Actors being cast in opposite sex or different race historical roles

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

Sarah Amankwah, who is female and black, was just on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 (presented by Amol Rajan today) and talking about her role as Henry V at the Globe.

Is this not frowned on as cultural/gender appropriation? Eddie Redmayne was condemned for accepting a role as a transgender person and white Ed Skrein was later pressured to stand down after he'd been cast as an Asian character; yet Maxine Peake was widely praised for her Hamlet. Is it OK when a female takes a male role, but not the other way around, because of the vast discrepancy in available female roles owing to how society was so absolutely male-centric for most of history (and isn't necessarily that much better now)?

I personally see no real issue when it's a fictional character whose race isn't particularly a defining characteristic of the role - I don't understand why it would matter if a non-white actor should play James Bond (although he's a very unambiguously male character) and, as for Dr Who, it's a person who keeps regenerating over centuries, so why on earth wouldn't one of the regenerations be as a female?

But when it comes to an actual historical (or living) person, AIBU to wonder why it would be seen as appropriate to cast somebody to represent them who is very clearly the opposite sex and/or from a completely different racial background? Why would they even think to do it, apart from to provoke a reaction or to score some extra publicity?

Sarah is brilliant at her profession, but I just couldn't take her seriously when she performed the St Crispin's Day speech - the same as I couldn't have taken Benedict Cumberbatch seriously as Queen Elizabeth (whether using his own voice or trying to affect a female voice).

Then again, the whole point of it is ACTING - and nobody complains when, say, a Brit plays an American or a Scot plays an English person - so maybe I am BU. I just fail to find such a big elephant in the room convincing at all, but maybe it's my lack of imagination that's wholly to blame?

Is this just another part of modern life, where biological sex/gender boundaries are now often considered irrelevant and maybe even anachronistic as a concept - and is it boorish to even point it out or query it? I'm very now. AIBU to ask the question? Genuine thoughts on the matter appreciated.

Shakespearean male actors played all roles, regardless of gender.

Henry V was not a black lady.

I really like seeing acting roles rearranged like this. Usually it's for a fresh approach not for historical accuracy!
In terms of Hollywood casting though it tends to be for box office reasons eg there are trans actors who could take those roles but aren't offered them as they aren't well known. So not a box office draw with millions of fans.
Real dwarf actors could have been cast in the Hobbit but weren't!
There was a lot of outrage when key characters in the Battlestar Galactica changed sex but that worked out pretty well.

Directors are always trying to find new ways of jazzing up Shakespeare - I've seen Bollywood versions, all girl versions, all gender swapped - all kinds. I quite like them. It's not like Shakespeare was writing historical documentary plays anyway - he took figures from history (all dead before his lifetime, often by centuries) and re worked real events to make whatever artistic point he wanted to make.

I don't think it's really something to get het up about.

There is very few roles written for women and in historical term black women that casting accurately would leave many actors unable to find theatre work. There is a difference when the few roles for minorities that are available should if possible be cast according to the role but for the majority changing the gender or the ethnic background is the only way to open up casting.

I’ve seen recently where Romeo and Juliet has been reimagined as a gay male love story. Although I have no doubt that many gay couples have been star crossed lovers, the story isn’t Romeo and Julian.

It's supposed to make you think about it a bit more rather than "just another bloke spouting about Agincourt" again. There have been all female Shakespeares before (I think it was also Henry V - Harriet whatsherface was brilliant) and an all male Swan Lake. I think it's thought provoking and interesting usually.

Just to clarify I wasn't defending the Hollywood casting!

I think you can do what you want with a play and interpret it anyway you want.
You could black up a load of people and do a show if you wanted to. Wether anyone would go see it is another thing altogether.

When you consider that Shakespeare’s stole a lot of material from older African, Persian and Indian stories, it’s perfectly valid for us to cast the races the original stories used.

What are your thoughts on Hamilton?

I suppose the woke at heart will find offence everywhere, but I usually don’t care as long as it’s not trying to be an accurate historical recreation. Shakespeare never was so it’s less important, but on the other hand Henry V is a pretty quintessential bloke.

I accept of course that in his time all actors were Male. Also, why is Othello usually played by a black person when he is a Moor? (Accepting that there are different types of Moor)

Henry V was not a black lady.

I doubt he wandered around a stage either.

It annoys me when something is supposed to be an historically accurate production, but with theatre it's nice to mix it up. As someone else said this happens a lot with Shakespeare, modern versions, 1920s versions, I went on a school trip in the 1980s to 'A midsummer night's dream', all the fairies were played by black actors, all the other characters were white so it's not new.

Also, why is Othello usually played by a black person when he is a Moor?

I thought 'moor' was just the wording used at the time for dark skinned people, and in Italy/Spain that was often people from North Africa.

'acting' is not called 'being' because it's 'acting'.

I think because Shakespeare is fiction, just based loosely around a real historical figure there is space to cast creatively.

When you watch the play you're already being asked 'imagine if Henry V did/said this'. It's not then that much of a stretch to say 'and also imagine Henry was a black woman'.

If it was supposed to be accurate to historical events then I agree it would be odd. If, for example, they'd cast Halle Berry in the King's Speech or Morgan Freeman as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady I don't think it would work!

Othello usually played by a black person when he is a Moor
Olivier played it in film version.
Non Jews usually play Shylock.

Shakespeare plays with sex, class and race roles all the time in his plays anyway.

The directors/casting agents/relevant decision-makers believe their audience is intelligent, imaginative and capable of being challenged.

That's the problem when terms like "cultural appropriation" start being as a fashion statement!

It's art. It's a few hundred years old. It's a play, poetic license, offering an alternative viewpoint. Get over it!

It’s because power has been constructed around the white, heterosexual male experience. The experiences of non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual persons has been marginalised. So when a non-white, non-heterosexual or non-male person tries their hand at a role that has only ever been occupied by white, heterosexual male, it adds a new and interesting dimension and opens up new possible interpretations. It doesn’t really do that when a white, heterosexual male plays Othello; it’s just a reversion to type.

It’s because power has been constructed around the white, heterosexual male experience
Not in the case of Shakespeare plays. He's our best writer, not least because he has the beauty, intelligence and style to look at aspects of power from different class, race and sex angles.

@hercule, so if a white male were cast in a role traditionally associated with a black female? Would that be offering a new and interesting dimension, too?

woman19

I’m not sure I can agree with that.

presumedinnocence

No. That’s the point. When power is assymetrical, you can’t say one is the same as the other.

I have no problem with any of it tbh (though I would love to see more minorities of all types represented - but incidentally, not because they are a minority)

If you go too far down the rabbit hole of who is allowed to play what, you end up only being allowed to make documentaries or complete fantasy.