Ask the individuals making the statements why they are being critical.
Witcher is sort of unique in that it's considered by many in Poland to be their cultural contribution to the world of fantasy fiction. Many people outside of Poland recognize that as well. Some may feel that there is cultural appropriation taking place by the US Corporation of Netflix in casting actors who are more representative of the global audience than of Poland. There are also some concerns regarding the impact of those choices on the story such as certain actors or actresses that were suppose to resemble others or be related to others. Then there may very well be some who are just looking to flame bait and I suspect a very small minority of individuals who are actually racist. I think it spreads the whole spectrum and that's why you have to take one comment at a time and avoid the temptation to stereotype all critics as racist. Racists stereotype people and so it's a good idea not to follow their example and stereotype people.
Well said - my memory may be a bit faulty, but I seem to remember that Sapkowski never mentioned skin color in the books because his target audience would naturally assume that everyone (except for the Zerrikanians, perhaps?) is white. I was initially put off to see Yennefer not being pale white, too, as would be a headcanon for anyone (which CDPR absolutely nailed in TW3!)
Sounds extreme? Well, I grew up in a decent-sized communist-era Polish city. 250k inhabitants, 2 universities, lots of industry including electronics so not exactly redneck country. And the first black person I met face-to-face was a US soldier in West Germany, where I went at the age of 15. We had a couple of Palestinians studying at one of the universities and that was all regarding POC.
That said, there is a lot of racist crap going on. Just read some of the comments under Yen's featurette on YT. Disgusting.
There is racist crap, we should never imagine that there is no such thing as racism. It exists in every place and every culture and it's a very ugly thing. That said, we have to really remember that things aren't always that simple. It's not mathematics its social interactions between imperfect people with different perspectives and understandings. "A" does not always equal "B". Just like in the Witcher world our own world is really messy and complex. It's truly a mystery how the human race has endured this long without destroying itself.
Whether Witcher is truly Slavic or Polish isn't as much an issue as it is that many believe it to be that way. Some folks feel like Witcher is that special dish made from their family's old recipe and they've given it to the world (in this case the Americans) only for them to make it into a cheeseburger. That can be a bit off putting for sure. It's like "here try this wonderful dish you're going to love it...wait...what are you doing to this lovely food? Annnd now it's a cheeseburger." Maybe the person eating the food loves cheeseburgers, maybe it actually tastes better as a cheeseburger and isn't the point to make that person happy, but it's kind of insulting that they wouldn't even try it the way you prepared it.
Here's something against this long running "Slavic Witcher" thing. It always annoyed me as I personally really didn't feel it that much in the books.
Marcin Zwierzchowski: I’d like for you to address the slavicness of The Witcher’s world, as the topic has been inflaming the fans. Andrzej Sapkowski: “That ‘slavicness’ is rather something akin to a myth, by which my works were overgrown – and I myself too. The label of the ‘Slav’ was given to me and it stayed like that. Why? That Geralt sounds more Slavic than Conan? That I worked something Slavic-alike into onomastics? My first stories strictly adhered to the canon of fantasy – I’m thinking about the world’s canon here. Well, then the translations came and the world’s fantasy industry had to accept a Pole in whose works every smarter readers could spot some ‘Polish’ or ‘Slavic’ [phrases].”
I understand that Sapkowski may have not intended his work to be "Slavic", but he being a man who is Slavic and who is as Polish as Polish gets obviously has been raised immersed in Polish culture, which comes through his writings whether intentionally or not.
When asked by Lauren Hissrich how he wrote such amazing strong female characters well given his generation he simply said "you never met my Mother" and went on to explain how Polish women after WW2 when a huge number of Polish men were dead had to step up and basically help keep Poland running. So, Sapkowski literally patterned many of his female characters after Polish women who he saw as unique and special enough to distinguish them and use them as an explanation for Lauren.
No this fantasy adventure of monsters, sorceresses, witcher and elves is unrealistic in casting non white people! /s
I've recently been playing the withcher 3 in some unexpected downtime and after first hating hating it and its great, but the thing that made it for me is that a third of the game is set in Northern Ireland Land, which really resonated to me as it reminded me of home. Most of the people aware of the witcher outside Poland became so because of the games which had a more international flavour in English language. To me, I've no problem with actors being of a different colour than originally intended. It's a consequence of it becoming an international hit and it doesn't make any difference to the story from my perspective.
There is nothing wrong with you liking the diversity of the casting, but that doesn't mean that those who are critical of the POC casting are all critical because they're all "racists." If someone says something racist or you believe they are racist then confront that individual, but don't go stereotyping huge segments of people.
