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.

So you are white and your children look white?

This racism you experienced in the 80’s was as white people?

Is this for real?

In the 1930s working class people attacked Moseley's black shirts who marched in the East End and who were overtly anti-semitic. They attacked the Mosleyites because they were anti-semitic fascists (we knew what fascism was, then). In WWII white US soldiers were banned from some pubs - there were notices saying only black US soldiers allowed - because the locals were appalled by US white racism against their own people who happened to be another colour.
Yes, there has been racism. There is racism in any country you care to enter, directed against the 'other'. But you will find more racism in Italy, or France than in the UK. Our professions, our jobs are filled equitably at all levels with people who are British but not ethnic, i.e. not Anglo-Saxon-Viking-Celts.
There has been concerted effort in the UK to eradicate as much racism as it is possible to do and this has been backed by the citizens of the UK.
NB People often say that in the 70s there was racism against the Irish (one lot of them had a habit of blowing some of us up). I have a very recognisably Irish surname and the only verbal attack that ever came my way because of it was a demand to know why I did not support the IRA. (They are terrorists and I am a Protestant and a Unionist who happens to have an Irish Catholic surname.)

You didn't read what I said. If 'your daddy's dipped in chocolate' you do not look white. (Italian, maybe.)

What race do you think Italians are?

No, but my DD is dual-heritage. D'you know the term 'chi-chi' by any chance? I have an Irish surname. Colour is not the only basis of racism, as I expect you are aware.

They are Europeans, and white caucasians. Caucasian refers (in some racist nineteenth century trope) to bone structure of the face. But some Italians are quite dark (also Spanish - who can equally be blonde and blue-eyed) mainly from input from Moors who ruled Iberia and Sicily during the middle ages - NB the Moors were not black, either. The Welsh are dark haired and eyed and tend to olive complexions too - perhaps I could have said look Welsh?

@Grammarnut 'the UK has very little racism.'

That deliberately, defiantly tone deaf statement just negates your points I'm afraid.

It isn't long ago that our leader was an openly admitted racist, 'letter boxes', 'picanninies', 'watermelon smiles', 'bank robbers'. At the highest possible political echelon.

Racial insults in the street.
Racial bias in education.

And racist MN members using 'representation' as an excuse for their internalised racism.

God, this thread is so depressing. And I started it.

I agree. Racism should be so 20th century.

Perhaps I was wrong to say 'very little' since one type of racism seems ok everywhere lately. Anti-Semitism. We should remember that racism is not about colour, it's about 'other'. The UK has tried hard. Unfortunately undermined lately by pro-terrorist marches. I have not seen 'water melon smiles' as a description since I was c. 5.
And this thread is about colour-blind casting, so maybe posters should return to that?

Wanted to ask what is meant by 'internalised racism'. I suspect it's the same as 'unconscious bias', a term that seems to be applied to white people (it's only ever white people as though racism was only a white vice) when said person shows no signs of racism. It's a racist term, I suspect.

What were you expecting, Curlew? Colour-blind casting is an issue that raises hackles across all sorts of divides. A black Shylock is possible, of course, but Jessica would also have to be a matching ethnicity. A black Henry V would only work in an all-black or mixed-race caste and set somewhere other than fifteenth century Europe. Elizabeth Bennet was not black - to do the story that way would mean setting it somewhere quite different, and then the story might not work because the context is important. As long as people give a toss about race colour-blind casting will be problematic for some.

And historical figures (real people) being portrayed by actors of a different ethnicity misrepresents history, which suits some but is not good for the understanding of past events. The other difficulty is that it always seems to be the 'white' characters who must be colour-blind cast. No-one is happy with a European Tipu Sultan, or an army of white Zulus, but those should be as acceptable as a black Anne Boleyn, if colour blind casting is wanted. Since they don't seem to be acceptable - and there I think we are in the 'victim/oppressor' narrative as though a victim could not also be an oppressor - there is something wrong with the colour-blind casting narrative. Hence thread has gone in unexpected directions.

My DD - dual-heritage if that matters - hates Brigerton.

@Grammarnut "What were you expecting, Curlew?"

I was hoping that people might be interested in the specific point I raised. And not be racist. And not suggest that "racism against white people" is a "thing". And not blame affirmative action for all the ills of the world. And not suggest (although this did make me laugh) that Peter Pan being played by a girl is a new thing stemming from Wokeness. And....no, I give up.

@Grammarnut - I think you are very mistaken. Where race is important to the story or character, it needs to remain as it. Where race is not part of the narrative, playing around with it is absolutely fine.

Dev Patel was fantastic in the wonderful and rather surreal David Copperfield. That messed around with a lot of conventions and styles - at no point were we under the misapprehension we were watching an accurate recreation of life in Victorian England. So the race of characters didn’t come into it - they (within context of the film) didn’t notice so we didn’t need to either.

