Sorry I wasn’t actively engaging in the debate you brought up so my point wasn’t related to it.
Like I said, it doesn’t bother me. They could cast females as males or black people as white people, if they’re talented actors then I don’t care. Chiwetel Ejiofor could play anyone in history and I’d be keen to watch it. My only point is that there are a lot of black historical figures who would be great to make shows and films about and it is only very, very recently that there has been a slight move towards a greater representation of black people in film.
I suppose if I was pushed into an opinion I’d say that black actors portraying white historical characters seems like something closer to a gimmick than a real attempt to be more inclusive and diverse, but perhaps I’m just cynical.
Yeah, this is one of those issues where I think the criticisms of some of these casting decisions is often misunderstood leading to an environment where more trivial criticisms can of other casting decisions can be aired. Very often this is about issues of under-representation when a character who is from a group not well represented in film or tv is played by a white person. That is both a lost opportunity and a potential issue of lost authenticity. Sometimes if a character’s ethnicity is critical enough to the role that we know what it is supposed to be, there is the risk of caricaturing elements of the performance that a more authentic actor would not deliver. This perpetuates stereotypes and so is an issue taking seriously.
It does seem that often times though the reaction to these sorts of casting decisions is less well considered, and maybe more emotional, even entitled.
But Eddie Murphy has apparently tweeted that there is no way on Gods Green Earth will he play Boris Johnson(he doesn`t want to be typecast as a donkey)
“The psychological drama follows her as she struggles to survive, to secure a future for her daughter, and to challenge the powerful patriarchy closing in around her.”
I’m especially looking forward to the sentencing scene:
Duke of Norfolk: “Because thou hast offended against our sovereign the King’s Grace in committing treason against his person, and here attainted of the same, the law of the realm is this, that thou hast deserved death, and thy judgment is tis: that thou shalt be burned here within the Tower of London on the Green, else to have thy head smitten off, as the King’s pleasure shall be further known of the same.”
so im asking an honest question here…am i reading too much into the responses on here?
im seeing general condescension for a talent actor playing a role…its just assumed the only reason she got the role is because of her skin colour, not because she was the most talented actor to apply for the role, this has then expanded to one line barbs about giving jobs to other minority groups who obviously would only get any roles because of some quota, not because, they, you know, actually deserved the role?
that’s the way i’m feeling this conversation is heading, but there’s far too many people piling on who i genuinely think have more reasoned world views…so maybe it is just me reading too much into it?
but it feels like just ingrained racism/sexism bubbling to the surface…
i get its worth comment, my first thoughts were the same, but when you think about it, maybe shes just a very talented actor who nailed the part?
She would need to be very talented. I’m currently watching the crown and the Queen is played by two different actors as an adult. For the first two series it was Claire Foy. The 3rd series it is now Olivia Coleman.
Now, Olivia Coleman is an extremely talented actor - she’s won the academy award for best actress, after all. But I’m on about the 5th episode of series 3 now and I am still struggling to be convinced by her portrayal of the Queen. I think this is a lot to do with the extent to which she looks like the Queen.
Claire Foy’s resemblance to the Queen as a young woman was striking. Particularly her profile. I watched the first two series of the Crown absolutely immersed in it, as if we were watching real footage from 60-70 years ago. I just haven’t yet been able to suspend my disbelief to the same extent with Olivia Coleman. And she’s a white british actress who is amazingly talented.
So I think physical resemblance to a historic figure we have some familiarity with is fairly important but maybe that’s just from my own point of view. Perhaps I’m simply lacking in imagination?!
And rightly or wrongly this particular casting is in danger of becoming an object of ridicule, which would be incredibly unfortunate. I think history ought to be portrayed as accurately as we can have any certainty of if we are to take it seriously. Particularly as people (children especially) learn their history from watching these sorts of shows on tv.
yep, love the crown and i had no problems with Coleman as Lizzie, or even Gillian as Maggie.
but i do have to say, with Anne, you have no reference, idealised 2d portraits, maybe, but no human actually looks like that…regardless, my point wasnt whether she pulls it off, my point was the immediate assumption was that she only got the gig as some kind of movement from the arts to make a point…maybe everyone else stank the joint out…but then it went further than that and people were making joke comments about how other minorities would get a leg up in the industry based on their ‘membership’ to a minority…
the fact the no one, myself included, had as thier first thought, that maybe, just maybe, she actually was the best person for the job…
swing it another way, would we prefer a white actress portray the role even if she didnt audtion as well?
i include myself in this barb, but is it a form of ingrained predjudice that we immediately assume shes not got the job on her merits, DESPITE the obvious issue of not resembling the portraits of Anne, not BECAUSE of it…
I feel that sometimes when you make things so obvious to the point of being a policy, it actually drives the focus to the contrary. For example, many companies are stating publicly that they will increase the number of female board members by a certain percentage by when and when. Now we are know that this just mean that the companies are trying to correct a situation that has gone incorrectly in the past but because it is so deliberate, there will be people who jump on the “are you promoting her for her abilities or to meet your policy targets” bandwagon.
I would say this is pretty much similar to the discussion here for the actors
And this will probably end up in a circular argument and I will say that the people on the other side are not necessarily discriminatory (not saying you are saying they are). Its just that some people will get sick of all these politically correct bullshit.
And unfortunately the people who gets drowned out are the very people who deserves to be judged on their own merits
that doesnt give them much of chance though does it?
people get sick of all this ‘politically correct bullshit’…i mean, whats that code for in this discussion? its pretty much again, working on the assumption that she got the role not through merit…infact, fuck it, put the shoe on the other foot, to award the role to an inferior but visually more inline actor would be politically correct bullshit, because, yknow, we cant have people stealing cultural heritage?
i get what your saying in the main point, but thats really just bought on by our own predjudice…
i mean, whose first thought, hand on their heart here, was that she was probably the best actor for the job, even though she doesnt immediately resemble what we historically beleive Anne Boleyan looked like…
i mean, im argueing the point and it took me a while to wake up to myself…
Different people can arrive at the same conclusion for different reasons. Just because racists will aggrieved by these sorts of casting decisions doesn’t mean it is racist to think it is dumb.
When Jennifer Lopez was cast as a Mexican idol in Selena in the 90s all hell broke loose. She was a New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent. She had no connection to Mexico, to Selena and it had the whiff of saying “all brown people are the same.” There was massive backlash to it, but she nailed the role because it was one she earned with her audition (they were ready to give the role to a Mexican actress then found J Lo and felt she was better). That did not make the reaction to the casting wrong, it just meant she had an enormous amount to prove to justify the decision.
Visual accuracy has always been an important part of historical pieces. They go to lengths to eliminate anachronisms in the costumes and sets, and like it or not someone of the wrong race in a period piece like is an anachronism. There is an expectation from the viewer of what a character with a different skin colour would mean about that character. If they want to do some expectation busting approach to a historical piece then that’s fair game, but you’d expect that go further than 1 casting decision. Alternatively, if they want to play this straight and think her performance will be strong enough to overcome that curveball they’ve given to the viewers then all power to them, but they also need to be prepared for the skepticism.
That’s a strawman because it is impossible to think that their options were shit white actress or good black one.
