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.

Not really bothered by blind casting. I do think black actors seem massively over represented in the UK compared with south Asians. Where are all the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi characters? where’s their representation?
I find casting can be very distracting sometimes though. I was watching a (bad!) Italian thing on Netflix last night and the main family was a white woman with a very light skinned mixed race husband and their two children were black. It was a confusing movie and that didn’t help me remember the relationships. I got over it though.

Ridiculous starement. How is it applauded when black actors are subject to the most vicious racist abuse and in some cases death threats. I mean look at the most recent case of the black actress playing Juliet alongside Tom Holland's Romeo. Absolutely atrocious. Yet, white blond haired, blue eyed actors have been portraying Jesus for years without any backlash.

I agree that it's great in children's programmes, like Balamory. It's important for children to see that. My own children therefore saw characters which looked like them, which was good. I never saw non white characters when I was a child.

So is it ok for Hugh Grant to play Nelson Mandela?

no -because race was an important element of Nelson Mandela's story.

black actors then end up only portraying characters who struggle as a result of their race.

But do you think these are the only Black stories that can be told?

I think part of OP's point was that yes this would happen if we keep telling 'white' stories.
Why not make productions that tick both boxes - being 'historically real' AND having Black actors? Because the story is about real Black characters?

There have been black people in this country since Roman Times.

There have but they were a tiny minority until very recently. Far less than 1% until a few decades ago. These portrayals are giving people an inaccurate understanding of history.

I grew up in a relatively diverse area but I do remember my fiend who grew up in Yorkshire telling me about how a lot of his school friends completely freaked out when a black schoolteacher started at his school when he was 8 years old as lots of the kids there had never seen a black person before. This would have been mid-90s.

I personally don't mind colour-blind casting when it's
A) made clear that it's fantasy and explained in the plot (e.g. Bridgerton),
B) they do it to such a big extent that you know you they are not trying to make that aspect historically accurate and you are supposed to suspend your disbelief and go with it (e.g. David Copperfield)
C) In the theatre, especially musicals (e.g. Six)

I am not keen on it though when you have families who look different, but I am not keen on that even when they are of the same race - anyone remember Anna Maxwell Martin as Gillian Anderson's daughter in Bleak House? They had the plot point around the painting of the young GA looking like AMM and it just didn't work IMO.

I am not keen on sex/gender swaps either. The truth is that women were basically property until recently, and I don't think it's helpful to pretend that's not the case.

Stop throwing facts around, you know they can't cope!

Just like she did with gay (expect in the books and movies that make me £££ lol) Dumbledore.

I haven't read/ seem them all - what heterosexual relationships did Dumbledore have in the books/movies?

Op made the point about it being historically accurate if you don't show the historical struggle of black people during certain historical periods. They said it was minimising. I was responding to that.

As for me, I don't think those are the only Black stories that can be told. I want to see more.

We can cope with historical facts in a history lesson (although establishing historical truth is not as straightforward as you imply).

Most people can distinguish between history and its fictionalised representation.

he may as well be entirely asexual, it's never mentioned. Which starts to feel like intentional omission by the time you get to a movie titled "The Secrets of Dumbledore" which focuses on the aftermath and includes flashbacks to his time with his 'great love Grindlewald', but somehow it never comes up...

You could claim Corneilus Fudge, Minerva McGonagall, Professor Sprout, Mad Eye Moody, Marlene McKinnon... are all gay because the book doesn't given information to the contrary, but my point is that it doesn't really provide representation if they aren't actually gay in the published content.

It's why I've tended towards korean/chinese/japanese dramas and movies instead of western entertainment lately.

Not necessarily because of colourblind casting, which just illicits an eyeroll at worst, but because they seem to wave that around when their creativity is drying up and the work wouldn't stand on its own merit.

Not all things, Bridgerton was done well as it was clearly not meant to be taken seriously. But others have used race or dei to shore up a poorly written mess and I think that's why it's getting the reputation it has.

Also not sure why the rich lore and myths of continents like Africa are not being portrayed in the media. Now that would actually be interesting and not done to death.

One positive of being face blind, I don't even notice. I was planning our wedding when someone asked if race was any problem. I hadn't a clue what they were on about. Id never noticed he wasn't white. Last week GS had to physically stop me as I walked past him when out shopping bit more awkward. Once he spoke I knew who he was. I'm good at recognising voices and mannerisms.

I've always seen it as a nuisance so good there is a positive. It can make following a film difficult, bring back the goodie wears a white hat and the baddie a black one.

So you're saying in specific historically real productions, showing depictions of Black people's struggles, Black people would be limited to the range of role showing Black people's struggles, and this is dull and unfair.

Whereas the other side is that all people (in power and otherwise) in historically real stories are portrayed as their race being irrelevant, giving the impression there wasn't really any struggle at all (obviously for those that take TV shows at face value!).

I don't know which is the greater harm here tbh. I think it depends, and at the moment I think we have both types. It's just not always clear where race is or isn't supposed to be an "issue" in the story - which could be good, could be unhelpful!

Is that you, Martin Sheen. Mr 'Only Welsh actors can play welsh people, and only gay people can play gay people. Except me. I can play any race/culture/gender I want because I'm an arrogant, stupid arse' Sheen.
It's called acting. Where people pretend.
So couching this as colour-blind casting is disingenuous. It's racist

He was Jewish so maybe more of an olive complexion perhaps

Jesus wasn't black

This may be a bloody ridiculous take, but why is skin colour so very important in this context? Like I’m sure many actors have done played historical figures only the actor had an inaccurate skin colour, height, whatever else. Does it matter?

Being British in the modern day is reflective of myriad more physical characteristics than perhaps it was in the past, but being British is about a culture of ideas much more so than a specific set of genetics. Those cultural mores and values are also in a
state of constant flux and renewal anyway.

I wouldn’t class myself as woke, quite the reverse. In fact I’d much prefer to go back to sleep on the issue of what this or that skin colour means/represents. I used to be more sympathetic to all that critical race theory stuff, but I’ve come to realise there are forces at work from multiple angles that seek to divide and emphasise that which could divide us.

I’m sure the motivations are different depending on when it comes to the left vs the right for making such a big deal about race, but dividing us never ends well. We are all just people at the end of the day, and I stand by my claim that skin colour should be no more noteworthy than what colour hair you may have or what colour eyes.

So let’s just let actors act, if the stories are well written and the performances are solid none of this should ultimately matter.

I agree. There was a black herald at the court of Henry VIII, John Blanke, whose story would be fascinating.

I stumbled upon a gallery exhibition about the Tudor court which had a whole section on him! I'd watch that TV show.

Martin Sheen? Don't you mean Michael Sheen?

Cate Blanchette was a revelation as Bob Dylan in "I'm not there" so it can be done 😆😎

You should check the racial/gender mix of actors before you go to a play?

Anyone who found David Copperfield confusing because of the colourblind casting is going to have their mind blow by A Muppets Christmas Carol.