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.

@TheAmusedQuail "It's fiction, on TV. You know it isn't real. Look past the melanin and see the story"

It would be great if you actually read my post and addressed the point I made...

Disconcerting? Really?

It made you uncomfortable or worried or unsettled?

Also Hamilton does not hold itself out as a documentary.

I think plays/ musicals there is a greater suspension of belief and so the colour of the actors doesn’t matter as much.
But in TV and film it does

Agree. Having a mix of ethnicities in Hamilton when watching the musical doesn't even register. If I was watching a historical film about his life, having one of the Schuyler sisters randomly being black would jar horribly.

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

The point is that if we see black people in positions of power without comment it distorts some of our understanding of discrimination.

Entirely fictional, do what you like. Fictional enough to be only loosely based on past, same. If it's all an imagined version then it doesn't really matter.

But if it's a proper attempt at telling a historical story then I think it makes more of a difference and can undermine understanding of discrimination. I feel the same about putting women in positions they couldn't possibly have held in the period.

I realise that you have good intentions, but as a mixed race (Black and White) person I always cringe when I see these kinds of threads. It always descends into 'WeLL WhY CAn'T a WHITE AcTor plAy MLK' kinds of nonsense, which is annoying as white people aren't historically discrimnated against. Also, it is forgotten that pretty recently, it was seen as OK for Emma Stone to play an Asian character, and for Joseph Fiennes to play MJ.

Now the main protagonist in that film was shown as having a black/husband/parter but as she was shown as an outcast/rebel it was less of an issue because it fit with her rebel persona.

Yes it was really bizarre - it referred to the racism in connection to their relationship and his life, but zero regarding what the police officer would have experienced.

The actress did a great job, but pretending her race away was so weird in the context. It didn't have to be the story, but it should have been part of it.

‘High end’ productions like Wolf Hall are still fiction.

How to Train Your Dragon is fantasy fiction.

Few outside the US would’ve heard of Alexander Hamilton at all were it not for the musical.

Strange to suggest that ‘accuracy’ about skin colour specifically (not other aspects of productions) for the times portrayed should apply to fictional productions.

Also strange to suggest that fiction about certain times should seek to ‘accurately’ represent inequality and poor treatment of some people in those times. Rather than other stories of the funders’ and writers’ choice.

When actors don't look anything like the character it detracts from the story and makes it (far) less credible and hence enjoyable. We don't want ugly actresses playing femmes fatales or extremely handsome actors with a wonderful physique playing tramps because it detracts from the story. The same goes for colourblind (euphemism) casting.

This that are saying it doesn't matter, do you honestly think it's ok for a film centred on Queen Victoria as the main character, to be played by a black actress?

Or a biopic about Martin Luther King to be played by a white man?

Or The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe to have the Lion played by a Tiger?

it is forgotten that pretty recently, it was seen as OK for Emma Stone to play an Asian character, and for Joseph Fiennes to play MJ

I haven't seen this...but tbf if you wanted it to be at all authentic, it would be pretty difficult for any black actor to have played MJ!

Wolf Hall is fiction using historical characters who did exist however.

Ive long had beef with slim young looking 'old' Henrys in the same way

Hadrian was of Libyan descent. As Alka Seghal-Cuthbert, director of race relations group Don't Divide Us, is quoted as saying, "The compulsive search for 'lost Black Britons is not only embarrassing, but it weakens and distorts the truth value of the claim being made."

It's OK in some shows but in others it's just daft. The latest series of Wolf Hall springs to mind.

Several years ago I took my daughter and a young cousin of hers to the Globe. I prepared the outing carefully and ensured the children knew the story and characters so that they could follow along. The casting was so off (gender/race) that it was impossible for the children to understand what was going on.

Its almost like you didnt read a word I said and dont understand the history.

Never mind

It’s called acting. Personally I don’t have a problem with it. For instance Lord of the Rings could have been a lot more diverse as it’s a completely made up place. If people watch historical drama for a history lesson then a documentary might be better. There are probably a lot of other inaccuracies that go unnoticed in historical dramas.
Personally loved David Copperfield. It didn’t matter that the cast was diverse as it was another interpretation of a fictional book.

