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.

In short, "better representation" may be the aim but "over representation" is what's happened. In drama schools and on screens and stage. Over representation SOLELY in numeric terms, that's my only point here.

I think you’ll find the reasons are far more complex than the conclusions you’ve drawn. Just watch an hour of telly tonight, random current shows - and see if the ratios are the same as those that graduate from theatre school I doubt it though let me know if I’m wrong

Can I just check something?

Let's say I am considering seeing a performance of Shakespeare's Richard III.

If I choose not to see it because they have a black actor in the lead role, does that make me racist?

If I choose not to see it because they have a woman in the lead role, does that make me sexist?

As said upthread I am not really against colour-blind casting, although I think it can cause some problems. But I am just interested to see views especially from those who say that it's racist to not enjoy plays/films/series with colour-blind casting.

I'm fine with anything except movies or TV series based on true stories.

Sorry commenting on the wrong post!

Did you practice this in your best colonial voice before writing it down?

@RedToothBrush so good to see your insightful contributions on a thread like this.

I agree with everything you say, especially this from one of your earlier posts:
"
....Because it causes harm to deny reality.

Honestly I think we start losing our minds when we go down the route of 'being kind' rather than being truthful. The truth has a power which is unavoidable and doesn't change just because we seek to reframe it into a more palatable or socially progressive vision. "

You make the point here though about colour blindness well.

There is this bizarre idea that only one political persuasion is guilty of unconscious bias and sees race.

This clearly isn't the case. Even when its used in a way which is seen as positive.

The point here is the ideological intent thats going on - and that can be both positive or negative. And it can be of varying different levels of obviousness.

My issue is when we start talking about it in morality terms, without taking a step back and being honest about intent and the consequences of that intent. And whether that might also result in unintended consequences.

An example of this is what has become apparent in recent years has been a drive to place this morality and politics over and above content - whether it be historical or pure entertainment of 'lower status' cultural value. There are sections of the audience who have begun to feel lectured to or patronised. This can include people who politically favour inclusion and diversity - it is not exclusive to the 'opposite' political views.

The net result is people tuning out or becoming frustrated at the lack of thought and respect towards the artform on display - theres a feeling of things being politicised to a degree which is inappropriate at cost to the other elements of the art. This can contribute to a backlash which then may actually start to ask questions about representation/inclusion itself. It is counterproductive to the intent of this representation.

To put it another way; in some scenarios it has to be organic and comes from a degree of grass roots spontanity and natturalness rather than feeling like its coming from a place of top down righteousness.

The idea that 'morally correct' people don't see colour is rubbish. We all see colour. We can pretend we are not seeing colour but actually the very act of doing that, is actually an admission of seeing colour. There's something 1984 about denying you are seeing something when its right there in front of your face.

I personally would prefer if there were transparency and honesty over the entire subject rather than this dishonest concept of 'colour blindness' in itself.

We can't be representative if we actively choose to take the role of trying to influence. If we try to influence, we need to be fully aware of how that impacts across society and whether its actually achieving the intended goal with multi groups - not just a singular target group.

This is actually why I don't think you can push too hard on deliberate and politicised representation with an intent to cause change, because it starts to look and feel unnatural, compared to the lived experience of certain groups. Meaningful and lasting change happens at a slower pace than people want; pushing too hard and too fast means people aren't ready for it and become resistant. You have to be aware of how different audiences will have different levels of receptiveness to this.

This is why you need to have a very considered and very self aware thought process on this, rather than one which is detatched from the audience's expectation from a particular genre and setting and desires in terms of what it wants from that particular art form.

In this way, the same person might well be really positive about it in one format, but stick it into another type of media and the same person with the same political beliefs might find it jarring and out of place. So for example rave about a black Queen on a stage performance but be scathing about the exact same casting decisions in a historical drama. Thats why you can't make blanket statements about inclusion v representation.

Its deeply complex, and far too many people seek to simplify it or add this layer of morality to it without being upfront about it or considering the appriopriateness for the situation.

Its also why I don't think colour blindness exists. There is always a series of decision making choices going on.

A really good example of the above is Dr Who. I see today there is talk of it being axed due to falling ratings and this ongoing discussion of whether its as good as it used to be.

The criticism from die hard sci-fi fans has been that the moralising and in your face pushing of certain agendas has been at the expense of the storylines.

And this is true from even its many of its liberal leaning viewers and die hard fans.

When they watch a sci fi programme their expectation is actually 'politics blind' - what they really want is to be scared / entertained and escape from the every day reality of the world but are openminded to the storyline maybe touch certain subjects.

They want daleks to be daleky. They don't want a full on discussion on the sexual preferences of daleks and being forced to consider this in a moralised way. That doesn't mean you can't touch the subject of prejudices, it just means the story needs to be primarily daleks are going to get you and its really scary, first and those other things need to be organic and relevant not awkwardly shoehorned in to make a point. Because the audiences' primary concern is to be scared and entertained.

