Fox News recorded the first objection to Clint Eastwood's banning of black actors and charactors from his new WWII film, "Flags of Our Fathers." Banning actors means bannning black actors from playing any charactors, including those who were actually white; banning black charactors means omitting from the screen depiction of charctors who were black. Eastwood's film has no black actors, which means that he committed both outrages.
About 1,000 blacks served at Iwa Jima out of 30,00 troops. That is not a large fraction, and far below the national average of 1 black person in 8 Americans. And the military then limitted most blacks to playing support role, such as moving ammunition; about 90% of the men moving ammo during this fight were black.
Aside from the 1 in 30 black troops at Iwa Jima, why not have more than 1 in 30 of the actors be black? Why not? WHY NOT? I don't understand why not. Holliwood has proven that it doesn't care about making racially accurate historical demonstrations; witness the Jesus films by Mel Gibson and Martin Scorsese. So why not discard racial accuracy in a way that opens opportunities for black actors?
I am boycotting this film. I'm disgusted by this. Eastwood's classic "Unforgiven" marvelously included a black actor, Morgan Freeman, in a juicy western role, geniusly ignoring Freeman's "race" in a genre -- the western -- that has always banned black actors and black charactors. In this case, the charactor wasn't black, but the actor was. It was wonderful. Why has Eastwood gone backwards?