Staying True to the Source Material

Movie and TV shows based on books are nothing new. The first James Bond movies in the 60's are based on the books by Ian Fleming. Even the classic The Wizard of Oz is based off a book. When these movies were first released, the studios took careful consideration to cast actors consistent with the source material. But in today's society there seems to be a growing trend of casting for inclusiveness and equality rather than staying true to the source content.

Don't read anything else into that statement though. I don't have anything against any group or lifestyle. And this article isn't a hate piece meant to demean or marginalize anyone.

Instead, this article is about how do we as a society draw a line between making opportunities for all versus being true to the source.

As an author, I would always prefer that any of my characters be represented as they are described in my books. Not because my books are meant to be aligned against anyone in the real world but because that's the way they were written. If I wrote a gay character, I would be displeased if they were represented as hetero and vice versa. Likewise, if I describe my character as having a particular skin tone or visual appearance, I would not be happy to see those characteristics altered just for the studio's sake of winning a few social justice warrior accolades.

The idea of changing a character's race, gender, sexuality, or anything else for no reason other than to say "we support your cause" to one or more disenfranchised groups is to do that character, that source material, and that group a disservice in my mind. If the studio wants to embrace more women in leading roles, more minorities in leading roles, and/or more non-hetero individuals in leading roles then the studios need to create those roles for those groups, not transform roles away from the source material to meet the studio's desires.

In the past few years they have been calls to make 007, a.k.a. James Bond, either be black or a woman. And I ask why? Why do we need to make a character who has been historically neither of those things, especially in the books the movies are based on, either suddenly have a gender or race change? What value is there for the studio to alter an established character so dramatically other than win some kudos?

Don't get me wrong, I love Idris Elba. I think he is an amazing actor who has done some great films. But I don't see him as 007, not that he's been announced as the next Bond or anything. And IF Idris Elba were to be cast as 007, would it be beneficial to the movie, the franchise, or would it be more of a curiosity to see a black Bond? His performance would always be tainted in a way by that, I think. If the movie bombed, would it be a dud because the movie sucked or because people didn't like the idea of a black Bond. If the movie was a smash hit, was it a hit because of Idris's acting or because people wanted to support a black Bond regardless of who it was? I think these would always be questions hanging over the movie and over the actor, distorting the true impact of the change.

And the same would be true if the studio replaced James Bond with Jane Bond. There is no literary source for that role. So why take an existing, often popular, franchise and risk its future success by doing a gender or ethnicity swap for no reason?

Today's marketplace has so many new writers covering so many areas with great diversity. If studios want more leads of greater diversity, choose a wider diversity in the source material. We don't need to take existing franchises and twist them to the current social or political POV as a mock form of equality. True equality comes from creating equal opportunities, not taking opportunities designed for others and forcing those opportunities to be available to someone else.

That would be like saying we are hiring for a mechanic but for diversity reasons we are only going to fill that role with a hot dog vendor. Why? What value does it do for the person or the position to force someone who the job wasn't designed for into that role? If our goal was to be more diverse to include more hot dog vendors on our staff then why not create more jobs suited to hot dog vendors instead of hiring them for a different job? Sure, acting is acting and anyone can act any part. It isn't a skilled position like a hot dog vendor versus a mechanic and that's the irony of the situation.

Any skilled actor can take on the role of James Bond but not any skilled hot dog vendor can be a mechanic. But just because acting allows for that level of fluidity doesn't mean that we should forego the source material and make the roles on film whatever we choose in the spirit or the social or political moment. Don't bastardize an author's work to support your social or political views. If you want more diversity in your lead actors, find them suitable material. Give them a script that they can use to shine and make the role their own. Don't force them to not only bear the weight of their performance but also the weight of considerable comparison and criticism by taking an action that you know to be divisive among your target audience.

If you truly want equality, choose equal content. Don't force characters to be something they aren't. Don't force actors to have to compensate for your choices. Don't blame audiences if those choices fail. It has nothing to do with hating a specific group but recognizing that the source material stands in stark contrast with some of these decisions, both realized and potential.

I know I've picked on James Bond and Idris Elba in this article but I use those as examples because they have been names tossed around together. I love the James Bond franchise and while there have been a number of different actors play 007 over the last 70 years, they all embody the character from the literary source. And while Idris Elba is a great actor who I think could be pull off a Bond-esque type role, I think putting him in the role of James Bond would take away from both the Bond franchise and from Idris Elba. Let's face it, Bond isn't black and Idris Elba has the qualities to make his own franchise without being shoehorned into a role not designed for him. His Luther series is great, it just doesn't have a wide distribution outside of the U.K. so few people know of it compared to Bond.

I equate Idris Elba to Dwayne Johnson. When The Rock started trying to get roles in films he had to take the roles he could get and they weren't always the best movies. His stature and energy made them entertaining but they weren't great. Idris is the same way for me in American cinema. He isn't as well known over here as he is in the U.K. so when he takes roles in American films he can't be as picky. But just like with Dwayne, I think it is just a matter of time before Idris becomes more popular here and can take on roles more suited to him that will allow him to flourish just as Dwayne has flourished in recent years.

It isn't a matter of diversity but of popularity. Studios want BIG names to headline their blockbuster movies. They want the Bruce Willis, Dwayne Johnson, Ryan Reynolds type people to act as the anchor for the films to draw in the crowds and sell tickets. If you aren't that popular then you have to paired up with someone who is. Don't believe me, why do you think Chris Pine was in Wonder Woman? Outside of the Fast & Furious movies Gal Gadot was not widely known but Chris Pine was. Hollywood is rife with stories of studios demanding popular actors be included in movies to help prop up ticket sales. It is a popularity contest, plain and simple. Get the right content, pair it up with the right actor, and you can have success, even if it means being supported by someone else who is perhaps better known at the time.

You gain popularity through exposure and success. But that exposure shouldn't come in the form of controversy and the success shouldn't hinge on social justice support. Popularity comes from being the right actor for that role, like RDJ as Iron Man or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Success comes from taking that role and making it so that nobody else could ever be seen in that role besides you. Sure, we've seen several Bonds so a new Bond isn't a mindbending prospect but the next time we see someone who isn't Hugh Jackman flash up on that screen as Wolverine or Harry Potter played by anybody but Daniel Radcliffe our minds are going to break because those actors embodied those roles so well that it is almost inconceivable that anybody else could every take up that mantle.

But I digress. My point is, with the right source material, race, gender, sexuality, all of that can be embraced and made special by the right actor. Trying to put an actor into a role not designed for them might only highlight these differences which could detract from the film and put a stigma on the actor. Wouldn't it be better to find source material for the actor rather than try to make an actor fit a role that they don't share characteristics for? If we want equality in film to succeed then we have to foster an environment of success, not force audiences to accept actors in roles that are contrary to their being in the name of equality.

Stay true to the source material doesn't have to be a racist, sexist, or homophobic sentiment. It can be the sentiment of a creator who doesn't want to see their characters portrayed in ways not consistent with how they were created. It can be the sentiment of those who want to see more roles written or more roles optioned by the studios to include those individuals the studios want to highlight. It shouldn't have to be a controversy to cast those roles. If the studios don't want a white male James Bond, don't make a James Bond film. If the studios want a gay black female lead, find a script or literary source that has a gay black female lead. There are options out there. Don't be lazy and distort someone else's content to your needs or desires. Don't be lazy and try to make an existing franchise into something new.

If you can't be trusted to respect the source material, how can you be trusted to respect the characters and the actors hired to represent them?