I don't think we can have it both ways. If we're trying to include more actors of color by casting them in roles that were previously played only by lighter-skinned actors, then we're saying (rightly, I believe) that acting is about the acting, not the looks.
Okay, I agree with you to a point. The point being, for instance, casting actors in the original
Hamilton whose appearance was so contrary to those of the historical personages that it's hard to believe that's who it's about. Couldn't Lin-Manuel Miranda have shaved off his beard at least? He'd much more nearly have resembled Alexander Hamilton if he had.
Probably wasn't an issue for most audience members because they hadn't a clue other than the $10 bill what Alexander Hamilton looked like. It was for me, though, and perhaps for others familiar with paintings of the Founders.
I suppose my "willing suspension of disbelief" just ain't very willing in this regard. Nor is it for Lilo and Nani. That these characters are indigenous Hawaiians is essential to the conflict. Their facial and bodily features matter in the context of this film.
Doesn't matter to me in the least if an Asian Indian or darkskinned Black woman plays Ariel, Cinderella, Aurora, etc. These are fictional characters in mythical contexts. Their appearance isn't closely linked to the plot. They can look like whatever the director wants, perhaps to make a point akin to Santa Claus does not have to be white or Jesus was highly unlikely to have looked like the blue-eyed, fairskinned white guy in popular images.
Tiana? I'd have major issues if Scarlett Johansson were cast in the role. Tiana's appearance and her ethnicity are very strongly entwined, somewhat like Nani's.
We can't then turn around and deny someone a part because she doesn't look ethnic enough if she truly did the best read for the role.
Of course we can if we want the film to be believable.
Acting isn't voice-only unless it's for animation. Appearance counts mightily, too, for some films--like
Lilo and Stitch.
