “dick-washing,” which is clearly a gender-based variant on the same concept.

It’s called poetic license, and I am not interested in debating vocabulary with you.

You are, if you think white-washed means making minorities look white.

That IS what it means, and many others have used it. Is IS a negative term, but it is NOT negative toward nonwhite people.

Please stop now.

Now you’re coming across as a bully. You’ve made your argument, several times. MaryAnn has made it clear that she disagrees with you, and that she’s said all she has to say. You could walk away and let your argument stand on its strengths, whatever they are. Let people upvote or downvote it as they wish. But you just HAVE to keep pushing her on it until you “win.” Admit it, the only thing that would satisfy you is if she said, “David, you’re right about everything you said, and I was wrong about everything I said. I take it all back.” Right? Be honest. Don’t evade this.

You’re an insecure guy who isn’t content to make his point and move on. You desperately crave the affirmation and agreement of others. That’s the truth.

Oh, and if it feels like I’m trying to read your mind and put words in your mouth, tough. You dish it out, you gotta take it.

Right? Be honest. Don’t evade this.

Well, he’s blocked now, so he won’t be able to respond.

No. Whitewashed means – among other things -anything used to ‘cover up or gloss over faults errors or wrongdoings’ as previously mentioned. It does not mean something bad is made to look good.

And, if by the real meaning you mean the original meaning, it originally referred to white or chalked lime paint used to make something seem clean and of uniform appearance. It does not mean the object to be covered was inherently bad.

It’s not a difficult word, your explanation of the meaning is extremely patronising and your interpretation is actually completely wrong, because nobody suggested the women were a scandal, and there is no interpretation of the word which indicates that white people were put in their place. I don’t even understand how you go to that.

Suggesting the cover is white-washed DOES fit, as as a decision was made by the distributor to ‘improve’ the original picture by COVERING or GLOSSING over the original.

Plus, white-washed does not mean the object covered was white, it is what was used to cover the object.

You have to let go of the gender-washed thing, it is irrelevant and I can’t even see where it has been used. It’s a non word.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/21/the-sapphires-poster-chris-odowd/

This image looks to pre-date the blue version. It may have begun the ‘Dick Washing’ – and if so EW should by in Mary’s sights. Mary might like to contact the author for comment – both on the image used in EW and it’s potential influence on the DVD cover.