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.

@Britinme - yes.... though the less said about casting Sir Alec Guinness as the professor in that the better. 'Of its time' i suppose.

antisemitism is antisemitism and it is deplorable and illegal.

@Grammarnut 'I would prefer I got the place, job etc on my merit not because of my sex.' You wouldn't. It'd be given to a young, white, less qualified, less experienced man.

Yes, it's deplorable. It is also racism. Or do you agree with Whoopi Goldberg that the Holocaust was not racist because the victims were white?
Behaving in a racist manner is illegal, I don't think having racist views is - freedom of conscience is a thing in the UK (or it was). We should not seek to have windows into men's souls - and it is what you do that counts someone of non-white ethnicity said.

In the 70s yes. Not so now. Actually my late DH lost a job in the 80s to a less experienced, younger, less qualified but pretty woman. (She might have been cheaper, too.) Late DH was white, btw.

Jewish people aren’t all white. Black Jews were killed as well in the Holocaust.

It’s ignorant to ascribe a race to all Jewish people.

Why would you assume she got the job because she was a woman?

And what does being pretty have to do with it?

I appreciate you pointing out the wage gap though. It’s sad women get paid less than men for the same job.

And what does being pretty have to do with it?

Being pretty gets you a long way in life.

I agree. Whoopi Goldberg was totally out of order with her comments and lost any respect I had for her as an actress. Also, it doesn't matter what colour the murdered Jews were, the Holocaust was racism in bloody action.

She was the only other candidate and she was just out of college, and pretty. DH was both experienced and qualified for the role he applied for. The young woman had no experience and was just qualified - not ideal for the job which involved working with disaffected young men.

How are you the minority in the UK?

A previous poster pointed out that it’s easier to suspend belief when watching the theatre. As long as there aren’t ‘continuity’ errors (eg characters changing ethnicity when shown as child/adult), then it’s easy to be colourblind.

When we watch TV then we expect more realism. Those of us who read a lot of historical fiction are possibly more fussy than those who just like a drama. This is the case where we know what Anne Boleyn looked like, so we expect her character to reflect that in an authentic style period drama.

The black Abbott in the Shardlake adaptation was only a problem because in the books there is an ongoing storyline about the discrimination that Guy suffers due to his race. I am now wondering though how historically accurate those parts of the books are? Was racial discrimination likely?

Characters in fantasy worlds like How to Train Your Dragon or Lord of the Rings could easily be played by any ethnicity without affecting the storyline.

Most viewers don’t expect ‘realism’ from fictional TV.

Jane Austen‘s Pride & Prejudice main plotline was anything but ‘realistic’!

This toxic mindset is an example of what is wrong with this country. If it looks like white fragility and smells like white fragility...

I think people do expect period dramas to be in keeping with the relevant time period.

With Bridgerton, the casting works for me because A) I know that they are modern novels and so even the source material is not likely to be an accurate reflection of the time they were set, B) I know that the stories are fairly silly and they are intended for entertainment value more than anything else, C) they explain why it is more diverse and D) there are lots of other elements that nod to the current period such as instrumental versions of modern pop songs being played at the balls. I don't feel immersed in the history and so the casting is not jarring. I can think of it as being set in an alternative universe.

I don't think it would generally work with Austen for me. It's not about the plot of the books being realistic - it's more about retelling the author's story and that includes portraying the time when it was written (unless changing the setting completely). I could go with it if very well done, but I would be conscious of it and it would remind me that I am watching a TV series and take me out of it a bit.

I asked you Loopytiles if you also consider people who don't want the sex/gender of characters to be swapped are biased, since you clearly think the OP is biased. I would like to ask this again please? What if the Abbot had been a female actress and OP said that they weren't sure about the casting because it seemed unrealistic for the time. Would you say they were biased?

I actually think that would kind of be amazing!

But why do you ‘expect’ or want all white casts in period fiction?

@AmateurNoun Yes, people who dislike women playing ‘male’ roles and vice versa might also have bias.

In school plays at my teens’ school there are often girls/young women in what were written as lead male roles. Makes sense since more girls auditioned, performed well in audition & there are far, far fewer big female roles in most famous plays.

In general am less keen on men in female roles because of there being fewer parts for women, but if it works for the interpretation & drama it works.

