by Kieri Keys ‘24, Commentary Writer

^{Image of Grover, Percy, and Annabeth in the new Percy Jackson series.  Image courtesy of Disney+}

Race-blind casting is a phenomenon that’s been taking the live-action remake franchise by storm. The opposite of race-specific casting, which only considers actors of a certain race for a role, race-blind casting occurs when race and ethnicity are not considered at all. In theory, this means that all roles are cast purely based on talent and qualification. Successful examples of this include the historically inaccurate, but talented, casts of “Bridgerton” and “Hamilton.” Despite the fact that race-blind casting gives deserving actors roles, this method has produced a lot of highly disputed results, from a Black Annabeth Chase in the “Percy Jackson” series to an Indian Karen in “Mean Girls.” 

A particularly explosive example of a response to race-blind casting was during Halle Bailey’s debut as Ariel in the 2023 live-action “Little Mermaid” film. The tension between fairy-tale purists and casting directors boiled down to this: Halle Bailey does not have Ariel’s signature red hair or classic appearance, but nevertheless, she earned the role and played it well. Given the parameters of race-blind casting, Bailey’s qualifications should have been enough to validate her acquisition of the role. Yet, criticism did not cease following the release of the movie. The controversy can thus only be attributed to her appearance, as her performance delivered. In comparing this to the 2017 “Beauty and the Beast” live-action movie starring Emma Watson, the racial element becomes prominent. Like Bailey, Watson was cast because she was a talented actor and shared the personality of the animated character. Unlike Bailey, however, Watson was not musically trained. Most people forgave this oversight, but the fact was painfully obvious. In comparing the backlash against someone who had the look but not the proper skill set, and someone who had the skills but not ‘the look’, we can see the real problem behind this casting method. 

Despite its best attempts not to, race-blind casting intrinsically makes casting about race. Truly race-blind casting is simply just casting. The live-action and remake industries are the only ones which need race-blind casting, since they are pre-existing character depictions to be race-blind to. Using the term “race-blind” is just to say that roles are open to races that differ from the source material.

There’s a timeline to this problem. The films and books Gen Z grew up with were released in the 90s and early 2000s. During that time, there was no initiative to write culturally diverse characters. Those that did exist were often confined to stereotypical roles like Ravi in “Jessie” or Fez in “That 70’s Show.” As Gen Z grew up, the industry started to change and incorporate more exploratory casts and stories. Now we’re in an age where production teams can recognize the importance of both active and passive representation, and include characters whose diversity is plot-driven as well as diverse characters who just exist. 

However, in the remake industry, there’s a disconnect. It’s understood that roles written for people of color (POC) are embedded with cultural subtext that would be problematic for a white person to depict. However, this is not a problem in reverse. Entertainment targeted towards our generation while growing up often depicted a white cast going on situational adventures. The focus was on intriguing plots rather than representative perspectives, so 20 years later there is nothing culture-specific preventing POC from being cast. For example, Ariel can look like anything, but Princess Tiana has to be portrayed as African-American. Remakes of films like “The Little Mermaid” and “Mean Girls” attempt to achieve passive representation, but audiences are hesitant to change something with decades of nostalgic affection. 

That being said, I think the real problem lies not in race-blind casting but in the franchise itself. The remake industry is a money-pump that takes a classic, multi-million dollar plot, recasts it, and calls it a new product. Not only is it lazy, it’s usually bound to fail. A remake needs to be different enough from the original to validate its existence, but no one wants their favorite childhood movie to be butchered by Timothée Chalamet in a top hat. The final product has so much pressure to live up to the original, that anything shy of perfection is disappointing. That’s not to say good remakes don’t exist, but they are hard to come by. One of the best, most recent remakes I’ve seen is the new “Percy Jackson” television series streaming on Disney+. In addition to successful passive representation, it’s clear to see that the showrunners made changes to tell the story in a new way while still preserving the original integrity of the books. Compare that to a random addition of “Willy Wonka” lore that no one asked for, and you can see the difference between genuine spark and a money grab. 

Why continue to fund an industry designed to capitalize on our nostalgia and piggyback off of prior success? While it can be rewarding to see childhood favorites reimagined to reflect our changing world, I’d rather just make way for new stories and characters that don’t need to be rewritten to be diverse.