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.

I'm amazed no one has mentioned Cleopatra yet tbh!

I imagine historically, there was a lot of whitewashing. I imagine, historically just as women have been airbrushed out, by the biases of the time, it's not too much of a leap to imagine that similar happened by way of racial bias.

There was that film Blitz recently, which focused on a mixed race child in the war and showed things from the perspective of the black community. I really enjoyed it. It wasn't meant to be a documentary and it was interesting to watch what it might have been like. Lots were up in arms about it which baffled me. We had a black population back then. And I think it showed the uncomfortable truth of the attitudes towards black/brown people.

But Henry VIII being portrayed by a black actor? No (but then I also objected to Jonathon Rhys-Meyers on the basis that was far too slim, and not ginger!)

I think there's room for nuance - but portraying Isaac newton as black is a bit mind boggling (I'm looking at you, DR Who) - I'd be far more interested in drama adaptations of the achievements of historical black figures that have been airbrushed out of history - eg the excellent film 'hidden figures'

To me there is much more power in those stories.

Didn't know: To commemorate Black History Month in the United Kingdom, today we remember one of the Africans to live in Anglo-Saxon England. The man in question was Hadrian (d. 709), the abbot of St Peter’s and St Paul’s at Canterbury, who played a pivotal role in the development of church structures in what is now England.
According to Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People (completed in 731), Hadrian was ‘vir natione Afir’ (translated as 'a man of African race' by Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors), who spoke both Greek and Latin. Some scholars have suggested that Hadrian was Amazigh, and that he came from the area that is now Libya.
From the British Library.

I thought that was rather clever. A modern audience might wonder why a doctor was not "good enough" for Isabella, so by having a black actor, it shows a kind of prejudice we might comprehend.

CrickityCrickets · Yesterday 09:22

'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?

In fact, one person in 50 in Carlisle, with deep ancestry in the town, has North African DNA from the Mauretanian cavalry cohort stationed there on Hadrian's Wall, in the later Roman period...
I had hoped that with a family history in that area going back many centuries, it might be me...but alas, no.

I'd avoid Ben-Hur, the Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus of Nazareth etc then, because they "pretend" Jesus was white.

Mostly I don't care about this issue, but I saw this upthread from @viques:
Personally colour blind casting is fine by me, thank heavens we are decades past white actors blacking up to play Othello.

If casting were really colour blind, a white actor wouldn't need to black up to play Othello, but there might be a degree of awkwardness given the number of racist remarks in the script relating to his blackness.

Exactly this. Friend of mine was a senior member of the production team of the film Belfast. There was a black teacher and Pakistani shopkeeper as part of the cast. Completely historically inaccurate. (Let’s face it, people were trying to get the hell out of there back in 1969, and there were almost no people of colour at all). But they couldn’t get the funding without including some non-white actors. It didn’t affect my enjoyment of the film however I did note the historical inaccuracy. Does it matter? Some people, as this thread shows, will try to shut you down as a bigot if you say it does. Personally, I think it’s more nuanced than that.

I’ve been thinking the same recently. Last year I watched the new Famous Five adaptation on iPlayer and it felt like they were brushing the history of racism under the carpet by pretending that an inter-racial couple and their mixed race child would have been treated the same as a white family in rural England in the early 20th century. I’m all for equality but sometimes colour-blind casting feels a bit dismissive of the real experiences that black people and other minorities had in the past.

Has anybody wondered how come Jesus is depicted as blue eyed yellow hair pale skin? It goes both ways. One day I’m going to see Jesus being depicted as south East Asian. And why not?

Have you ever listened to the 99% Invisible podcast? There’s a new episode on there discussing the origins of the depiction of Jesus that has relatively recently been imprinted in our minds. It’s a fascinating listen.

yeah - I saw Lulu play Peter Pan as principal boy many years ago - that is common....

Today I saw A Streetcar Named Desire - was a amazingly good - didn't even register that the sisters (Blanche & Stella) were different races until half way through when I realised that Stella was the police woman from Wicked Little Letters and I though of this thread.

Do an image search for eg 'Asian Jesus' and you can see some today. There's lots of ethnically and stylistically different depictions of the Buddha too, of course

my husband is black South African. I showed him the Anne Boleyn trailer. He said don’t believe that trash Henry 8th didn’t marry a black woman it’s lies. I informed him it was colour blind casting and he was horrified. He said he didn’t want our daughter to watch and get confused as he wanted her to be informed on the right occurrence of history. He then laughed and said let’s have a white man play Nelson Mandela- can’t have double standards.

it personally doesn’t affect me. However when are we going to have better parts for women? Can we change history so that it’s queen Henrietta 8th and all her husbands that she divorces and kills off?

This comes up as some kind of intended ‘gotcha’ nearly as often as someone starts going on about electing President [Random Currently Unpopular Public Figure] in discussions about abolishing the monarchy.

It’s not something that bothers me really, but that Anne Boleyn casting was just….odd.

But then again, it was on Channel 5, so they had to do something to get people watching.

I loved Bridgerton. Didn’t bother me at all until that scene in series one when Lady Danbury and the Duke address the issue and credit Queen Charlotte with opening the door to society to “their kind”. Utterly ridiculously betrayal of true colourblind casting in my view. And a scene that had been inserted without the knowledge of most of the cast.
Unfortunately there is confusion as to what is meant by the term. If it means choosing the best actor for the part then I’m all for it. But if as is so often the case it means shoehorning black actors into parts where historical or literary integrity would be better served by a white actor then I’m against it.
I also think as others have said that directors do ethnic minorities a disservice if they paint a picture of multiracial harmony in historical times that is simply untrue.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid point.

It's a programme about dragons and you want it to be realistic?

Ugh Cromwell....the worst one

I am also concerned it gives the impression there are no historical non- white characters that are worthy of mention.

The example I mentioned earlier Dr Who visits Newton in passing (not pivotal to the plot). Played by a mixed race actor. The producers claim it was to inspire and show greater diversity of scientists. So why not pick any of the great non-white scientists? There are loads to choose from. Might not be as well know as Newton but all the better.

The casting actually reinforces the notion that there hasn’t been any scientific contributions by non-white people.

Modern TV makes more sense so long as it rings true. Rural Aberdeenshire is not ethnically diverse.

You’re a bit late. Do try and keep up.

I read that TV/film productions now have to have a percentage of ethnic actors now whether it's in the script or not. It's to do with receiving funding. I wonder how actors of colour feel about this?

These threads are always catnip to overt racists. As you’ve now seen.

Do you wonder why your concern for historical accuracy was……dormant when you watched drama after drama after drama that suggested the only people in any historical UK setting were white? Or when characters with clearly straightened/whitened teeth or breast implants or dyed hair are playing middle aged medieval peasants? Or when everyone is speaking English……including the English nobility at times when they didn’t, or the Romans?

It’s weird isn’t it? That this has triggered the commitment to historical accuracy.

@MissTrip82 Just checking because it's not entirely clear-are you calling me a racist?

Hear hear. No one is being ‘triggered’ by the visible zips in The Tudors.