Colour Blind casting

PP have not been specific in their criticisms of casting decisions, they have generally been discussing colourblind casting as a bad thing.

I think that's unfair, there's been more nuance than that and several cases have been mentioned multiple times (e.g. the black Anne Boleyn) and others not at all (e.g. Kitty in Ghosts or the casting in His Dark Materials, where although there was some fuss about Lin-Manuel Miranda playing a Texan there were no complaints about the casting of black and mixed race actors in several major roles. Worth pointing out that Texas is 40% Hispanic so casting LMM wasn't actually colourblind casting).

Some people have said think colourblind casting is always a positive thing, some people think it can be done well and add to the story or it can be done badly with potentially negative effects (e.g. of making the past seem less racist than it actually was or of seeming like tokenism). There's been discussion about constantly seeing the same stories rehashed vs widening the range of stories we see to include black or brown stories (e.g. the type of stories Shonda Rhimes and Gurinder Chadha make).

We're so used to TV in particular being a very realist medium and some people get upset about e.g. the very blond Mrs Coulter in his Dark Materials being played by the brunette Ruth Wilson or the green eyed Harry Potter being played by the blue eyed Daniel Radcliffe so it's no surprise that colourblind casting might be challenging for some people. Hopefully the more diverse the talent is behind the screen the more diversity we'll see in the stories we are told.

Specific example.

Angela Bassett played mollie Bobby browns stepmum in dragon film damsel. Good casting.

Her playing her mum would have been jarring and made no sense. (Even in a film with dragons)

I am not sure it's racist to think that.

PP have not been specific in their criticisms of casting decisions, they have generally been discussing colourblind casting as a bad thing.

You want to engage in discussion over a specific artistic decision, fine. But generally being against colourblind casting is nothing more than racism.

Defend racists, if you must; you seem to be more interested in nitpicking with me over a comment I made regarding a user’s name.

Also, although I don’t believe saffron originated in Crete, the theory dates it to the Minoan period, when the population was olive skinned, not white.

You can keep digging, but honestly, maybe your time would be better spent reflecting on why it’s so important to you derail the thread like this.

As Crete has a strong claim to saffron (and you said white people not white British people), you used a bad example. I probably would not have commented otherwise.
I understand your point is that artistic creations belong to everyone in the same way that spices belong to everyone. However, I think that if artistic creations belong to everyone then criticism of all ensuing artistic choices is also everyone’s prerogative.
Giving an opinion that an artistic decision is wrong and shouldn’t have been made is not the same as saying something shouldn’t be allowed to happen.
Your comparison just doesn’t work.

I am already so used to seeing black actors in traditionally non-black parts that it is not even a thing I think about. I did think about it the first time I watched something like this, but I really don’t anymore. And personally I think it’s great. I would rather enjoy the performance without questioning this kind of detail so am pleased to have got used to it. Just like I am used to living in a fully integrated multi cultural society in my area. This kind of casting is helpful towards creating a more accepting and less racist world. Just like it’s great to see someone so proudly gay win Big Brother. Media has a responsibility to help promote tolerance and acceptance as well as to entertain. You will get used to it too in the end.

Again, not what I wrote.

You can try and ‘gotcha’ me but it won’t work because I agree with you.

I agree that it’s ridiculous to claim a spice, just as it’s ridiculous to gate-keep appearance.

My reference to saffron was to point out the hypocrisy of embracing a spice first used in the Middle East, whilst simultaneously holding the viewpoint that anything first depicted as white European could not change to be depicted as global majority.

Hope you can understand now.

You admit the two things aren’t equivalent then. Good.

Where was my suggestion that it was intrinsically ridiculous? Or was that your interpretation of my words?

I guess people are free to interpret my words as they wish once I put them out into the world.

The proportion of global majority performers in the West End is approximately the same as London’s GM population, according to a 2019 survey, although black performers are represented higher than other GMs.

You’re assuming that there are equal numbers of Chinese and Indian people aspiring to be actors. Culture plays a big part in choice of career - that’s why there are very few Asian footballers, but many cricketers - it’s a bigger game within the diaspora.

Singing and music has traditionally been a huge part of the black culture and aspiring to be a performer is understandable in that context.

Have you considered that perhaps this generation of West End stars is filled with really talented black people and the reason they are the leads is because they are the best?

‘Particularly if it has no bearing on the plot’
you see it’s not intrinsically ridiculous whereas your suggestion was.

Off the top of my head: British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian.

I did also clarify that ‘ruled the world’ was a lazy shorthand and I probably should have clarified as ‘held significant global power that would go on to be solidified over the subsequent generations.’

Back to the point of my post - it’s not surprising that a Eurocentric view of beauty is found in many of our classic stories, and that this is reinforced amongst an entertainment industry traditionally held in the hands of powerful white men.

This leaves us with 3 choices:

1. Continue to remake these tales, faithfully, and exclude actors of colour from some of our most beloved parts.
2. Allow new generations of creatives to interpret and modernise these texts, including making the parts open to people of different skin colours.
3. Make more art form ethnically diverse source material.

Personally, I’m in favour of 2 & 3, but knowing what I do about how projects are commissioned and funded, 3 is a lot harder than 2 and will take time to become more acceptable. In the meantime 2 serves an important purpose to both increase representation on screen and reflect modern values.

No, but it is ridiculous to suggest that description is binding across any further interpretations of that work, particularly if it has no bearing on the plot.

@slore That's a lot of random points and strawmen you have made there.

