Reply to Topic
Rock Hudson also played a Native in Winchester '73.
But anyway, all those instances of white people playing other races go beyond just having a "color-less" Hollywood, something I'm pretty sure wasn't in the minds of the casting agents of yesteryear.
First, there's the implication that either there wasn't a Latino/Native American actor capable enough to play a Latino/Native American character, or that you're not willing to give the opportunity to one thus continuing that cycle of limiting the possibilities of minority actors to get quality roles other than "gang member #1", "token Native guy", or "thug #2".
Second, when a studio or filmmaker decides to cast a white character as a Native or Latino, chances are that they also didn't care enough to research the particular intricacies and sensibilities that go with the race/ethnicity, which usually results in one-dimensional and thin characters and stereotypes. Granted, this also happens with minority actors that are properly cast, but mostly because back in the day they didn't have enough "power" in the industry to talk back, demand, or request more layers to their stereotypical characters, which goes back to my first point.
All of this and I'm not even getting into the other struggles that minorities were facing back in the day (or even still!) in pretty much every other facet of their lives, and also not getting into the specifics of Touch of Evil, which included Welles changing the lead character of the book from a white man to a Mexican, and still have a white man play him, or the fact that his character is pretty much the only Latino character with morals.
That's not to take much away from the film. You can read my review, see my rating, and where I placed it in my ballot. But I won't deny the fact that, as a Latino myself, I find the film's execution problematic, to say the least.
But anyway, all those instances of white people playing other races go beyond just having a "color-less" Hollywood, something I'm pretty sure wasn't in the minds of the casting agents of yesteryear.
First, there's the implication that either there wasn't a Latino/Native American actor capable enough to play a Latino/Native American character, or that you're not willing to give the opportunity to one thus continuing that cycle of limiting the possibilities of minority actors to get quality roles other than "gang member #1", "token Native guy", or "thug #2".
Second, when a studio or filmmaker decides to cast a white character as a Native or Latino, chances are that they also didn't care enough to research the particular intricacies and sensibilities that go with the race/ethnicity, which usually results in one-dimensional and thin characters and stereotypes. Granted, this also happens with minority actors that are properly cast, but mostly because back in the day they didn't have enough "power" in the industry to talk back, demand, or request more layers to their stereotypical characters, which goes back to my first point.
All of this and I'm not even getting into the other struggles that minorities were facing back in the day (or even still!) in pretty much every other facet of their lives, and also not getting into the specifics of Touch of Evil, which included Welles changing the lead character of the book from a white man to a Mexican, and still have a white man play him, or the fact that his character is pretty much the only Latino character with morals.
That's not to take much away from the film. You can read my review, see my rating, and where I placed it in my ballot. But I won't deny the fact that, as a Latino myself, I find the film's execution problematic, to say the least.
So I'll leave the it there.But I do have a related question for you and anyone who voted for Touch of Evil or any noir that they felt offended by or objected too...Why vote for it? If I strongly objected to a film I would never vote for it.
Check out my podcast: 
