Going to step this into a new post as i feel this could get rather long winded for those who arent actually wanting to scroll a mile per response...
@aridara I dont think we actually disagree on as much as you think. I think where we do disagree on a few topics is where there is a lot of nuance. I can be prone to responding to general sentiments without looking into more detail and ill get back to that in a mo. You can be prone to assuming false intent or general ill will from others and i think that’s where both of us can be at fault.
My original response was neither about black panther nor Dunkirk as films. I watched and enjoyed both films for the pieces that they were. I was responding to the “diversity is everything” crowd who, you can hardly deny, put a whole lot of effort into White = bad, everyone else = good. You know full well that articles like the original screens:
Are talking only about white vs not white not about individual countries and cultural backgrounds. Hell, the second image demonstrates that perfectly “90% of the case is African or African american” not “representing over 50 countries” as you, i assume correctly, point out. There are many people who see the word diverse and equate it to “non Caucasian” and are very zealous about their “diversity” and its just shit.
Yeah, Dunkirk could have included a more diverse range of ethnicity as the french army did include a good number of foreign troops, agreed. However the film was largely focused around British troops, specifically a unit from the north of England, while it may have been nice, and a little better in line with reality to have some faces mixed into the crowd of helmets and dirtied faces, it wouldn't have impacted the story they were trying to tell positively or negatively given the focus on said unit.
At the end of the day though, while personally its refreshing to see a broader range of ethnicity i dont see that we need to judge a film based on that but rather judge a film on the content and quality it shows. I have no quarrel and would even encourage western media to consider a range of backgrounds for their casts but not as the sole focus.
Should it matter that much that white actors are seen in a higher proportion by maybe 10% than the actual demographic split of the country? Not really so long as the films on show are making their point and are achieving what they set out to achieve.
I think, where we really part ways though is this: if US media showed a perfect demographic representation of its nation showing all in good and bad light equally, what would change? Would it change the way we all see things, are we suddenly going to be living in a better place? Do people relate more to the colour of a characters skin or to the content of their character? Do people relate more to the racial makeup of a cast or to the ideas presented in a film?
Personally i dont see that diversity in media really makes a difference other than a brief thought of “oh that nice/cool” when you see some character you relate to on a physical level before continuing to be drawn into the content of film. Diversity in workplaces and education, where diversity has been used over merit to define who gets the place, has been shown to have negative effects in a broad range of circumstances. I have no issue with encouraging better representation but its not the be all and end all and shouldn't be pursued as the highest goal by anyone for any reason because by looking exclusively at background, colour and culture you ignore character and merit.