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 am jealous. Her epponine was iconic. Would have loved to have seen her in it

I'd be interested in watching a series about this but it'd either have to be a documentary or a drama where the actors' race loosely reflected those being described!

I'm way behind on my historical non-fiction reading - any recommendations of books?

Yes I find 'colour-blind' casting distracting and absurd when it is historically unrealistic and, for example, when members of the same family are played by actors of different races. I loved the latest Wolf Hall series but casting a black actress as Jane Seymour's sister Bess (when Jane was famously pale skinned) just created confusion and I had to look up Bess online to check that she really was Jane's sister. And I lose count of the number of silly online threads I've seen from people who genuinely believe, since that TV adaptation, that Anne Boleyn was black. To my mind this practice does an injustice to black history as well as white history, as it misrepresents the roles, stories, and struggles of both.

Really? I thought she did a huge amount of research in order to make it historically accurate? It's an interpretation, yes, but based on source material.

But it depends a lot on the intentions of the makers of the production.

If it's something like a Carry On film, where they're obviously just looking for gags with the context purely a springboard for the jokes, then it doesn't really matter that Sid James wasn't actually Egyptian.

But if people are to be informed/educated - as well as entertained, often - in a film or programme about an actual historical person, as you say, it just causes confusion as to which people did actually exist historically.

When it comes to Jesus, people may well just view the miracles and being the Son of God as just stories, but surely they wouldn't be ignorant enough to not know/care that he is very well documented as having actually existed as a person - and almost certainly with typical racial appearance for the country, so neither white nor black but Middle Eastern.

Children who watch a wide range of films have a grasp of the facts, that stripey little fish do not actually speak, and if you go through the back of your wardrobe you will get as far as the stud wall..

Despite us going to huge lengths to convince them that the history roots of St Nicholas are manifest in an immortal man flying round the sky with reindeer.

Facts and education can exist alongside ‘what if…’ and new interpretations, and an understanding that someone can represent something without being it . ( which is lucky as actors can play King Lear without havjng their eyes put out)

I think it's refreshing to see black actors cast where their ethnicity is not part of the plot. There doesn't always have to be an 'agenda'. Of course there has been struggle and discrimination, but it doesn't always have to go alongside that person's story. Just as it would be great to cast women without it having to make some kind of equality quota. I think it's important that black actors in the context of historical drama can be the 'default', rather than the 'commentary'.

I think paying attention to language is important, though. For example, I saw the (excellent) stage production of Little Big Things, based on the life of paraplegic artist Henry Fraser. He is white and his parents are white - all played by white actors. But his two brothers were played by black actors. In the musical, Henry's mother sings a song about being 'so surprised' when the third brother was born.

She means, in the context of the story, that it was surprising to her to have another child. In the context of the colour-blind stage show, the audience were like, no shit Sherlock, it is v surprising you birthed a black child. And suddenly we were thinking about who the father might be - which had no relevance to the story!

another eg - I saw Sigourney Weaver as a female Prospero in The Tempest. At no point did I think 'she should have been a bloke' because the language was adapted to make sense. If she had been banging on about being a father, I might have thought, hmm, this isn't working.

I find it interesting that English distinguishes between "history" and "story" whereas it's the same word in most other European languages... "Historically accurate" means, I think, a story which doesn't obviously contradict known sources. Which doesn't mean that it's true. Other interpretations about Cromwell's character are entirely possible, which also don't conflict with sources.

This is really true. I once compiled a folder of references to bring out when people argued about it online! People can get very vehement about [a] all important people in the UK were white, or [b] all dark-skinned people in the UK were oppressed. My folder got lost in a broken computer.

It just isn't true. People didn't care as much. You find references to dark skin just like references to red hair. There are loads of old paintings of British scenes containing black people of all social standings.

It's also worth mentioning that African doesn't equal black. Many North Africans are white. Most are olive, like Greeks and Turks. Another thing worth remembering is that the Roman army called on units from across the empire for all its campaigns; these definitely included black and brown soldiers, who will have been stationed in Britain and mainland Europe. And there were black Vikings, by the way!

Our expectations about the social standings of dark-skinned people in majority white societies are heavily tainted by the transatlantic slave trade. Before that got under way, slavery had been totally colour blind for millennia. Black didn't mean slave or servant, because anybody could be forced into service if they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The wealthiest person of all time was Mansa Musa, the black king of 14th century Mali. He was also a pretty nice guy, as filthy-rich kings go.

Unless race is central to the story I don’t see the issue.

Gods of Egypt and every film on Jesus contains white leads. Angelina Jolie has played a real life character who is black-white birracial in real life.

I genuinely don’t care.

Learning history and watching a TV interpretation are two entirely different things. And it's not about 'political correctness' - it's about choosing the best actress.

