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.

Oh and the first production of Othello I ever saw (a local production) had a blacked-up white guy playing Othello. And this was the mid 90s!

@herculepoirot2

I’m aware that the past matters. I’m a historian. But the wrongs of the past can’t be righted. That time had passed. All we can be is just and fair in our own time.

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

And I've seen white actors play Othello with the rest of the cast being black a couple of times -- but the issue, blacking-up aside, is that BAME actors have historically been cast far less often in major classical roles than white actors, so what do they do, resign themselves to playing Second Lord in the Back Row, or Third Spear Carrier, or a burglar/armed robber/stabbing victim in The Bill forever because your skin's the wrong colour to play Henry V?

Look at how many first class black British actors left the UK for the US because they weren't getting roles -- David Harewood, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, David Oyelowo, and lots of others.

People complain enough about how many of the current crop of high-profile British actors are privileged ex-public schoolboys -- Eddie Redmayne, Benedict Cumberbatch, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston etc etc. Do you really want acting to be a white-only profession?

IsabellaLinton

They can’t be righted, but nor must we exacerbate them.

Othello is trickier not only because the play itself is deeply racist by most interpretations but also his heritage is (deliberately?) ambiguous in the text, sometimes described as having sub-Saharan facial features but often referred to as a Moore in the North African sense. The Battle of Alcazar some years earlier (attributed to George Peele) had two Moor characters - one light skinned and one dark.

How can you exacerbate historical events? They are what they are - unless you’ve got a time machine.

Alsohuman

By showing people that you don’t care enough about the nature of those events to stop doing the same thing?

That’s exactly what @Isabellalinton said.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

I got the bus back to Liverpool Street after going to the theatre a couple of weeks back. The lady behind me was talking on her mobile excitedly. She was an actress just got off the stage and still on a high. She mentioned her producer had said she was the first woman of colour to play Henry V, so i was discretely googling and found she was Sarah Amankwah. Never heard of her until then, but we had watched World War Z the week before, she was a zombie in it.

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

By historical I meant Shakespeare the person not his plays

@herculepoirot2

But we’re not exacerbating them - are we not a less racist society than we were fifty years ago? We don’t discriminate against actors based on skin colour any more. That’s why I absolutely disagree with a poster up thread who stated they’d happily, actively discriminate against white people now due to the injustices suffered by black people like me in the past. That would be racist!

@IsabellaLinton
Which is fine if black actors have same opportunities which at present they really don’t.

I think that it’s fine for black people to play white historical figures, and it can make for groundbreaking and hugely refreshing theatre - look at Hamilton! Changing the race or gender of a historical figure can bring a totally new perspective to a historical retelling and allow for new perspectives on familiar events.

There are various reasons why this doesn’t work in reverse (for example having a white person play Nelson Mandela). For one thing, there are traditionally far too few non-white roles anyway, because white people dominate the entertainment industry. For another, it’s quite often the case that when you’re telling the history of a black person or a woman, their race or gender is essential to the story (so it matters that nelson Mandela is black because that is integral to his story. It’s less interesting or important that Henry viii is white because that’s not what it essential to his story, and having a black person play him opens up interesting new avenues - for example a sub-commentary on the lives of black people in the way we tell history).

Giving white historical roles to black people opens up opportunities and allows for exploration of a new perspective. Giving black historical roles to white people just perpetuates the long erasure of black people in media, and robs their histories or their power.

*I think that it’s fine for black people to play white historical figures, and it can make for groundbreaking and hugely refreshing theatre - look at Hamilton! Changing the race or gender of a historical figure can bring a totally new perspective to a historical retelling and allow for new perspectives on familiar events.

There are various reasons why this doesn’t work in reverse*

IsabellaLinton

Not really. The number of black and ethnic minority people on TV in most genres barely passes tokenism compared to the make up of our society. Going to have to disagree with you on this! But also going to bed early.

@IsabellaLinton
I find it really sad and insulting when people post offensive rubbish then suddenly declare they are “black” it’s disgusting and racist.

Wtf?

I haven't seen anything yet where I thought swapping gender/ race has made the production better

Did you see the new West End revival of Company? Nearly all the gender roles were reversed and I thought it was absolutely brilliant (despite not being a particular Sondheim fan). It really worked for the modern era and the Paul/Amy pairing being turned into a male, gay couple was absolutely perfect for 'Not Getting Married Today.' Bobbie as a woman was very believable and I think it actually worked better.

I doubt there's a new idea in the book when it comes to reworking Shakespeare - literally anything goes. I've seen some things I've loved and others I really don't think work at all.

In general I'd say there are maybe 5% of roles in theatre where it actually does matter that the character is the intended/correct race and sex. For the majority, I don't think it matters.

@Ghanagirl

What, because I happen to think differently to you?

IsabellaLinton out of interest what is your field/time period as a Historian?

Wow this has taken a turn. Not sure how what @IsabellaLinton said was racist. Why can't we debate things and talk about them without descending to this?

@Sparklesocks

Tudor & Stuart periods are my main areas of interest and research. Why do you ask?

@origamiunicorn

Thanks unicorn. I genuinely don’t understand why what I said is so offensive - the colour of my skin is so much less important to me than the content of my mind, so I dislike identity politics with a passion.

IsabellaLinton

I suppose it just comes across as tone-deaf. Given the historical reality of white people dressing up as black people in order to mock them and their cultures, it’s surprising that anyone who describes themselves as a historian wouldn’t see that this is reasonably going to offend people if it continues, because it’s evocative of the era when everyone thought it was fine.

Basically it’s fine for a black actress to play Henry V, but not fine for white guys to play Othello, because “What about the poor white male actors who are so underrepresented in our films and theatre? It’s very unfair to take one of the few major roles specifically written for that demographic away from them!” is a thing that nobody sensible has ever said.