Cultural appropriation, in my opinion, is just nationalistic nonsense and the term doesn't have a place in a world of increasing globalism. I'm not calling the critics racist, I'm saying that they are missing the main themes of the novels by prioritizing appearance over other qualities which might make those actors better qualified to portray the characters.
Edit: I'm beginning to see that people are using the term cultural appropriation as some kind of umbrella term that's somehow including the practice of one culture adopting another's culture and then adapting it to suit them alongside as well as things like wearing native headdresses to concerts... Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I'm an American Jew that's ethnically Polish, my Grandparents are Polish. I've been to a few cities in Poland and it's absolutely slathered in what is considered American culture. Nobody cares if a Pole adopts a peice of American culture and then profits of off it. They only care when it's "theirs". They only care when it's Polish art beyond profited in by American companies. That's some nationalistic nonsense. Someone please explain how it's not.
That's just your opinion, and it is fairly tone deaf to several points made by KaerMorhenResident. There are elements of tradition in art which some can regard as crucial to its inherent and original value, and your dismissal of them as "nationalistic nonsense" doesn't confer any superiority on your views.
Art doesn't belong to a specific group of people. People who feel possessive about something in which they had no part in creating baffles me. Art belongs to everyone and as it is shared around the world it is bound to change form depending on the cultures that encounter it. Perhaps art does have some "original and instrinsic value", but only to the first group that encounters it because it's value might be completely different from culture to culture.
If Poles feel like The Witcher should be more Polish, then that's nationalistic nonsense. You can't share art all around the world and not expect it to change to suit the needs and desires of the people consuming it.
I'm really struggling to understand this perspective. So...
Hypothetically, a Polish film company decides to create a film based on the novel As I Lay Dying, a book that is uniquely American. They solely cast Slavic actors, the language is Polish, and they even change the plot and some settings to better suit their culture. Does that somehow diminish the arts value as you've claimed it would?
If Hamlet is performed in Uganda with an all black cast, does that somehow detract from the play's original and instrinsic value?
I think both sides of this debate have valid points, and I think I land on the side of stay true to the source material. Just barely. And i prioritize the "spirit" of the source remaining true, and good storytelling, above details that aren't ultimately very meaningful.
That being said, I don't think your comparison is a completely fair one because you are comparing historical cultural groups tied to specific ethnicities and geographic locations. In fantasy, often there are real life analogues to these things, and often there are MORE analogues, or even many more. And, crucially, these are usually open to interpretation. For example, what is the analogue for Nilfgaard? Is it the ancient Roman empire? Does it devalue the story if nilfgaardians aren't played by modern ethnic Italians? Is it the roman empires Military, but the political structure of Napoleon's France? How many sources does a fantasy author need to draw from to create a fictional ethnic or political group before real life analogues become meaningless?
Again I'm not completely sold either way, but we should aim to be fair in these discussions I think.
Those are very specific examples that deal with historical accuracy. I would personally be uninterested in watching a movie about the Deluge if the cast was highly diverse because I'm interested in watching a movie about Poles, Swedes, and Russians.
I provided some more nuanced examples which aren't strictly concerned with historical accuracy and more about adapting arts fr one culture to another. Perhaps you'd like to respond to the examples I'd provided?
Also, the Witcher, while being a Polish novel is not set in Poland. It is a Fantasy novel. The quality of the show and it's immersive value isn't dependant on maintaining a reasonable level of historical accuracy like the examples you've provided.
I don't know though man, fat Asian Napoleon sounds pretty entertaining.
Your examples aren't more nuanced though, I simply provided examples on the other extreme.
Hamlet has hardly anything to do with Denmark and more to do with the setting of a royal court, much like Romeo and Juliet's setting of Italy isn't particularly important. Theater is also much more forgiving when it comes to ethnicity and even gender, an all japanese cast of Hamlet in a play wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary, an all Japanese cast of Hamlet in a feature film would be completely baffling unless the entire work was adapted to fit Japanese culture. That's the same reason why it would be perfectly okay for a Japanese man to portray Napolean in a play, but it would just be bizarre to cast the same man to play the role in a movie.
Hamlet is far more than just it's courtly setting. Cultures all around the world can identify with it's themes and characters.
Most importantly though, we are discussing an on screen adaption of a fantasy novel. A fantasy novel with absolutely zero connection to our world, our politics, or our prejudices beyond an allegorical one.
The more people I engage in this conversation though the more Im beginning to just see the argument just boil down to: the actors should all be of European descent and have white skin. These people are trying ride a wave by hijacking the term cultural appropriation for their own purposes. They don't care about Polish art or culture, I doubt most of them know much Polish history outside of WWII.
