To think that racial diversity in film casting has gone slightly bonkers...

[AngeloMysterioso]

When you have an Asian actress playing Bess of Hardwick?

I just can’t see why anyone thought it was appropriate to have such a prominent woman in English history being played by somebody who is Chinese- can you imagine the outcry if an important black woman was being played in a film by someone who isn’t black, or indeed a significant Asian character being played by a white woman? There’d be uproar, and rightly so. And yet, in the new Mary Queen of Scots film we have a white Englishwoman being played by Gemma Chan.

This Chinese author/blogger said pretty much the same thing, pointing out that when Ed Skrein was cast as a fictional Japanese character in Hellboy the public response was so furious that he ended up quitting. And Bess of Hardwick isn’t even a fictional character, she was a very real woman, an ancestor of our current Queen, whose life and legacy are quite remarkable.

I don’t want anyone to think that there is any racism behind this post at all. I think Gemma Chan is a fantastic actress, but I don’t know, there’s just something about it that reeks of tokenism.

NotDavid- I would also like a source for the Rhiannon/Rihanna connection. I did find one thing by Googling actually, but they're completely separate on Behind the Name, which is a serous name origin website.

Of course all Biblical names are middle eastern originally.

I find the near constant use of mixed race couples and families in so many commercials, movies and programmes patronising and not even particularly well thought out as though some Bright Young Thing at the studio/ad agency said "I know! Let's make Mum black and Dad white, then we can cover most racial angles, no one can whine about under representation then!" and got a round of applause and a big bonus for it. It's lazy.

“Let’s see how that approach goes down when Meryl Streep gets cast as Rosa Parkes. But she’s such a good actress!!”

It’s an issue because of current levels of unequal access. It doesn’t take too much mental gymnastics to be srsnsutive to a current cjntextbehile working towards an ideal future.

And giving roles to PoC in the meantime isn’t the most controversial thing, surely?

It helps us think more imaginatively, creatively and ultimately more inclusively.

I think it's very likely that Rhiannon and Rihanna are two similar sounding names that evolved completely separately in different cultures. Just as there is Lee in English and Li in Chinese, but the two are not related.

When I first heard of the pop star Rihanna I thought here name must have been derived from Rhiannon, because I'd never heard of the Arabic name before. I'm sure people who've only heard the name Rihanna might make the same mistake on hearing Rhiannon.

Millly thanks "Christmas adverts are the same in all regions". I thought I was seeiing unrepresentative ads of the UK because I live in a 62% non white borough but it sounds like that is just the ad industr's choice. Presumably they sell more products if the adverts show people who are different from the 82% of white British people.

You post falls down OP from the very title - why assume she has been cast for any other reason than her ability to act?

You are basically saying she ONLY got the role to fit some kind of quota or PC agenda - which is pretty insulting.

Nothing about the casting of that film is realistic to be fair!

YABU for not considering why there’s a difference between Meryl Streep playing Rosa Parks and Gemma Chan playing a small role in a film with two white leads - personally I find Margot Robbie’s ever-so - slightly-off accent more jarring than seeing Gemma Chan. Maybe there is an element of tokenism in the casting - but who do you think that would annoy more, you or Gemma Chan? She seems intelligent enough to have decided it’s worth doing even if there is a degree of tokenism.

Also - Sophie Okenedo was absolutely brilliant in the BBC’s Shakespeare adaptation The Hollow Crown, didn’t detract from the story at all.

Mary is played by an Irish woman and Liz by an Aussie 🤷🏻‍♀️

I don’t see the problem.

Many years ago, probably 20 or so, I took a granddaughter to see Peter Pan at a B'ham theatre. There was an addition to the story, about Wendy grown-up and with her own children visited by Peter.
Child-Wendy was white, adult-Wendy was black. Now that really WAS confusing!

You are basically saying she ONLY got the role to fit some kind of quota or PC agenda - which is pretty insulting.

Why is it? The real character she plays wasn’t Asian.

I liked Michelle Gomez's interpretation - and she's Scottish which should meet your approval

No and Mary and Liz didn't have cheekbones you could cut glass on and look like movie starts! it's not real - it's a film

Not the hill I'd choose to die on personally. My philosophy is watch the piece of media first and judge it on it's own merits. Of course this lands me in trouble more often than not as I'm usually of the "lets see what it's like first" mentality when the subject of whitewashing comes up. It would be churlish of me not to be consistent in this instance.

