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.

No. I just thought it was wrong as a lot of young people will watch that as a doco in years to come. Guarantee it.

My sister in law is convinced that Queen Charlotte was black, so I think you have a good point Op.

If there was inequality, why pretend there wasn't? I don't want to see a drama set in 1972 where a gay character is immediately accepted and no comments because I know what that struggle entailed.
Similarly Black people being immediately accepted and integrated in 1970s dramas. Didn't happen.

That is something you could have easily checked before buying the tickets so I think that's on you.

Can’t say it bothers me. As long as it’s a good story, well told and acted, then I’m happy.

I did say "much"! I was thinking more of grammar than accent... anything set in medieval times would have been in Middle English like Chaucer, and almost impossible to follow. We're mostly OK with filtering that to reach a modern audience.

Yes, a bit like they think that The Crown is true!

I think if it is a portrayal of a real historical character or if it is something which matters to the plot then it doesn't work.

If it is a fictional story and people's race is irrelevant to the storyline then whoever is the best actor for the part should get it regardless.

Hamilton they purely went with who could do the insanely fast singing the best.

Very well said! There are difficult questions.

Watching early film and TV is hard, as the conventions have changed so much. The very earliest films were very much linear with no flashbacks or multiple plots with intercutting. Those things are now invisible to us, and you might be right that colourblind casting is on the way to the same status as background convention.

It depends on the story, so yes it's cringeworthy/laughable to see this in a historical drama whereas fine in eg sci fi.

As an immigrant i also find it quite patronising! I have no issue seeing white people in a story about white people.

Overall, I'm onboard with "colour-blind" casting. Haven't RTFT so probably making points others already have, but there are LOADS of variables which are unrealistic in relation to the past. Height, weight, etc, etc. Race is what we're currently trained to attend to. It's no more intrinsically prominent than many other variables.

However, I think if we're going this route, there should be less chastisement of people who take a "colour-blind" approach in other areas. I work in an area where people can get told off if they don't mention race in almost every setting/situation. "Acting colour-blind" is heavily frowned upon. There are, in my experience, many counterproductive elements to this in the fight against racism.

I was coming on to say this. Also, where are the non London accents in dramas? There are plenty of other accents all over the country, but we just get the big city ones, or vaguely "yokel" ones which aren't really from anywhere.

I hope you all get just as concerned when non-white historical figures are played by white actors. Or when disabled historical figures are played by non-disabled actors.

I agree, I think it is detrimental to black history in the country at that time to pretend it was the norm hence no discrimination.

'I'd be fine with a black Anne Boylen.

I'd much rather my kids grew up in a world of colourblind casting and saw more mixed representation on TV of real people than the 'historical accuracy' point.

Also, Jesus wasn't white and 'father christmas' aka Saint Nicholas was Italian, but no one seems to care about 'accuracy' there.

You used the word ‘disconcerting’ though. That means uncomfortable or unsettling.

Also, if you really think ‘young people’ are going to seriously think that George Washington was black because he’s portrayed by a black actor in a musical where the whole point is to draw comparisons between the founding fathers and communities of colour and immigrants, then it suggests you think Hamilton audiences are going to be absolute morons.

I don’t think that’s likely and even if it were, art should not have to cater for people’s stupidity.

I actually think that having a black abbot would be possible. I think we have been conditioned to think that medieval britain was all white people but in fact there were all nationalities and races represented at all levels in society.

I think that portraying black people as having been equals in society, portraying gay people as being happily accepted, people with disabilities allowed to lead a normal life (as opposed to the workhouse or a circus) - it's just wrong. It devalues the struggles that people had in the past, that had to be overcome to bring us all to where we are today. Fiction or not - if you innacurately represent the time period in such a way that we pretend that inequalities and abuses never happened you are basically portraying lies. (I nearly said whitewashed there and thought again - even though whitewash is a form of white paint you can use to cover nasty marks on walls etc!).

If it was "historically accurate" you probably wouldn't have been able to understand half the English/dialect - language in historical dramas has been heavily modernised for a modern audience, why shouldn't the racial mix of the cast, unless the (mainly white) audience find non-white actors distasteful, or in your opinion including non-white actors "ruins" the show?

I don't think Hilary Mantel was ever aiming for historical accuracy in Wolf Hall - history is an art, not a science. She produced one interpretation of events, whereas many historians would point out Thomas Cromwell was an utter murderous bastard.

OneWaryCat · Today 11:33

'D be fine with a balck Anne Boylen.
I'd much rather my kids grew up in a world of colourblind casting and saw more mixed representation on TV of real people than the 'historical accuracy' point.

So you think it is not important for your kids to have a grasp of facts and history (which includes knowing that people from certain backgrounds and races have been discriminated against throughout history)?

You are not doing them any favour by choosing political correctness over reality.

In theatre, it isn’t just about fiction and the suspension of disbelief, cross casting of all kinds is often used to give a different perspective, to interrogate or emphasise an interpretation of the text.

The (magnificent) NT Coriolanus referenced above featured David Oyelowo in the title role, cannot think of a better actor right now to play that role. Stunning performance, brilliant handling of Shakespearean text, exactly the right physique and presence.

I would also not necessarily say the casting of the show was ‘colourblind’ as his family (mother, children) were also cast black (and also gave phenomenal performances).

And the whole production had a relevant and piercing contemporary context, exploring the strength and dangers of PR, social media, etc.

And using lots of fantastic digital projection: also not authentically Shakespearean.

One of the best Shakespeares I have seen for power of meaning.

In the end directors need to understand exactly what they are doing and why in any casting (and other artistic choices) in any production. How those choices affect the telling of the story, the meaning, and what you want your audience to be offered.

Most approaches will be valid if the right decisions, backed by thought and understanding, have been made.

Fictional stories not about race it really doesn't matter what ethnicity people are.

Stories which involve race and true stories probably need to be accurate so the story telling is correctly presented.

Six is an interesting example

Yes it is historical but definitely not historically accurate (and not trying to be) so the very colorblind casting doesn't matter.

Every time there’s a new production its a chance for the director to make us look at things in a different way so yes, I think it would be great. It just shifts your perspective and that’s what great art is all about.

If you have not already watched it I recommend, "The Rookie Feds", unfortunately there is only one series.

The main character is a black woman in her late 40s with a few curves. So rare to see.