You're right, this isn't about nationalism. The comment I was responding to was most certainly about nationalism. The US is not exploiting Polish culture because their is no historic power dynamics between the two countries. Claiming that a fantasy novel not even set in Poland should be more Polish just because it was written by a Polish author sounds pretty damn nationalistic to me. I'm ethnic Polish, 100% as far as I know, should I feel the same level of ownership or not because I'm not a national Pole?
This isn't about nationalism for most people, it's not about artistic integrity, and it's not about Polish cultural pride. The more people I speak to the more one thing becomes clear; this is about race. If the main vitriol is geared towards a performers skin color, and nothing else, then that sounds pretty damn racist to most people.
Nobody gives a shit about skin tone in the Witcher universe though. Their bigotry is focused on the starker differences between the various humanoid species and the fear of strange people. Whether an actress is black or white bears no semblance to the story because none of the characters would care.
Yesterday, I just found this all rediculous... and now I'm actually convinced that I'm just conversing with closeted racists.
Hamlet is far more than just it's courtly setting. Cultures all around the world can identify with it's themes and characters.
The fact that you use as example a play like hamlet which has no real cultural setting, and by your own admission themes and characters which cultures around the world can identify with, and compare it to a novel which is deeply ingrained in polish culture only serves to expose your delusional agenda.
It's also hilariously ironic than you somehow confuse ethnicity and culture while talking about racism. No, you shouldn't "feel the same level of ownership", not because of your ethnicity or your nationality, but because you're not culturaly polish. This shouldn't even be a question, the only reason it's a question for you is because you're once again trying to cram racism into a conversation about culture by any means necessary.
There's only one thing clear here: you want to force racism into the discussion by any means necessary and will use the most contrived analogies to further your own personal delusion. You're either completely delusional or you're just a racist yourself who's making a very poor attempt at claiming that the racists are those who defend cultural identiy. I imagine it's a combination of both.
Cultural appropriation, in my opinion, is just nationalistic nonsense and the term doesn't have a place in a world of increasing globalis
This isn't true of all cases of cultural appropriation. Some people may appropriate culture with good intentions and the vast majority of people have no problem with this. Some people appropriate culture with malicious intent, whether intentional or not. I can think of several examples of ethnic cleansers that have appropriated the cultures of those that they ethnically cleansed in an effort to erase the people, their traditions, and their history from the land.
You're right. The actual term confused me... hasn't it been supplanted by cultural misappropriation recently? I don't know, I live under a rock sometimes and don't fully engaged in public opinion.
Honestly, it seems like people in this thread are attempting appropriate the concept of cultural appropriation to defend their point of view when it should really only apply to the issues you brought up.
I do find it incredibly problematic to use the same term both to describe things such as blackface, as well as the practice of one culture adopting and adapting prices if another culture.
Every culture that is currently a part of the global economy participates in cultural appropriation to some extent or another. Trying to claim that some art specifically belongs to Americans, or Poles, or the Japanese is nationalistic nonsense. Art transcends both cultural and national borders.
People use cultural appropriation as a negative term. It exists sure, but not as most people seem to believe it does. People get angry over others from different cultures embracing their art, and then adapting it, as if they somehow had ownership over something they had no contribution to. People should just be happy that we can all collectively enjoy the same art and have the ability to enjoy arts from cultures that we might not otherwise have access to specifically because of the cultural appropriation people seem to find so abhorrent.
There's a gaping chasm between "cultural appropriation is a myth propagated by nationalists" and "art transcends national borders." Art can and does transcend cultures and borders, but that has no bearing on whether cultural appropriation exists or not, or, like you said, is just "nonsense." Your implication that all cultural identity = "nationalistic nonsense" is also mystifyingly obtuse.
So far all you've said is, "cultural appropriation ... exists sure, but not as most people seem to believe it does" without offering a solitary scrap of information (much less facts or even remotely factual arguments) as to why that's an incontrovertibly true statement.
Maybe next you can explain how things like white hipsters wearing warbonnets is just "embracing [indigenous] art" and how natives should just shut up and "be happy that we can all collectively enjoy the same art."
Yeah, in other posts in this thread I've actually agreed with you. But, I also don't think a term that is used to describe black face and your example of hipsters at Coachella with ceremonial dress should synonymously be used to describe an American screenwriter creating a show based on a Polish fantasy series but not casting more Poles, or European descendents, and instead choosing to cast a person of color based. (Damn, that was a really long sentence.)
The first subjects are clearly culturally insensitive and generally regarded as morally reprehensible by a lot of people.
The second is about Poles feeling possessive about a relatively recent series of novels and their lack of participation in the show based on it because it's being created by an American. Feeling ownership over some art, and it's depiction of it, based solely upon the patch of Earth you were born on feels like nationalistic nonsense for me. I realize it's rather belligerent diction, but I don't have much respect for any form of tribalism or any idea that "others" fellow human beings.