Although I am thinking increasingly that we're getting multi-culturalism very wrong these days. Everyone seems to be increasingly at one another's throats. The stories we tell each other collectively as a society should be a shared point of contact with one another not something that divides us even more. The fact that it does is a very bad omen.

The question I ask about race is why should it be meaningfully different than say eye colour or hair? Both sides of the debate miss the point somewhat as both are reinforcing separateness. I actually think I'm in favour of race bending when it comes to acting roles. Gender bending too for that matter.

Never mind that, they cast an Irish woman to play an English and American person, but all I can hear is her true accent.

About 82% of hte UK is white and I don't think the Christmas ads I see reflect that. However that might be because I live in a non white area.

This is one of the problems with trying to make media reflect the diversity of the public it serves: which public do you use as your reference? Where I live it must be something like 99% white, so TV does not reflect our local experience at all, but I can imagine if you live somewhere like London you may find TV to be 'hideously white'.

Mary Queen of Scots was more French than Scottish! I’ve always liked the look of this version but never managed to see it m.youtube.com/watch?v=LohK1LZpFsI

And in adverts 'diversity' is always an attractive, thin black hetero woman coupled with a white hetero man or vice versa. Or two women. You don't see two men. Or an obese woman with a slim, fit man, or vice versa. Or two disabled people in a couple

Haha that Michelle Gomez link is great

*Jones comes from Jonas which also originates from the middle east.

It's the same as the arabic name for John is Yahya and the western equivalent for Jesus is Joshua*

I thought the use of Jones as a surname in Wales had its roots in the patronymic Welsh system of using your fathers first name as your surname e.g. "ap Sion"

Is being colour blind in period dramas the way forward though? If you think of the actors having jobs rather than the message in the portrayal then merit would be the only criterion. However as a PP said you can't have a white actor playing Malcolm X because his whole story was about being black. With white characters being white is rarely central to their story.

And there is the privilege there. I think actors of colour should be allowed to be in films that are not just about the colour of their skin, slavery, civil rights etc. God they are probably crying out to not be locked out of a whole movie just coz they're chinese 'and there were no Chinese people in the story'. That must be so frustrating! This just doesn't happen to white people because we are always telling white stories anyway. I am sure it is within everyone's capability to suspend your disbelief for a couple of hours.

I find the near constant use of mixed race couples and families in so many commercials, movies and programmes patronising and not even particularly well thought out as though some Bright Young Thing at the studio/ad agency said "I know! Let's make Mum black and Dad white, then we can cover most racial angles, no one can whine about under representation then!" and got a round of applause and a big bonus for it. It's lazy.

I really agree with this. I’m certainly not an “all lives matter”/“it’s PC gone mad”/“[movement against my favourite prejudice] has gone too far” type, at all, but I absolutely hate the kind of fake, totally contrived ‘diversity’ you’re referring to - it makes me cringe and I don’t really think it’s helpful.

Pressed post too soon - particularly as the actors nearly always conform to other social stereotypes - eg slim, attractive, young white woman with muscular, black man.

I find the near constant use of mixed race couples and families in so many commercials, movies and programmes patronising and not even particularly well thought out as though some Bright Young Thing at the studio/ad agency said "I know! Let's make Mum black and Dad white, then we can cover most racial angles, no one can whine about under representation then!" and got a round of applause and a big bonus for it. It's lazy.

Well I'm part of a mixed heritage family and I don't feel over represented in the media, when it does happen I think it's rather nice. Believe it or not, there's quite a lot of us out there!

Do you feel underrepresented in the media? Are you in a mixed family? Just wondering what qualifies you to know whether something is 'well thought out' or not?

The question I ask about race is why should it be meaningfully different than say eye colour or hair?

Because there’s no history of blue eyed people being discriminated against. Or the UK being a nation consisting 99% of brunettes who invaded Scandinavia and later asked thousands of Danish/Norwegian/Swedish blondes to come and work in the post office and NHS.

Mary may appear more French than Scottish because she moved when she was 5. Doesn't make her any less Scottish though