Have seen some good all-male Shakespeare & ballet on stage & women in ‘male’ roles in the former.

@AmateurNoun If @Loopytiles or anyone else thinks I'm biased then, as they say in the movies, she can say it to my face!

Think we already have, OP, in our posts.

This is as close to your face as we’re gonna get though, isn’t it?

I've just read Cynthia Erivo is to star in Jesus Christ Superstar as Jesus this summer at the Hollywood Bowl.

Having a cast which doesn't reflect the relevant historical period is anachronistic. If it's a classic novel, I usually want the retelling to be fairly faithful to the source novel, reflecting the author's story.

If a period drama has obvious anachronisms if reminds me that I am watching a performance and reminds me of the artificiality of the whole thing, and reduces my emotional involvement.

We know that the U.K. was >99% at the time of e.g. Austen whereas it is ~80% white now, and in Austen's time people from ethnic minorities would have been servants/merchants etc. rather than landed gentry. If they cast it in line with modern demographics then it is a jarring reminder that it is a modern film/tv series etc. and you are not actually seeing e.g. the Regency era in England. In the same way I would find it jarring if the female leads were wearing obviously modern make-up, a car driving past or if they had women doing roles that they would not have been allowed to do at the time.

Equally, I can see some people might prefer colour-blind casting and want more roles for actors from ethnic minorities, want to see people who look like themselves in these roles and/or don't really care about whether period dramas are accurate.

As I say, I wouldn't say I am really against colour-blind casting. I don't think it always works for me but sometimes it can work well. I don't think that everyone who dislikes it though is biased and I dislike your comment that the OP is guilty of having dressed-up bias.

@Loopytiles "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"

I scrolled back-and found this piece of misrepresentation.

My point was that there is a risk of unintended consequences of completely colour blind casting in that it gives the hard or ill intentioned of thinking the opportunity to gloss over historical racism. For example, the Abbot being black without comment significantly weakens the detailed and carefully researched storyline of a black character. "Well, nobody has an issue with the Abbot-what's Guy whinging on about being discriminated against?"

So many excuses for why people don't like colour blind casting which do mostly relate to racism.

Don't like it, don't watch it.

It appears to be you who have the toxic mindset, seeing racism (by which you appear to mean colourism) everywhere. Currently Jewish people are afraid to go to school, to wear kippas etc in many parts of Europe and the US, because of racism towards them, but several on here have said being Jewish has nothing to do with racism.
Racism is not about colour, it is about otherness. Until everyone understands this there will be no progress because it becomes a 'blame the white people' game. This attitude has led to the victims of a vicious pogrom in 2023 being labelled oppressors, colonialists (they aren't), and the instigators of that pogrom - rather than the people next door who cheered in victory on seeing the naked, raped bodies of young girls with the feet of their rapists/murderers on their bodies, paraded through their streets.
'White fragility' is a racist term to label anything that does not fit with the 'black victim/white oppressor' narrative put out by CRT. News for you, the world is not divided into oppressors(colourists) v victims (non-white), it is a messy place where the oppressed can also oppress, where victims can also be those who deal out harm, and oppressors can also be those who oppose oppression. Why, for example, is Africa, full, presumably, of oppressed people, the place where slavery is still endemic?
Socrates was wrong about voting, btw, Socrateswasrightaboutvoting. Doubtless a trained brain surgeon is far better for your brain op than a random person, but this is a false analogy with democracy since we are not comparing complete expertise with no expertise. A democratic state is one where the populous choose the government they want - the accumulated votes of the many will produce that government. The best guardian of democracy is education - which does not mean, of course, that people will not vote for a man who says (and then does) he will remove men from women's sports (they say they want that because they are educated i.e. they know a man from a woman or a hawk from a handshaw): that is democracy in action, the power of the vote. Socrates was wrong, tyrrany by the few is not better than some form of democracy; far better to be able to remove those governors who do not chime with what the people want.
However, if you want to push the idea that people have no agency outside of the identities society forces on them, voting is probably a bad idea. If you want to say we have agency and can make our own path then you support democracy. NB The UK is not the US, and does not have the same problems. The most disadvantaged people in the UK are white working class boys.