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 don't know the story Shardlake but can see that in that case having one character whose story is partly about the prejudice a person of his race would have experience and another who doesn't experience that isn't right. If he is black abbot then his story should be one of a black abbot.

My issue with the casting of Shardlake is that, in the novels the character of Guy of Malton is a major one, and his backstory and friendship with Matthew drives a lot of character development. Both faced (& face) outright discrimination and harassment.

Making the Abbot black, and making Guy's character ?Arabic (& minimising his role) changes the whole dynamic of the stories going forward.

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.

No, it would not be impossible in the slightest. You’ve fallen for the 18-19th c, revisionist versions of history that were set up to justify the racism of the times.

Hadrian was the earliest black abbot we know of from AD 709 in Canterbury.

Archaeological excavations have found African burials in 38.8% of medieval burial grounds, not down much from African burials being found 47% of Roman era burials. These are people confirmed as having been born in Africa by isotope analysis of their bones. This doesn’t include the more numerous Black descendants of Africans born in Britain.

I find this hugely distracting in historical drama. I want accuracy. Cast, costumes, sets, facts.
I don’t watch Bridgerton having tried one episode and thought it awful bollocks but as that is not trying to be serious drama then I have no issue with the casting.

I agree with this. It is when characters are related but look completely different. It happens when the actors are all the same ethnicity too though. They have completely different body shapes and facial features.

I am always sitting there wondering until there is a direct reference to their relationship.

I've no issue with individual characters being cast as races they are unlikely to have been irl, but now it's widespread practice I do worry a little that the overall impression is generating a false impression of a past which was overwhelmingly white. I understand the temptation but it's not helpful to anyone to rewrite the past. Like pp I'd like to see interesting black stories told, rather than black actors inserted into what were white stories.

I also feel the default should be disabled actors play disabled characters though.

I don't know, if it's plausible I don't think it needs to be a plot point. Eg we saw a musical where a black understudy played the main role and the actor playing the mother was white. But because the father is an absent character there's no reason that could not be the case.

But with representations of real people it is a bit odd, and also kind of one-sided. People would be up in arms if a famous black person (eg Bob Marley, Nelson Mandela) was played by a white actor. But the other way round it's acceptable and even encouraged in the name of diversity.

Maybe the problem is the focus on stories of white people and there should be more focus on bringing the stories of black/Asian people into the spotlight. That would bring more equity than colourblind casting.

I've thought about this in the past and concluded that it's the level to which we can suspend belief in a particular art form that affects our acceptance of non-conforming casting.

Speaking for myself, it's easy to accept non-comforming casting (eg ethnicity, sex, modern day setting) in theatre but not so easy for film/TV drama, unless it's comedy (eg Carry On).

I don't know if it's psychological or just experience. Early experience of theatre is often pantomime, so obviously very different to real life and you learn to believe the fiction of what you see on stage, knowing that it's not "accurate" but that doesn't matter.

TV and film, on the other hand, we feel should be more accurate representations of reality. I don't know why - is it because we're used to seeing documentaries in those media and therefore associate TV/film with trying to portray truth and accuracy? Or is it because they go through such lengths to get certain elements historically accurate (costume, props, locations etc) that it's then incongruous if the ethnicity of the actors is out of keeping with the period?

We then don't know if we're supposed to suspend belief in the actor's ethnicity and pretend they fit in, or is it actually part of the storyline and there's a backstory about someone of that ethnicity in that historical period?

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.

I agree with OP that it's generally a good thing, but I have the same thought here.
A lot of people get their knowledge of historical events from TV shows. If you care enough about race to say that historically some groups of people were systemically disadvantaged then you're going to get people who think they weren't because of what they've seen on telly. I don't think it's a huge problem, but if you're trying to depict an actual historical power dynamic (of real people) then I think that should be accurate.

In most cases it doesn't matter though, and I welcome more actual diversity.

Most extreme example I’ve seen was in a play at our local theatre - Richard III played not only by a black actor, but by a black woman.
Why???
(It was a pretty rubbish play anyway.)

