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 think that poster is doing their version of “oh I have a black friend, so I’m not a raging racist, nor am I trying to explain racism to victims of racism”.

You are literally describing white people.

And yes, racism is about race as in colour.

No clue why you would think otherwise.

Anti-semitism is different. That’s why it’s called anti-semitism.

Quite.

Having a mixed daughter who looks white and hates Bridgerton is a bizarre flex.

You cannot be aware of something you are not aware of and you cannot be guilty of it morally, either.
And backhanded ways of calling someone racist is racist.

But is misleading. And you mistake me. I am pointing out the reasons why people say it does not work. Do not mistake what I explain for what I believe.
I think Elizabeth Bennett played by a non-white person when the book is a realistic novel set in 1790 is a little far-fetched.
I am fine, personally, with Genghis Khan played by a white woman, Hamlet played by a woman, and sometimes Henry V played by a brown man. When it works it is delightful. Sometimes it does not work. I was not enthralled by a Globe production of A Midsummer Night's Dream with one of the lovers played as a gay man (it can't work with the plot, since the two lost couples swap partners and the two women do not get off with each other, nor do the two men) and completely pissed off by a man in a tutu playing a fairy (he looked totally silly, and not in a good way) - but you could have Puck played by a man in a dress, that would work (as long as we are talking cross-dressing, not that wearing a frock magically turns a man into a woman, that doesn't work even in Shakespeare and Tiresias is a one-off and also a myth).
I note you say 'too white' but 'too black' is also possible.

backhanded ways of calling someone racist is racist No. It can be insulting, offensive, rude etc etc. But calling someone racist isn't racist.

And as for internalised racism, we all have it to a certain extent. We will all have beliefs based around what we know and what feels alien to us. It's how we deal with it that counts. Doubling down and denying the existence of racism, ignoring the lived experience of people of colour, makes us racist ourselves.

As part of the majority, we have to accept that we do not define the lived experience of people of colour. We can have an opinion, but as part of the majority, we cannot say with any authority or experience that 'there is very little racism in the UK'. A WOC could say, I have experienced very little racism here. But even that would just be one person's experience.

Because there is an avalanche of factual info on the UK as a racist country. And it only takes a 10 second Google to find info about it.

We do not define anyone else's experienced ('lived experienced' is an unlovely phrase and also a tautology, you can't have experience once dead, I think) nor truly know what anyone else thinks or feels.
I'm not part of the majority. I am a white European. We're the minority, which was drawn to my attention a couple of weeks ago by a watts app message re a meeting I was attending: someone was not attending as they were going to a 'global majority heritage gathering', which would have interested me, in fact, had I known about it. However, global majority seems to be a code word for non-white societies, though I am unsure which groups are included and which excluded; I am also unsure whether I would have been welcome, but I hope so.
There is an avalanche of info on the UK as a racist country, you say - but on what evidence? Does it have pass laws, Jim crow laws, embedded discrimination, lack of freedom of conscience, rules about wearing/not wearing hijab, people waving placards making racist comments on demos (actually that one is around - anti-Semitic comments lately abound since Oct 7th 2023, so hands up there), pro-white policies? It does not and most institutions, communities etc strive hard to make sure discrimination does not take place on any grounds.
As a woman I have never been happy with positive discrimination. I would prefer I got the place, job etc on my merit not because of my sex.

I note you say 'too white' but 'too black' is also possible.

In each of those I was thinking about a miscasting I was aware of - Jesus as a white guy and Scarlett Johansson in Ghost In The Shell in the case of too white, Winona Ryder as Zachary Quinto's mum in Star Trek (6 years between them, damn it!) as too young, Ben Platt playing Dear Evan Hansen at about 30 as too old.

When someone black is cast in a role assumed to be white, half the internet loses its shit - see Hermione in the Cursed Child or Ariel in the live action Little Mermaid. So I think there's plenty of times 'too black' has been discussed. Hell, it's what the thread is about.

I stand by my position that if it doesn't disrupt the soul of the story, the ethnicity of the actor or actress doesn't necessarily have to matter.

Whereas turning Anne Elliot into a wise-ass who talks to camera (I'm referring to the godawful Persuasion adaptation) is a complete desecration of a fantastic character and great story.

No need to be faceituous op.