I think that, as PP have said, it feels very different in the theatre where, historically, directors have had to work with a limited pool of actors (especially in Rep set-ups) and there's a long tradition of suspending disbelief. (Shakespeare and all those men-playing-women-playing-men.) I do wonder whether directors and authors who come into film/TV from the theatre world are more likely to be flexible over casting?

Seeing real locations helps film/TV to feel more "true to life" which is why casting should probably follow similar. But we have to remember that everything we see on the screen is filtered through multiple levels. Dialogue is normally in modern English, as an obvious example, and nobody (much) complains about that!

I gave up on Wolf Hall after seeing Jane Seymour's mother portrayed as mixed race. The actress was shoe horned in because of the BBC desire to appear diverse.
Television is a visual medium so why go to the trouble of having historically accurate sets and costumes if something as obvious as a characters ethnicity is ignored.

True, but it could have been done with prosthetic makeup, which Fiennes had to have anyway.

Many here have made the distinction between theatre & screen, and I think that's because theatre is always objectively artifice, and actively says to the the spectator 'we know this isn't real, but still engage with the other elements', whereas screen often asks you to treat everything as if it is really true. Screen hides its artifice, so when it glares out at you, it's hard to let go.

But ultimately, we also do know it's all false, all fiction. Historical dramas are fiction, documentaries are fiction... All period dramas are not fully historical, they still take on some styles of the period they were made in (it's why it's so funny looking back at old versions of period dramas, use of make up etc screams out at you). We all know that.

So why is it uncomfortable to us when something doesn't ring true - when we all know none of it really is? And why is it that it's the colour of skin that's bugging people? That's a pretty uncomfortable question to address isn't it, really.

I think - because we do know it's all just fiction - it's about convention and what we're used to, and things we are used to we can accept as 'real' and things we are not used to stand out and highlight the 'artifice'. I wonder, for casting, a few more years under our belt, and we get used to it, will we just 'not see it' any more?

I have a feeling it really will feel less and less like something that sticks out, but I'm not sure, and I expect there are some difficult questions to ask ourselves about why it bothers us.

😄😂

Damn facts.

We should be kind and clammer to pretend facts don't matter.

My eyes can't roll hard enough, when I see comments like this.

'Faux concern'.

Where you come from DOES matter. Otherwise you set have this weird perception that somehow between Black King Henry VIII and now, everyone who was in power who was black was killed off. Which, as we know, is ridicilous and actually does something of a disservice to reality in the process of 'being inclusive'.

My point is that where we are now, is the product of what came before. If we ignore this, we rewrite history and our understanding of the present with that. Even if its fiction.

The idea that history doesn't matter is stupid. History is the template for understanding how the future might play out. It repeats.

In the same way, if we just ignore weight and we go down the whole 'body positive' thing, we are selling a lie and a disservice to people who are bigger. This doesn't mean we get to be cruel about it, but we also shouldn't be creating total fictions and unrealities either.

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.

The unintended consequences of lying matter.

And when addressing historical stories, even if fictionalised in some way, for entertainment purposes we are still educating many people about a past - there is a certain understanding that it will reflect a story with SOME degree of historical context if not full accurancy. There's definately a different level of expectation about the subject matter. If you are going to have a story about Henry VIII and make him black it cease to be Henry VIII. He may as well be a character set in the year 4678 - I'd rather you actually did that and told the story of Henry VIII in a modern or futuristic setting if its really about the story if thats the route you want to take. That way you can you can have that creatively and inclusivity. Otherwise it should be about historical contexts as part of your story, even if its clearly fictional.

My point is its either its a period drama or its not. Don't pretend it is if you aren't going to place importance on the history part.

Or authentic rapping.

I hated it, but I didn’t do my research and thought I was going to an actual grime musical, not a chorus of stage school talent doing stagey ‘teeth and smiles’ routines.

I complain about that all the time, and have done on this thread.

I find it incredibly jarring, particularly in historical programmes where people would have largely spoken with a yokel type accent and they're all there talking posh BBC/shakespearean type accents

The other Boleyn girl would have been a lot less enjoyable to watch without the Aussie Eric Bana. Although a realistic Henry might have asked some much needed questions.