Who did they want on the cover instead? Moss?
Posted on 08/06/2013 7:01:04 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
The DVD front cover of Australian film The Sapphires has triggered a backlash after exaggerating the role of the Irish actor Chris O'Dowd while downplaying the four Aboriginal stars.
The image, used for the DVD cover of the film in the United States, was labelled "sexist and racist" after it showed O'Dowd front and centre even though he played the manager of the Aboriginal soul singers on whose story the film is based.
The image prompted a furore on social media amid claims it relegated the role of the Aboriginal women and suggested O'Dowd, whose profile is building in the US, played the lead singer.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What I DO BELIEVE, however, is that in the current culture freedom of artistic expression is ONLY defended in the media if the art in question if offensive to classic Christianity.
Could it be because he is headlined on the cover and some Americans actually know who he is?
Was the cover art published? Yes? Then there is artistic freedom. Artistic Freedom does not require a single person to like it, whether for reasons rational or not.
Either buy the DVD or don’t buy the DVD. Let the market decide if it’s right or wrong.
They don’t have to drag the world into their immature little hissy fits.
Sorry, it is the textbook definition of sexist and racist. It really is.
You forgot /s.
The image prompted the original members of The Sapphires, to write to the US civil-rights group the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to ask for support.
“As I’m sure you can appreciate, the treatment of people of colour in Australia mirrored much of the trauma to which people in the United States were subjected,” said the letter on behalf of the women.
“That trauma – and much of that treatment – remains alive and well in Australia today, as I know it does in the United States.”
Right, because not being featured prominently on a DVD cover is exactly the same as segregation, discrimination and lynching.
Nah, it’s marketing. The most sellable thing about this film, in America, is the male costar. Nobody in the US has heard of any of the other actors, or the film itself. So, marketing 101, you highlight the one thing that people might be familiar with.
I know what marketing is. I have worked in the record industry and created marketing campaigns.
No, I did not.
Who did they want on the cover instead? Moss?
So how is it racist and sexist?
I agree with posts #2 and #9. The guy is the only person Americans might know.
Oddly enough, I think their intent was just the opposite.
While Australian Aborigines have skin color that can overlap with the West African shades of most black Americans, they do not have African facial features or hair. You’ll notice that one of the two girls in back looks almost like Sally Field with a tan.
If you took the picture on the right and substituted the Spanish words for Sapphires, “Zafiros”, many Americans could be convinced they were a Mexican group.
Could it be because headlining O’Dowd sells more tickets?
No, he didn't. This is the same person who told me that white people's use of the N word caused lynchings.
I’m at a loss for words.
Yes.
were the women in the foreground.....the well known guy...would be darned near invisible.
“wheres the revrunds?”
If there’s money to be made shakedown style, you can bet they’re on the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.