You're viewing part of a thread.
The likeness isn't the point or even what I'm trying to explain. In fact, I agree that they share a basic likeness. Again... If you really don't understand how an English actor portraying an Arab prince or an American Actor portraying a Mongolian can be problematic then you've missed the point, again. The point is that Hollywood in the 50s/60s hire famous actors, that really have no connection to the aforementioned historical figures, over actors that do. I'm sure there were many incredibly talented actors that are actually from east Asia that would've been a better fit to play Genghis Khan. Same for finding an actor from the Arabian Peninsula. These people were robbed of the chance to share their heritage over an actor with a bigger name and pull.
Again, it's a fucking movie, not a life or death situation for "non-white" people. If an actor kinda looks like a certain historical character and does a good job at portraying it it's OK. Again, the white American portraying a Mongolian part definitely doesn't follow at least one of these conditions.
Next up "Florida man defends holywood using black-face to the death" citing " just as long as the actor did a good job" yehaaaw
Go it. So Black-face sounds absurd to you but Brown-face or Yellow-face doesn't.
Dude stop fighting that strawman. I just said that people may look like historical characters that aren't of their ethnicity, and it's fine to have them as them in a movie. Like, Rami Malek is of Egyptian ancestry and he portrayed Freddie Mercury, who was a Parsi (descendant of Zoroastrians in India), but he did a good job and was well characterized in Bohemian Rhapsody