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.

Casting Sophie Okonedo as Margaret of Anjou in the BBC Hollow Crown Shakespeare series was brilliant

Actually I felt the opposite! I suppose as a historian I simply don’t see the point in re-writing history that way. Maybe that’s why I tend to stick to documentaries - I like verifiable fact. I want to get as close as possible to historical truth. I simply don’t see the point in misrepresenting history that way.

Also as a person of colour I find it incredibly insulting and patronising.

Personally I hate it. It’s not necessary. It’s actually one of the reasons I hate panto with a passion. The ugly sisters men, Prince Charming a woman. Urghhh!

Not to mention that in early theater productions, it was standard to have Peter Pan played by a female performer. Walt Disney actually broke new ground when he had the character voiced by a male for the film.

Not just Peter Pan. All panto productions had a girl (the Principal Boy) playing the hero, and one or two male actors playing older women (the Pantomime Dames): the latter tradition still persists. Ugly Sisters in Cinderella, Aladdin's Mother, still very much a British tradition.

I’m generally in favour of this but I saw Tamsin Grieg play Malvolio in Twelfth Night and it didn’t work for me. Plenty of others raved about the performance though so it’s all about perception.

modern DNA studies seem to suggest as far as biology goes, there is not one black race or one white race, but that it's far more complex

It's really not complex: humans do not have races. It has no biological basis. Cabbages and dogs have races, but we don't.

Racism is entirely a cultural phenomenon.

I personally don't think people should be put in historical films for the sake of ticking a equality box. e.g. a white person cast as a Chinese Emperor or a black person cast as Queen Elizabeth II. Similarly, I don't agree with a female playing Shakespeare or a man playing Joan of Arc.

However I do think it can be very one sided. Scarlett Johansson as a white woman was vilified for playing Motoko in Ghost in the Shell but at the same time in Merlin there was a black Lady Guinevere and I don't remember a furore about that one.

Either way, I just like to see film represent history as accurately as they can and not shove a random race, nationality or gender in there for good measure.

This is probably an unpopular opinion but hey ho.

I think every production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream should only cast actual fairies. Anything else is just wrong.

It’s actually one of the reasons I hate panto with a passion. The ugly sisters men, Prince Charming a woman. Urghhh!

Ummm...you know that's the whole point of panto? The cross dressing has been part of it since the beginning - it's part of the tradition to subvert and undermine traditional social roles.

This is a very odd thread. I had no idea there were people out there who looked to Shakespeare for their historical documentaries and panto for gritty social realism.

I think every production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream should only cast actual fairies.

Obviously this should include those who self identify as faries.

This is a very odd thread. I had no idea there were people out there who looked to Shakespeare for their historical documentaries and panto for gritty social realism.

Brilliant, love this comment!

I really don't understand why it is a problem for an actor to play a role in something entirely fictional that was originally written for an actor of the opposite sex or of a different sexuality or race from the actor

Surely the point of 'acting' is that you are different from the role you play and your craft is to be believable as the character who may have very little in common with you

It’s Shakespeare not factual. If this was an accurate account of Henry V I would get you but it’s massively fictionalised.
And Juliet was always played by blokes in his day so he obviously didn’t care (well women couldn’t act on stage but you get my point)

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll
I’ve just got home from really crap day at work looking after families who are in terrible situations but I’ll bite.
Othello William Shakespeare’s “Moore” has consistently been played by various white actors.
Black actors are always sidelined as “best friend” or my favourite “caring overweight nurse”.
Mumsnet has recently become a site where it’s acceptable to bitch about non white women.

@woman19
Not in the case of Shakespeare plays. smile 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.
I’m sorry that’s crap he wrote from his perspective which is white man.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Othello William Shakespeare’s “Moore” has consistently been played by various white actors

What’s wrong with that?

I’m sorry that’s crap he wrote from his perspective which is white man

Well - he was a white man. But the beauty of fiction is that it allows authors and playwrights to look at situations and characters from different perspectives, not just their own.

I don’t see the problem with race. I watch a lot of Shakespeare and there are more and more black actors cast these days which is brilliant. There are some incredibly talented actors out there and for me Shakespeare seems to transcend race. I think in terms of casting a woman in a male role, it’s an interesting place thing to try. Years ago I watched Macbeth set in a concentration camp. People have always pushed boundaries with Shakespeare. It’s good because it keeps the plays interesting, relevant and fresh.

I think it depends on the play. I saw Streetcar Named Desire at the Royal Exchange. Blanche was white, her sister Stella was black. Race was a big thing in the deep south in the 30s. I kept wondering if they were trying to say that they weren't really sisters. Didn't really work.

In other plays, race shouldn't matter. If black actors could only play black roles they'd be very limited.

IsabellaLinton

What’s wrong with that? Black actors have been excluded from playing a role written with a man of colour in mind, in favour of white people in face paint. Why do you think this might be? Racism, perhaps?

Until the historic injustices against black people have been atoned for (which will be never), I am quite happy to see black actors in any and all roles/positions at the expense of whites.

@herculepoirot2

It happened in the past, sure. Of course I wouldn’t defend that choice, born as it was from racism. But if skin colour or gender matters less than acting abilities, why would it be unthinkable for a white person to play the role in this day and age?

@Bezalelle

Now that is racist.

Do you honestly need someone to explain how it’s different, or are you just being a GF?

OP "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)?"

yes.

IsabellaLinton

Because the past matters. People’s feelings about the past and the terrible injustices perpetrated in the past matter. Obviously.