The absolutely moronic “You wouldn’t make MLK white” nonsense that crops up repeatedly is barely worth wasting breath on, but when someone’s race is a crucial part of the narrative, no, you can’t swap that out.

Ditto making Florence Nightingale or Anne Lister a bloke - it is because they are women that their stories grab us.

You could certainly make Eliza Bennet black or Asian. The story is about sex and class, so mixing up cast members’ race in a production wouldn’t change it anymore than setting Austen in the modern era would harm it. (And Clueless was bloody great.)

The soul of the story, its key essence, needs to be retained for a production to work. Within that. Setting Merchant Of Venice in 1936 with a woman as Shylock, giving Richard III Nazi styling, making David Copperfield a lad from Gudjurati parents… it’s all ok. The soul of the story is still there.

I think you are very mistaken. Where race is important to the story or character, it needs to remain as it. Where race is not part of the narrative, playing around with it is absolutely fine.

You can't really say that people are mistaken on this.

Some people will be bothered when there is not a realistic representation of the period in terms of race, and some will not, even in stories which do not focus on race.

My mother is always annoyed when they cast actors who are a different age to the characters in the story. Others will be able to overlook this.

I don't want to watch any period dramas/plays where they swap the sex/gender of the characters.

My husband just generally doesn't watch any drama because he is completely unable to suspend his disbelief over the most minor of things.

I get a bit sick if the attitude that people who like colour-blind casting are morally superior. It's not really a morality issue. It's principally about story telling and the experience of watching a story, and how much you want to sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of representation of the modern UK. There's no right or wrong on this.

Yet you did start it, OP, and suggested you dislike seeing certain people in roles - in fictional productions - that you think should be played by white people, ‘for accuracy’.

Loopytiles can you tell me please, if I dislike seeing women in roles - in fictional productions - that I think should be played by men for accuracy, would that make me biased? E.g. a woman playing a famous male character or doing a job which women would not have historically done in the relevant period.

I'm not against colour-blind casting but I cannot understand why people think that those who dislike it are biased.

It's (obviously) racism someone isn't aware they have. Making a comment like, 'There is very little racism in the UK.' shows total disconnect between many, many, many factual and statistical evidences of racism in the UK and their belief system.

Not against colourblind casting in most of the sense but think it may have gone too far.

I agree something like Bridgerton is fine but a more serious historical character is not.

It should be representative of the actual population of the country it is in order to to make it fair.
So I would expect to see more black actors in American productions as they represent a larger portion of the US population.
In the UK people of African origin are approx 3 percent the population. If anything I would expect to say more actors of Asian origin in parts on tv or in musicals etc that are in the UK.
As this is definitely not the case I think it is simple a woke agenda aiming to please who knows who?
It is very often the same types of characters that are replaced with black actors, it used to be judges, teachers etc now it is mainly the female lead, the male lead being “too important” and still played by a white male.

A white female actress has literally hardly any opportunities at the moment in the UK despite Caucasians in the overwhelming majority in the uk population. The odds are very much stacked against them.

@Emeraldsrock "A white female actress has literally hardly any opportunities at the moment in the UK"

🤔🤔🤔🤔Oh, I agree. I literally can't remember the last time I saw a white actress ....🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

You can't really say that people are mistaken on this.

Well, I can, @AmateurNoun , because what @Grammarnut said was:

A black Henry V would only work in an all-black or mixed-race caste and set somewhere other than fifteenth century Europe. Elizabeth Bennet was not black - to do the story that way would mean setting it somewhere quite different, and then the story might not work

A black Henry V or Julius Caesar or Elizabeth Bennet (or Daivd Copperfield) wouldn't need an all black cast or a cast of mixed race actors only, because the story is not about being an outsider. Therefore race doesn't need to come into it. For some, yes, it will break their willing suspension of disbelief too much but for many others it won't.

People play too young or too old or too white or too small (hello, Tom Cruise as Reacher) all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Rudolph Walker was in Timon of Athens in 1991, so this debate has been churning on for a good few years.

Tracey-Ann Oberman has been touring as Shylock for about 3 years now (it's a very good production). Denzel Washington played Macbeth in Joel Cohen's film and the Prince in Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado. Adjoa Andho was Richard III.

These have sold a shitload of tickets, so saying "it won't work" is demonstrably wrong. For many, it can and does.

I think in your example, it doesn't make sense but only for those familiar with the books, and if the backstory of the friend is shared. Otherwise it's just an anachronism.

Personally I don't care unless it's about real people. I don't think anyone is giving a second thought about the race of a fictional character and equating it to real life.

I think you’ll find if you turn in your tv you’ll find plenty of white female actors.

Why would it matter that she hates Bridgerton?

Does she hate it because black people are in it?