Pretty shit if the only dramas and representations our children see on TV are black actors reduced to playing 'slaves' or 'the help'. What does that teach them? Never mind the black children watching it.

Of course entirely different if it's a TV show or drama specifically ABOUT race.

If what my kids knew about history and reality was based on representations seen on tv, I'd be failing them pretty badly already.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point, but there has been a good example given in this thread about not immediately understanding a plot point because they assumed it was based on racism, although the real-life character was not of a different race.

Would you say this example is due to racism, or a learning difficulty?

I found it a bit confusing in Wicked Little Letters, because the policewoman was played by an Asian actress, and at first I thought the way she was treated was due to racism, but then I realised that she was actually playing a white policewoman (it’s based on a true story) and the treatment was due to sexism

Yes. I know.
I am well aware that history is open to interpretation.
Also, that source materials can vary.
"Historically accurate" as a term does exist. Evidence can be cross referred and verified. I've done such verification myself and drawn conclusions which I can say have accuracy.
It is not historically accurate - from all the evidence we have - that Jane Seymour's mother was Black.

I remember the ridiculous way that people reacted to the suggestion of Idris Elba or another black actor playing James Bond.

A completely fictional character (already famously played by multiple different actors) whose race is never made any kind of significant factor about him.

One thing that is integral to the character of James Bond, though, is that he is British. Interestingly, I don't recall many of the people claiming that British Idris Elba couldn't possibly play him complaining about Irish Pierce Brosnan having already done so.

Unless I am massively ignorant, it seems that "colourblind" casting isn't quite what it is though. If it was then you could have fields of white actors playing slaves in something like "Roots". Which - again correct me if I am wrong - hasn't happened. And isn't going to.

Also isn't there a tradition in theatre (look the word up) that players used masks throughout a play to denote the character they are playing ? Underlining the separation between player and played ?

That said as the 2nd reply here shows, most gripes about such casting arise because of the prejudices of the audience (as usual ignorant of their own history). And I am generally in favour of anything that can dissolve the rock of ignorance.

Absolutely! I would love a tv series about the Medieval Islamic Empire - it's fascinating, and so much learning developed, maths, science, astronomy, medicine. So interesting.

Exactly. It's not trying or pretending to have historical value. Whereas despite Wolf Hall being fictional, it does place value of this historical value. It's why it's seen as having a higher cultural value than Six. And conversely there's a snobbery against Six for it's lack of historical value without examining the same thing for Wolf Hall when in reality we should be looking at it more not less closely precisely for this reason.

As others have said - it means we ignore the process and history of building equality if we suggest that the past was more equal than it was.

Having said that I also think that myth building through fiction has lead to part of the past being erased of the cultural diversity that DID exist too. The representation of Jesus being a particularly good example of this.

I think my point is we should give thought to perceptions and potential issues with distorted representation and how it is acknowledged and for what purpose.

It's not as simplistic as the be kind crowd want this discussion to be.

Very good points, @RedToothBrush .

Bit of a tangent, but someone we know got irrate that "ARIEL THE MERMAID ISN'T BLACK!!"

He was right of course, she isn't black. Because she doesn't exist 😂

What a weird way to think. Do you think it should be an accurate representation of live in rural Scotland? How many inventors are living in pink castles in the Scottish countryside ?

Bond isn't the best example for other reasons too. Even within the films there's an idea put out that Bond isn't necessarily a single individual but instead the code name 007 applies to a position that has been filled by multiple men over time.

Otherwise we have to wrap our heads around how Bond has been in his mid 30 to 40s for sixty odd years!

@CarmelaBrunella There are all sorts of historical places periods that would give fascinating stories, some of them about race and prejudice, which seem to be completed neglected by film-makers who stick to the Tudors over and over.

@RedToothBrush and @Garlicworth make excellent points too. It's a complex story, and not a linear one. Big sweeping historical statements are normally misleading (probably including that one.) What fascinates me is not so much that different periods have their own versions of history, but what that tells us about people of those times. (Early-Modern folk-art such as needlework samplers have the most fantastic pictures of Jewish Patriarchs wearing stovepipe hats.)

Facts are incapable of being racist.

Haven’t read the full thread but wanted to add my experience. Booked to see Frozen in London with my DC. Black Ana as child, white Elsa as child, white Ana as adult and black Elsa as adult. My DC was utterly confused by who was who and how they could be full sisters. Even my DH was confused as he wasn’t very familiar with the story and who was who. We heard another child arguing in whispers with a parent that adult Ana must be Elsa because of their skin colour and parent trying to desperately shush child. It doesn’t matter to the story if the whole family is black but changing skin colour for characters and pretending it made no difference was ridiculous and showing full sisters as totally different skin colours was also confusing (but before anyone says not impossible, I recognise that). I wasn’t impressed.