It’s simply a numbers game. If you are a member of the population that is 85% white and only 70% of acting roles are given to white women then your odds are lower. But no one is allowed to say this for fear of being branded racist. This is further compiled by the fact that there are 3 male acting roles to every 1 female makes it not a great game to go in at the moment if you are a white female. Literally every other female lead in the west end at the moment is played by a black actress which makes no sense white you consider the percentage in the population.

I cannot believe that anyone would dare say that being Jewish was not a racism issue. You are aware of the Holocaust? You are aware of anti-Semitism? Are you aware of the pogrom on 7th Oct 23, of the raped and murdered women, of the hostages, some now dead, held in Gaza?
I don't believe you dare to say being Jewish is not a race issue in this - or any - place.
I have reported you as your remark suggests you might think anti-Semitism is not racism or is acceptable, Iwanttoliveonamountain.

Well said

I thought that comment was ridiculous

I tend to agree with all you have said. Re: Hermione, her parents are dentists and it's the 90s, so likely she is not a person of colour but it doesn't change the story trajectory if she is, and it is important that there be good roles available for people of all ethnicities. The Little Mermaid is a Nordic fairy tale and mermaids a Nordic trope - but I don't mind Ariel being a person of colour either (more worried by the happy ending when the original story has a quite different message).

Meant to say, @BeaAndBen that I totally agree re Anne Elliott. Yuck. Total ruin. I loved Persuasion the first time I read it, at 15, and it continues my favourite J. Austen.

My favourite JA too...maybe because I can identify with the "older" woman?

And the adaptation with Amanda Root was also very well acted

Racism is about race but not colour. People of any ethnicity can be racist, sadly.

Anti-Semitism is racism. It is no different from any other kind of racism.

Of course I described white people, adding that Italians and Spaniards at the very least have some aspects of dual heritage. The Welsh do not - the Romans describe the Silurii as small and dark, with sallow skin, so likely Brythonic?

I agree about the original story of Little Mermaid, but when we have one of her best mates as a crab with a Caribbean accent and calypso music, I think we’ve moved away from the Danish vibes 😂

How so you stand on Fitzwilliam Darcy having a fully clothed swim? My Darcy would rather risk heatstroke than so demean himself. Then again, his intrinsic coolness means he never breaks a sweat whatever the weather.

Yours are not points often made, but true enough. Being an a woman makes getting parts difficult, since most good ones are for men. Me? I'm for women playing Hamlet and Jekyll and Hyde - why not, after all.

I find the swimming in the lake scene a bit cringeworthy, but definitely sexy. No, Mr Darcy would never have done such a thing, so to be accurate it shouldn't be in the dramatisation. I think the story stands without it, too.
I thought the crab was fun.

I love Sebastian the crab. He’s the best bit.

“What have they got? A lot of sand…
We’ve got a hot crustacean band!”

A touch sarky. Emeraldsrock explained further down what she meant.

No, she does not object to the black people in it, she hates it because it is stupid, and bears no relation to England in the early nineteenth century when there were no black dukes though there might be black butlers (there is one in Vanity Fair). She does not take kindly to historical nonsense and would without doubt (haven't asked but I might) object equally to a 'Bridgerton' set in Moghul India where most of the princes were black (or white) - because they were not (I would object because it's unhistorical, stupid and misleading). She also thinks the Brigerton story lines are poor, whatever the colour of the actors.
How ready you are, Princessconsuelabananahammock9, to ascribe dislike of black people to people because they dislike a programme with black actors in it. A bit of racist assumption? It couldn't be that the programme is not very good, could it?

How so you stand on Fitzwilliam Darcy having a fully clothed swim? My Darcy would rather risk heatstroke than so demean himself. Then again, his intrinsic coolness means he never breaks a sweat whatever the weather.

Historical accuracy would probably have mandated him skinny dipping rather than keeping his shirt on.

To me, watching a character in a historical (or even fictional) context where that character's ethnicity would make a distinct difference to their life experience at that time is what doesn't work, and that applies whatever the character's race. It dismisses the life experience of the character in that context as irrelevant and to me that makes them a less convincing character.

Imagine if you were filming A Passage to India. In the novel, Adela Quested claims the Indian doctor Aziz sexually assaulted her in the Marabar Caves. The court case that follows polarizes the Indian and English communities until Adela admits she was mistaken and Aziz is innocent. If Adela was played by an Indian woman and Aziz by a white English man, it would be a completely different story, because the novel is at least partly to do with the power and status of the British in India in that period.