One of the biggest lies sold to the world is that Jesus was white. Throughout history, he is depicted as white, in films he is depicted as white. In school nativities, he is almost always represented by a white baby doll. I once asked a Y6 class to draw a picture of what they thought Jesus looked like. Yep, he was very white. There were only 2 white children on the class.
As far as I’m concerned, something that is claiming to be historically accurate should use actors that reflect that. However, most dramas / films etc are not claiming to be completely historically accurate.

That’s certainly how it’s played out on another recent, long and vituperative thread about the casting of Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light.

Colourblind casting has been routinely happening in theatre for decades. It’s baffling to me that people get so riled up about it. I mean, I managed to enjoy Phyllida Lloyd’s excellent all-female Julius Caesar without thinking that the RL Ancient Roman senators were black and female. I saw a cinema relay of the Donmar’s Macbeth without last week without thinking that the historical Lady Macbeth was likely to have been mixed-race OR naturally express herself in iambic pentameters.

I agree to an extent OP. It feels like we’re sanitising the past - as if a non-white person would not have faced horrendous prejudice for their skin colour in the earlier part of the 20th century even, let alone in centuries before. Let’s all pretend it was lovely and we don’t have to think about it any more…

On the other hand, when seeing a black person in Bridgerton maybe we’re reminded of the historical incongruity which is quite shocking in a “lest we forget” way.

I feel similarly about the role of women. Let’s not pretend away the patriarchy, eh?

I don’t buy the “oh it’s just froth, it doesn’t matter” argument.

Historical pieces or historical dramas, I think every one should look and sound as if they would have been of the time, they need to look white or black or asian or middle eastern, even if the actor themselves isnt

Any other acting or role, doesnt really matter.

Ive got a particular beef also with wrong accents being used or wrong intonation or phrasing, lots of historical dramas just present like Eastenders with big dresses and wigs half the time.

It wouldnt go down well if a white actor played a famous black person though would it? You’d never get Gary oldman playing Nelson Mandela people would be outraged but he’s a great actor.

It concerns me when it’s historical though, there will be people thinking Anne Boleyn was black same as when lords of the rings came out some people genuinely thought middle east existed.

Some people are furious about the How To Train Your Dragon film. Astrid in the cartoon is a blonde hair white girl. In the remake she’s black.

It’s a film about dragons!!!! It’s not going to be realistic. Yeah there probably wasn’t any black Vikings at the time but still, dragons aren’t real, so it doesn’t matter!!

Its not impossible at all, as you rightly say. There have been black and brown people in England for centuries.
Skin colour was far less important than social status in terms of how people were treated.

I get annoyed when Catherine Of Aragon is portrayed as dark eyed, dark hair and olive skinned when she was pale with auburn hair and blue eyes.

Ticks me right off.

It has started to bother me more as it seems like a bit of a lecture, a 'teaching moment' by the establishment, to rewright British history as though it was inclusive and diverse.
You get the feeling that these projects could not get made without some diversity officer sittlng with the producers and box ticking that -yes we have a quota of actors in the role- we can release the funding.

There is no evidence that St Hadrian was black. However, he was likely of North African origin, possibly from Cyrenaica in what is now Libya.

We need to be very careful when we describe people of being of African origin. Africa is a huge continent. So you mean Nigerian or Libyan? Kenyan or Egyptian? (Many Egyptians have Greek ancestry).

I get the giggles every time I see a film ad for Jesus of Nazareth where Robert Powell tosses Claudia Schiffer hair doing miracles. (Jesus wasn’t white.)

Yep! Similar to people people who could oddly cope with a white Ariel, but not black, despite the fact that shes a fish. Oddly these people don’t seem to suffer the same confusion when Jesus is white, or when ancient egyptians are white, funny that.

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.

I think there is also an element of harking back to a mythical golden age; nobody cared about racial or cultural differences in the past but look how terrible we all are now for racism being so endemic.

I’m not saying that it makes racism excusable nowadays btw!

Absolutely. Scholars conclude, based on archaeological studies of first-century Galileans, that he’d have been around five foot tall, with dark curly hair, dark eyes and olive/dark skin, like the rest of the population. Not the long-haired, light-eyed willowy white guy of ‘tradition’.

My issue with so called colourblind casting is that it's not colourblind at all and only seems to work one way. Giving "white" roles to black actors is applauded, whilst a white actor who took on a "black" role would be viciously attacked.