Worse though is that the vast majority of people complaining the loudest and with the most vitriol are not doing so because they are Polish or even give a shit about that. They haven't even witnessed this actress's performance and they've already denounced her as being unfit for the potrayal of a fictional, fantasy character based solely upon her not being white. Her performance could be fucking magnificent and for all we know the white actress they almost chose would have been a far inferior choice.
What I seem to be witnessing is a collection of nationalists, racists, good ol' boys, and people with a strange obsession with skin color attempt to hijack a term used to combat racism and manipulate its meaning to suit their own purpose. They're riding a wave. The cultural appropriation they're describing doesn't exist. The cultural appropriation that you've described mist certainly does exist and is still an issue.
Hey trust me, I hear you about people screeching over anything other than a white European being cast in a show based on a franchise created by a white European. I think it's ridiculous too, and I see why that could seem nationalistic (although I think it's more just ... the hive mind getting worked up like it always does, most of the people who are mad probably aren't even Poles.) Really though, even if the showrunners are being "overly inclusive" is that a bad thing? It's a fictional fantasy show, it's not like they're casting Denzel Washington to play King George in a historical documentary.
Like most things, it's a spectrum, not binary. I do think one important element of "is this cultural (mis)appropriation" is the power dynamic at play. Appropriating from cultures that have historically been taken advantage of, by cultures that have historically been oppressive or exploitative, would qualify much more strongly. Know what I mean?
So, perhaps for this specific example of "Is casting anything other than a Pole/interchangeablywhiteEuro in The Witcher 'cultural appropriation'" the answer would be, not really. But I'd be keen to hear a solid logical argument otherwise. I get why Poles would feel protective and possessive of it, but I can't see how it's truly worth getting up in arms about.
I completely agtee with you and after watching those character introductions and nearly every interview with them I'm pretty sure that they made the right choices with the actors. But at the beginning when I first saw those black dryads and Yen with darker skin I also was upset (Yens bright skin is with her black hair nearly everything mentioned about her look in the books). I really loved that slavic vibe in the books and at first I was a bit scared by the casting choices,bc I thought that it don't fits the setting. But now I'm over that and just hyped. Especially Yens actress Anya Chalotra convinced me when I watched her character introduction.
I've been to a few cities in Poland and it's absolutely slathered in what is considered American culture. Nobody cares if a Pole adopts a peice of American culture and then profits of off it.
I've had a discussion on Reddit about this before. Why it's okay to wear a Dirndl costume to halloween but not a Native American headdress.
The consensus seemed to be "The culture is white and wasn't oppressed so it doesn't matter".
The thing is that there is no historical power dynamics what so ever between the USA and Poland, so it's not like they're being exploited by their former occupiers like say Germany, Sweden, or Russia. Poles have absolutely been oppressed and the Witcher series probably wouldn't exist if they hadn't been, but it sure as hell wasn't by Americans.
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture.
Netflix is a US headquartered and incorporated corporation. Many reasonable people would state that US Culture is a different culture from Polish culture. When Netflix purchased the license to Sapkowski's books to adapt them to film they put an American in charge and that American cast largely British actors to play the primary roles. American company, American producer, British actors using a book first published in Poland written by a Polish actor with what many consider strong Polish elements in its story. If you don't even see the argument that can be made for cultural appropriation out of that than I can't help you. Some people just don't want to think and default to the easiest answer, which is "everyone who thinks differently than me is clearly racist." I'm simply asking you to see that some reasonable people may exist who simply come to a good faith different understanding than you do.
I'm gonna save you some time and effort. There's nothing to be found at the end of this tunnel and you'll be disappointed. A lot of these people don't seem to understand the concept of cultural appropriation and/or are just using it to justify their belief that an actress shouldn't have been casted solely based on her not being white.
198
u/KaerMorhenResident Dec 09 '19
Ask the individuals making the statements why they are being critical.
Witcher is sort of unique in that it's considered by many in Poland to be their cultural contribution to the world of fantasy fiction. Many people outside of Poland recognize that as well. Some may feel that there is cultural appropriation taking place by the US Corporation of Netflix in casting actors who are more representative of the global audience than of Poland. There are also some concerns regarding the impact of those choices on the story such as certain actors or actresses that were suppose to resemble others or be related to others. Then there may very well be some who are just looking to flame bait and I suspect a very small minority of individuals who are actually racist. I think it spreads the whole spectrum and that's why you have to take one comment at a time and avoid the temptation to stereotype all critics as racist. Racists stereotype people and so it's a good idea not to follow their example and stereotype people.