Can we talk about colourblind casting...

[CurlewKate]

...without the thread descending into a woke/anti-woke stramash?

Obviously it's a great advance that black actors now have access to many more parts than they did- and obviously in most cases it makes absolutely no difference to the play, show, whatever. But I was watching Shardlake,and it struck me that it was impossible that the Abbot of a 16th century monastery in rural England would be black. And that casting black actors in positions of power and influence might well give viewers a completely unrealistic idea of the status of black people in British history, and actually gloss over their struggles. So stylised historical figures, as in Shakespeare where we all know there's an element of fantasy (I recently saw a colourblind Coriolanus that was brilliant),no issue at all, of course. But historical dramas that are trying to represent life in the past roughly as it was-maybe actually unhelpful?

Incidentally, I know that one of the main characters in the Shardlake books is black. But he has a detailed backstory, and the discrimination he faced is part of his life.

Yes

There is some nuance that really shouldn't be lost.

It really only works off the back of entirely colourblind cast. Hamilton works (none believes the founding fathers were black and some of the inherent racism is actually highlighted because the actors were black), Anne Boleyn didn't (we now actually have people questioning whether the description of her as dark meant she was properly skinned). Charlotte and King George in Bridgeton was an incredible story told by superb actors and actresses, (the portrayal of mental health was really very special) but by connection to the real historical characters it gave greater credence than the evidence suggests to the otherwise questionable historical theory that Queen Charlotte was our first multiracial royal. And of course here was no attempt to promote multiracialism in Georgian times.

I also think that it silences more multi racial storytelling. We're still telling white dominated stories but it's ok because we have a multiracial cast. I'm not sure that's OK either.

'impossible that the Abbot of a 16th century monastery in rural England would be black'

Unlikely but not impossible.
https://www.englandsimmigrants.com/
This link shows you records of people not born in England. It doesn't show you their skin colour, but there are some people in medieval England of African origin. Who's to say they couldn't be an Abbot?

If the actor is paying a real person then they should be of the same race, just like the age (within reason) and sex should match. I didn't know about colourblind casting until I tried to watch Hamilton, because so many people said how great it was but I didn't have a clue what was going on and part of that was due to 'that person wasn't black' confusion.

But obviously if it's fiction then actors of any race, also sex and age can play the roles as long as it doesn't detract from the story. So the Judge could be a black woman, an Asian man play the receptionist etc. But you shouldn't have different races within families unless it's explained eg a child is adopted or a blended family.

I think unless the plot involves race as a theme then it doesn't matter. In the Shardlake books, his ex monk physician friend is black and it is quite a prominent storyline ..black people weren't unknown in the period. If it's a real historical person that is being played, provided they don't then bring in a whole lot of additional storyline involving skin colour then I don't think it matters.

I think it depends on what’s being portrayed - it just has to be credible. Bridgerton is fun and a romp, whereas a black Anne Boleyn is just wrong because we know what she would have looked like.

It's akin to a remake of Lassie being played by a Black Labrador. It just doesn't work.

I always think that if the actor is playing a real person/historical figure then they should be the same race, sex and made to physically look as much as possible like the real thing.

Meaning that I would not want to see Meryl Streep, for all her talent, play Rosa Parks or a black actress play Elizabeth the first or a 50 year old actress play Marilyn Monroe.

Beyond that I think it is perfectly fine to have more diversity in fictional characters.

I don’t think I care really. Is it historically accurate? No. But then there are swathes of things that’s aren’t historically accurate in tv shows so this isn’t going to be thing that bothers me.

I think in each individual play/film it doesn't matter if they weren't a real person but overall I'd worry that people build up a false picture in their minds of the role of black and other non white people in history.

I thought that about Shardlake too. I also found the colour blind casting in The Personal history of David Copperfield confusing and distracting as family members were all different ethnicities.

@RhaenysRocks "In the Shardlake books, his ex monk physician friend is black and it is quite a prominent storyline "

Yes, as I said, Guy is black-but he has a careful and credible back story-and has experienced discrimination all the time he has lived in England. It presents a false-and IMO unhelpful- image of the position of black people in English society to have a black Abbot as a perfectly normal thing that provokes no comment.

Ir depends. If historical figures are being portrayed in a drama, then I think the actors should be of the same race as the original characters.

If the character is fictional, then I don't think it matters.

As for a black abbot, St Maurice was a black medieval saint, so why not a black abbot.

As for gender, I don't think this is an issue. Fiona Shaw was the finest Richard II I have ever seen.

It's fiction, on TV. You know it isn't real. Look past the melanin and see the story.

The casting is colour blind. Some of the viewers clearly aren't. Comments about it say a lot more about them than the producers of the TV production.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I find it refreshing to see diversity and inclusive casting. It's about the acting talent more than anything.

I didn't have a clue what was going on and part of that was due to 'that person wasn't black' confusion

This is surprising to me - never has skin colour been less important or relavent (in anything I've seen) and I find it odd someone would be confused by the storyline of Hamilton in part due to the skin colour

And all the 'I worry about' understanding history etc is the same faux concern as the 'I worry about' fat people's health. It's bigotry dressed up as caring.

Depends on the programme. In Bridgerton it didn't matter, because it's lighthearted tosh. In Wolf Hall it did matter because they had tried so hard to be historically accurate. In a serious film about Anne Boleyn, it does matter.

historical dramas are not at all realistic anyway, in a myriad of ways, so casting ‘realism’ is irrelevant IMO.

I'm Scottish and it drives me mad. Crime dramas set here have to show black people (with English accents) in the most senior positions in the police. Scotland is 93% white, and by far the biggest ethnic minority is Asian.

The mental gymnastics ruin the flow of the production and insult the intelligence of the viewers. Don't even start me on Balamory.

Your OP reads like your bias, dressed up

The last series of Wolf Hall was ruined by this. The cognitive dissonance was too much.
Why go to such lengths to get costumes, food and drink, historical settings, manners and protocols and so on exactly right and then have a person of colour as a Privy Councillor? That’s definitely historically inaccurate.
It doesn’t bother me on stage in a theatre, where one’s experience is different, but it does on a screen.

cognitive dissonance big words for bigotry.

Don't like it, don't watch it.

This.

If someone can’t follow the plot of a play due to the colour of someones skin I would assume they either have an extremely debilitating learning difficulty, or their just racist and so have to spend the rest of the play focusing on their racism.

And that casting black actors in positions of power and influence might well give viewers a completely unrealistic idea of the status of black people in British history, and actually gloss over their struggles.

It's this bit that should be thought about when casting. If the diversity and power relationships are out of whack in anything which might be taken as historical then I agree it's not a helpful or progressive thing.

Whereas Shakespeare ... I recently saw Cymbeline with a black woman as the title character and a lesbian Imogen. It was a deliberately feminist working with some dialog tweaks. That was fine imo because it's not remotely an authentically historical piece.

It immediately bumps me out of engaging with the show when it’s done badly and I think it’s ridiculous when it’s done with historical figures that we know were white. It’s an immediate switch off for me. However when it’s done well, it’s not noticeable - for example The Sea Snake in House of The Dragon played by Steve Touissaint who made the part entirely his own and was my favourite character. It’s agenda pushing casting combined with woke - yes I went there but no other word works - messaging that has the subtlety of a sledge hammer that’s the problem. When it’s done properly without clear agenda pushing as the main priority I think you don’t notice but sadly that’s mostly not the case.