CUMBERBAAAAATCH

[scarfman]

Disclosure: I am American, white, male, middle-aged, middle class (such as it is this decade).

The first time I saw the foul cried, "Racefail!", to the news this week that the villain that Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) is playing in the now-shooting Star Trek movie is Khan, I thought, "Yeah, I guess." I wasn't sure how much racefail it is when a character with an Indian name originally played by a Latino is recast with an Englishman, but it is a case of some actor of color losing out on a role of color. Mostly I was disappointed because I wanted to see new stories in this film series rather than rehashes of old stories (plus, if he had to be recast into an existing character, Cumberbatch would've made a better Koloth than Khan).

Now that I've had a few days to think about it and to peruse others' reactions, though, I don't think it's as defensibly racefail as, e.g., the casting of Katniss or Aang were. There are a couple of reasons why not.

1. It's not implausible for an Indian man named Khan of this day and age, or later, to look and sound like Benedict Cumberbatch; and that plausibility accents a chapter in the history of oppression that were better not forgotten.

2. Unless his backstory has changed radically, Khan is the result of genetic manipulation for "superiority" by supremacists. Racefail is in character.

Comments

[alienfish.livejournal.com]

I didn't catch the "racefail" complaints, just a few other people complaining that it's Khan again. Logically, it might as well be Khan. In this time zone the Federation is much smaller, and most of the things going on should be the same. I couldn't get how Nero's arrival and Kirk's father's death would change Spock so completely that he'd be involved in a relationship with a student.