The East India Company was one of the first companies to sell shares in the 17th century, it was widely owned by the middle classes of Britain. It really wasn't just 'a few rich people'. This is a standard argument to pretend Britain didn't benefit as a whole from our Empire.

I mention the Ottoman Empire as being richer than European countries before 1600. I'm not sure what that has to do with the Armenian Genocide which was a 20th century genocide that took place in a country losing a world war. But the word 'Empire' does tend to suggest territory expansion and brutal suppression of the people of those lands, no?

Slavery was and is a part of world history. My point was not that Britain invented slavery but that claiming that Hans Christian Anderson was writing pre European world power was not correct.

I did enjoy Wicked Little Letters and thought the casting/acting was great. However, whilst there was a black judge and Asian policewoman in 1920s England- the drunken swearing loose moralled woman was....Irish...not stereotypical at all eh?

*Calling it colourblind casting is a lie. An emperor’s new clothes lie. If that were true then there would be Chinese people, white people or Indian people occasionally playing famous black historical characters/ famous people like Michael Jackson.

This is true to some extent.

When these choices are made on tv or film, it's usually very specific roles that are cast in a particular way. It's clearly not random.

I am not sure I agree that people who say "I am not racist but" are usually racist. Any more than not liking colour blind casting is not racist.

I think it can work for some things and not for others. Realistic period dramas can be a good example of where it doesn't tend to work. But the more they move into a more abstract or surreal or artistic kind of presentation, the more likely it is to work.

I also personally am fine with actors of any race portraying roles of other races using all the normal tricks of the trade like make up, ad sometimes think it is a better approach than colour blind casting. But it's not always a plausible option and of course it is so controversial now, no one would do it.

Calling it colourblind casting is a lie. An emperor’s new clothes lie. If that were true then there would be Chinese people, white people or Indian people occasionally playing famous black historical characters/ famous people like Michael Jackson.

It’s a bit like how there are several shows in the west end with an all-black cast, and somehow that’s ‘diverse’? Ok If you want to leave white people out because of the colour of their skin, but no Chinese/ Indian folk in The Lion King or What’s Love Got To Do With It?

It’s all completely incoherent. And patronising paternalism. Almost every leading lady in any west end show over the last few years has been black. For that not to be a deliberate choice is statistically impossible, considering only 1.5pc of the UK population is made up of black women. Fair enough to level the playing field - and not shut off any opportunities to anyone of any colour. That’s a great ideal. But correcting past discrimination with present discrimination isn’t progressive.

The East India Company was privately owned. To this day, private companies still control the world's resources.

A whole race cannot be blamed for a few evil rich people from 400 years ago. Many Jewish people were involved in the East India Company and I bet you wouldn't feel comfortable stating that Jews were enjoying the spoils of other countries for centuries, but you're fine with doing that to the British.

You briefly mention the Ottoman Empire as the antithesis to Europeans, completely ignoring that fact they were brutal colonisers of many European countries, committed a genocide of 3 million Armenian Christians and enslaved millions of white Christians. Slavery was a huge part of the economy of the Ottomans.

I'll wait to hear you saying that Turkish corporations were making their country rich from the spoils of other countries.

It's the hypocrisy of all of this nonsense that astounds me the most.

Oh but of course it would be the end of the world if it happened the other way round.

It’s not ridiculous for a writer of fiction to describe the physical appearance of a character.

You said, But at the time the Little Mermaid and Snow White were written, the world was ruled by white people whose interaction with global majority races was one of oppression. So tell us which white people were ruling the world in 1812. I think you will find there were many global majority races happily ruling themselves.

Of course it’s ridiculous to claim a food as belonging to one part of the world as another.

Similarly skin colour to one fictional character or another. But here we are.

There's a real lack of history knowledge here.

Firstly, Britain in India did not start with the Raj. The East India Company had been controlling parts of India for centuries, it was the largest and richest corporation in the world and had a larger army than Britain. The Raj was set up after the Indian Mutiny of 1857 aka The First War of Independence. Basically the East India Company messed up so dreadfully and committed such atrocities that Parliament decided India had to come under Parliamentary control and not be owned by a company. Before 1600 China, India or the Ottoman Empire were the richest counties but once Europeans started their expansion into Asia and America Europe quickly became more powerful. The first recorded African slaves in London arrived in 1555 and less than a century later Britain dominated the transatlantic slave trade. So to claim that there was no British Empire until the late 19th century is twisting the facts, British corporations were making the country rich from the spoils of other countries for along time before that.

Secondly, Saffron has been used in Europe for over a thousand years first in Spain but was initially traded for Cornish tin in the 14th century and came into the UK that way. To put that into context that means we've been cultivating saffron in the UK for longer than the Italians have had tomatoes or the Thais have had chilli (both came to the old world as part of the Columbian Exchange from the 15th century onwards). It's ridiculous to try and claim a foodstuff should only belong to the area it originally grew wild before it was domesticated. There's been foodstuff coming into this country for centuries. Don't google what the Romans introduced, you'll end up eating a very restricted diet!

Other white imperial nations are available

I'm getting a bit worried now, am I allowed to eat potatoes, I love potatoes which are known as Food of the Gods in my house, not indigenous though. I'm also a chocoholic, is chocolate in danger, I love a cup of tea so that's also a worry but my biggest worry is tobacco, my husband is an addict going back 60 years and if he can't smoke he will be unbearable and it will probably mean divorce. Divorce and your 70s isn't a good look is it.