If you get it right you capitalise on the audience's openmindness to the story. If you pitch it wrong, you close down their receptiveness because they've switched off completely in frustration. Not because of an ism, but because they aren't getting what they want from the medium.

It raises questions of who are you making the art for? Yourself or the audience?

I think theres a big question mark over Russell T Davies on this score on whether he's vanity writing or focused on the audience. (Big echoes here of Arthur Conan Doyle and his writing and his relationship with Sherlock Holmes and the audience here. Lucy Worsley's documentary on the subject is worth a watch - it talks about ideas of ownership by the fans and how Doyle thought he was dumbing down with some of his writing and became frustrated by it. The audience particularly hated him including the paranormal in his later Sherlock books because it betrayed their fondness and expectation for the logical and rationalism of the character. Doyle was into spiritulism and really wanted to expand its acceptance. It was out of step with Sherlock fans).

Likewise if you watch a historical drama, you are buying into at least having an element of historical representation and wanting that element of cultural capital. If you are going to see a stage musical, what is it you are buying - what is the most important element of cultural capital is it you are seeking to purchase?

As I say, its a bit more complex than JUST being about colour. And I don't think 'colour blindness' as an idea really exists.

Dr Who is past it's sell by date. It is a rare programme that maintains standards for that long. It's been going for about sixty years I think.

With a great big break in the middle.

I do think it could do with a rest, not for reasons of "wokeness" but because Davies et al can't really be arsed to write decent stories for their doctors anymore. Space babies fgs.

@redtoothbrush It's not a new thing that people complain sci fi series are pushing an agenda.

I mean, Trek - first interracial kiss on tv. TNG was always examining social issues. People who remember sci fi as just pew pew pew and robots weren't really paying attention.

To be fair it’s been 20 years since the revival, which in itself is a long time for a TV show.

No its not and I have said this.

However - who is the target audience for Dr Who? Compare with Star Trek.

There is a subtle difference. One has been traditionally Saturday evening prime time family viewing with children, whereas the other has ALWAYS been more young adult (16 to 30 age group) with a significant male percentage.

This is true even in the 1960s; Star Trek avoided being cancelled due to disappointing viewing figures because it hit the 'upper-income better educated male' bracket really well. Thus was great for the US market because it was saleable in terms of advertising revenues. Meanwhile Doctor Who was always about winning the ratings battle with ITV for that family viewing market.

The niche of the 'whole family' is the issue, because as a rule, that makes the audience slightly more social conservative in its expectations than a young adult audience.

Thus you can do more with Star Trek in terms of 'pushing the boundary' harder and faster than you can do with Dr Who, before it starts to become a problem to the audience and they start hitting the off switch.

I don't know about now or about the US but as a kid in the 60s England Star Trek was almost compulsory watching at my school and discussed in detail.

This boring point has been made so many times! Please read the thread.

How does the best person for the job (on qualities, ability, qualifications etc) result in white washing? Whatever white washing is? Is black washing better? If so, explain why.

Probably in the same way that the Brits doing away with the male & female category ended up with no female nominees for Artist of the Year - unconscious bias.

I think the Drama school figures are misleading

All the schools quoted are in London and the % of non-white in London is far higher than in other parts of the country. Many of my friends don't want to live outside London, they want the choice of hairdressers and to be able to buy haircare products locally and not have to travel to the one shop in town that sells it, to not have to travel to the one black hairdresser within 10 miles.

I appreciate this is not an issue in most major cities, but my black friends are scared that being outside London makes their life harder.

I suspect that the London drama schools receive a higher proportion of applications from non-white applicants than those outside London - do you now the stats for Bristol Old Vic, Oxford School of Acting, Guilford, Royal Welsh, Glasgow conservatoire etc? I suspect it will be lower (even though there is a large ethnic population in Bristol).

Never heard of this. Partner is a producer. There's loads of all white productions.

Hundreds of white actors play white historical figures. Why are you annoyed about literally a handful of poc? Lots of historical figures of colour have been played by white actors - does that bother you too?

That's a good explanation, in fact, and one I agree with. However, positive discrimination is still discrimination. Chances are, unconscious bias apart, that in the UK a white person is more likely to be chosen for a job because most of the candidates will be white as is 86% of the population.
My actual problem with positive discrimination is it devalues the person positively discriminated for - suggesting that they would not have got the job/place/part had they not been whatever diversity they are. That's a poor outcome.

This is a good point. I know a lot of talent agents seem to encourage ethnic minorities to apply. Asian and Chinese are definitely under represented from what I've seen but they just are not applying in high numbers. I think it's understandable that particularly Asian, Chinese and African communities prioritise education over the arts.

What is a white person plays the role of a black icon?

Or when characters with clearly straightened/whitened teeth or breast implants or dyed hair are playing middle aged medieval peasants?

I hate that too, or the modern makeup. TBF not a LOT you can do about people's teeth, but I notice it for sure. They seem to make an effort with clothes, but they're often not quite right.

Language has to be modernised to be intelligible, so I generally don't mind that unless it's really egregious modern slang, I kind of think of it as a sort of translation.