MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) Discussion > Idiot Empire Reviewer Complained About S...

Idiot Empire Reviewer Complained About Sallah's Return

posted 2 years ago by HarveyManFredSin (4877)
21 replies | jump to latest

"It doesn’t escape the sometimes-wobbly politics that the series has sometimes been accused of; the return of John Rhys-Davies, a white Welshman, as the Egyptian character Sallah, feels a needlessly thoughtless choice in 2023."

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny/

What a prick. I'm NO fan of whitewashing, but if you're making a belated sequel to one of the most beloved franchises of all time, you have to bring back some legacy characters, besides Indy. Marcus is long dead, Henry Jones Sr. is dead (and Connery didn't want to return for the last film), Mutt is played by a problematic actor, and what would Indy be doing with Willie? The only other option, particularly in view of his re-emergence, was Ke Huy Quan, and presumably this story doesn't take part in East Asia, and is more likely set in Europe, the US, Central Asia and North Africa, so it makes little sense to bring back Short Round. That ONLY leaves Sallah, Indy's longest living friend (I'm assuming he knew Sallah before he met Short Round, even if TOD is a prequel to Raiders).

Stupid woke critics (and I thought Empire was better than this). Then again, this John Nugent moron is the same a-hole that described Paul Dano's Riddler as an 'incel' in his The Batman review. What an idiot (and with a name like 'John Nugent', which strikes me as an old white man's name, old enough to know better). Pathetic.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

As an aside, I get the impression that critics like Nugent are popping their corks to bloody Phoebe Waller-Bridge's introduction, because, yeah, sure, *she's* the one that all the long-term fans of this franchise are coming to see... 🙄🤦‍♂️ *sigh*

[–] TandyMan (11349) 2 years ago

Most of the negative reviews I read made a point of mentioning that she was brilliant in this while crapping all over the rest of it. Don't trust none of that nonsense. If that's how it's skewed, she's probably terrible and the movie is probably actually great.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

She's probably fine, but the fact there are any reviewers raving about her rather than the return of Indy, shows these critics aren't true Indy fans, but poncey upper-middle-class Fleabag simps.

[–] TandyMan (11349) 2 years ago

Yep. She's like a champion for them. They're desperate for her to be a big star. As if super fame won't corrupt her into a weirdo that will abandon "her people" like all the others.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I'm sure she's really cool, but they all identify with her, because she's one of them (i.e. an upper-class, privately-educated, chattering class type, but, because she's a woman, that makes her some sort of 'progressive hero' 🤷‍♂️).

[–] ccr1633 (1538) 2 years ago

What a prick. I'm NO fan of whitewashing

How is it even conceivably viewed as whitewashing? Rhys-Davies basically grew up in East Africa in areas that historically had been under Arab rule for a few centuries. He passes for Arab and grew up in embedded in that culture. That he's Welsh is a technicality being used by a racebaiter to insult a nominally white actor. According to today's hypocritical woke standards, he has more justification to play Sallah than Adele James has to play Cleopatra. Or has her years spent in Greece in her youth been a well-concealed fact? I agree with your argument for including Sallah and the original actor who played him, but I object to your emphasis. The far more insulting aspect of this article is the racial hypocrisy.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Well, either way, we can probably both agree that bringing back Sallah/Rhys-Davies is a *good* thing, and something to be celebrated, not scorned (although I have yet to see how he's utilised in the new film).

[–] ccr1633 (1538) 2 years ago

But anyone who thinks this even remotely qualifies as an instance of "whitewashing" wouldn't celebrate it and shouldn't. You can't argue that (supposed) whitewashing is bad but make exceptions and celebrate it simply because it's in the context of a well-loved franchise. Just say it's not whitewashing and be done with it. No further argument necessary. Or if it is whitewashing then argue it's no more immoral than blackwashing or any other racewashing.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

It's a long-established character. If they were starting from scratch, I'd expect them to cast an authentically Egyptian actor, but at this stage, it would be annoying, distracting and frankly pointless to recast, and long-time Indy fans deserve a little fan-service.

[–] Satan2016 (26200) 2 years ago

No, he as raised in Tanzania (British colony) which is NOT Arab. He was educated at a British boarding school. Wikipedia!

[–] TandyMan (11349) 2 years ago

Well he wasn't a midget either and he played a great dwarf in LOTR. He's an actor.

[–] ProgsReturn (2233) 2 years ago

Lucky LotR got made when it did, otherwise the same reviewer would.complain race-swapping a dwarf for a Welshman.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Did they use real dwarves in the recent LOTR show? I didn't see it, and I don't even know if it has dwarf characters, but it strikes me as the type of thing people might complain about today.

[–] christomacin (4730) 2 years ago

Dwarfwashing...

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

The woke left is obsessed with skin color. As for casting actors for characters of different ethnicities, I honestly don’t care but the thing is if a black person was cast in a role that was traditionally played by a white person it would be universally praised by the woke left. They want to have it one way but not the other and their excuse is “well in the past people of color weren’t given the opportunity”, well now they are doing the exact same thing that they are claiming was an injustice, it’s not about “leveling the playing field” because that would mean we would have to assume people have a disadvantage based solely on skin color, it’s just about these woke elitists patting themselves on the back.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

It's wealthy and privileged WHITE elitist 'liberals' who live in exclusively-white and wealthy neighbourhoods like The Hamptons and Santa Monica, and send their kids to swanky private schools, saying "Please leave us alone. We're not a threat. Them...Over there. The poor white people. *They're* the *real* problem." Firstly, it's classist of them to blame blue-collar types. Secondly, they're displaying their inherent racism because instead of being honest, they're acting like Black people are a threat. If they actually got to know Black people, they'd know how to interact with them properly without either being scared of them, or pandering to them.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15308) 2 years ago

"It doesn’t escape the sometimes-wobbly politics that the series has sometimes been accused of; the return of John Rhys-Davies, a white Welshman, as the Egyptian character Sallah, feels a needlessly thoughtless choice in 2023."

I'm not particularly into the Raiders movies but you're right, that's stupid. Some of these people are so up themselves.

[–] bozo_500 (13388) 2 years ago

lol awesome , the critic is young and gay btw (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Think the most woke Empire critic is Helen O'Hara I always check to see if its her name on a review then skip it, her feminist rantings ultimately made me tune out of Empire podcast which Id often listen to on a Friday.

Empire went through a horrendous 'woke' phase under the previous female editor who was using the mag to champion BAME, BLM, metoo, LGBTQ etc when all that stuff was at its height and cover issues featuring new BAME actors etc, featuring lengthy agenda articles on stuff of little interest to long term Empire readers who bought the mag over the years who didn't want to be preached to (think it was most summed up when the Black Panther guys death had a tribute cover but not movie legend Sean Connery!) until ultimately I guess she got told to leave as the mag mustve been in danger of going under GWGB style (I imagine many must've cancelled their subscriptions, and a drop in sales) the guy who took over brought the mag back to focusing on big movies and the 70/80s/90s nostalgia moviegoers love ..(although there's still too much focus on D+ stream shows)

[–] Galactus03 (4406) 2 years ago

Well at least he gave the film four out of five .. 😂

[–] bozo_500 (13388) 2 years ago

The also gave KOTCS 4, but I'd say both were deserving of their 4 ratings

[–] Galactus03 (4406) 2 years ago

I think DOD was better. But except for Shia and how much it's hated .....there is a lot to like about KOTCS....