Jodie Turner-Smith as Anne Boleyn

[Bitchysideisouttoplay]

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9071763/Director-TV-drama-Anne-Boleyn-says-best-person-role.html#article-9071763
Not and AIBU really but what does everyone think if this?
Personally I think if you are making a historical drama/film etc surely you should cast a person as close in looks to the historical figure.
Before anyone says I'm.being racist I'm not I had massive issues with the casting in the Tudors due to Johnathan Rhys Meyers being cast as Henry, he is short, not ginger and really does not look anything like Henry in portraits 🙄🙄

[quote CrotchBurn]@Bitchysideisouttoplay
They should do a series set in the pirating age. When was that? 16th century? I'd watch that, we haven't had one of those. Could be really epic. Also the highwayman age (think it might be same era?).

But its always either Tudors, Jane Austen era or Downton Abbey era. So dull.[/quote]

Agree with this.

There's so much interesting stuff in history and get Henry again FFS.

Is it a man thing?

Are they just obsessed with him because he had several wives and had some bumped off?

I'd have thought something set in the times of the plague would have been a good one this year 😆

Bloody hell, we should start our own production company because I really want to watch most of the suggestions here now😂

@pringlebells

It's just not historically accurate.

It's going to be a murder mystery set during the final days of her life. There's nothing historically accurate about it. It's a work of fiction that happens to have a loose historical setting.

Plague drama might be a bit too close to the bone this year. A drama set in Eyam could be interesting - did everyone agree with shutting themselves off? (There was a nice bit of plague backstory in BBC 2 Ghosts this year).

And on Anne's skin colour, why does it matter more than the implication that Edward III of England was fathered by Scottish rebel William Wallace (Braveheart)? Or the depiction of the earl of Arundel as an executed traitor when he was a loyal courtier to Elizabeth I who was most definitely not executed (Elizabeth)? And all the many inaccuracies in the Tudors (which people still love anyway). Etc etc. Historical drama is always innacurate to varying degrees. Even the ones that have historical consultants will still have inaccuracies because it works better for the film/tv show director/producers.

@CrotchBurn

How come asian actors never get a look in when it comes to boosting diversity?

Because they want to appeal to the American market.

IamTomHanks I hadnt heard the murder mystery but just psychological thriller. Surely that's going to be a push since most people know whodunit Channel 5 doesn't disappoint.

It is sad that they have to loosely link it to a known figure for the show to get made - some sad indictment about the entertainment industry and what they think about viewers there.

@terrywynne thank you! I've just googled what you meant and I had no idea, yet we even stopped in Eyam once to have a look at the pretty village and have a driving break.

I am so sick and tired of the Tudors on TV. It's so repetitive, and it's only because producers can be fairly confident that most of the population have some vague knowledge of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

It's so disheartening that only a vanishingly small percentage of the population could accurately place the Plantagenets or the Stuarts in our historical timeline

I think a look at James VI / I murky history on witchcraft is worth a look.

The life of Alexandre Dumas' father is amazing.

There has been so little drama made about the Tudors that is really, historically accurate. I see no difference with this inaccuracy, compared to others.

Agree that I am sick of Tudor dramas, though - and I love a bit of history. But I suspect I've seen quite enough Anne Boleyn's of any shape, size, race to last me a lifetime.

The English Civil War should get more of a look in. Brothers fighting brothers, families divided on ideological grounds. And battles. Lots of potential.

[quote SchrodingersImmigrant]@terrywynne thank you! I've just googled what you meant and I had no idea, yet we even stopped in Eyam once to have a look at the pretty village and have a driving break.[/quote]
It's fascinating SchrodingersImmigrant and I have thought about it with new eyes this year. It is always described as an act of selfless sacrifice by a while village (I haven't studied in depth so just going off the basic, popular depictions) but then you look at the Covid threads on here and start wondering just how unanimous was the decision and how easy was it to keep the isolation going? People weren't so very different in the past so imagine there must have been people who disagreed or who changed their mind as deaths increased. You could make an amazing drama folllowing a few individuals.

Why can’t people see there is a massive difference in colour-blind casting when it comes to a figure where skin colour isn’t an integral part of the story as in this case, and one where it is (eg Rosa Parks).

Because when it's a real person such as Anne Boleyn (even if there's some dramatic licence involved in the events), their race is an integral part of their story, upon which the production is based, even if not overtly so because they were a member of the majority. You or I would have had a different family history and life experience if we were a different race. More so in Tudor Britain. This isn't the same as casting a prettier or taller actress than Anne probably really was.

It's these sorts of arguments that lead to accusations of wokeness etc. Consistency is needed.

I get that for a minority or oppressed group, race will be a bigger part of a person's experience and awareness. However the absence of that is a part of life for the majority race. What about white privilege? You don't think there's a good chance Anne Boleyn would have experienced white privilege compared to Catherine of Aragon's non- white attendants? I read somewhere that a lot of them ended up in morganitic relationships (not Catalina de Cardones), not married to the king.

I would argue that either we need to be conscious of things like ensuring that a real character is played by someone of the right race to reflect their life experience and background or we don't.

I know that a lot of whitewashing has already happened. However, films and programmes already made cannot be changed except for an explanatory message being shown. This is about setting a standard for the future and it needs to be a consistent one. I don't think the answer is just sticking (no doubt very good in this case) black actors in the roles of real white people and saying 'well, she's the best actress and race wasn't a big part of the story'.

This is not just an artistic point, it is of course also a political point to do with the push for equality. I personally don't think this sort of casting helps. This is no reflection on Jodie Turner Smith.

If it's a fictional character, be that Guinevere or Gail Platt, or a non-realistic portrayal rather than just a dramatic retelling (such as that film about Bob Dylan where all sorts of actors play him) I fully agree that unless race is key to the story then the race of the actor is not important.

@fatherliamdeliverance

Why can’t people see there is a massive difference in colour-blind casting when it comes to a figure where skin colour isn’t an integral part of the story as in this case, and one where it is (eg Rosa Parks).

Because when it's a real person such as Anne Boleyn (even if there's some dramatic licence involved in the events), their race is an integral part of their story, upon which the production is based, even if not overtly so because they were a member of the majority. You or I would have had a different family history and life experience if we were a different race. More so in Tudor Britain. This isn't the same as casting a prettier or taller actress than Anne probably really was.

It's these sorts of arguments that lead to accusations of wokeness etc. Consistency is needed.

I get that for a minority or oppressed group, race will be a bigger part of a person's experience and awareness. However the absence of that is a part of life for the majority race. What about white privilege? You don't think there's a good chance Anne Boleyn would have experienced white privilege compared to Catherine of Aragon's non- white attendants? I read somewhere that a lot of them ended up in morganitic relationships (not Catalina de Cardones), not married to the king.

I would argue that either we need to be conscious of things like ensuring that a real character is played by someone of the right race to reflect their life experience and background or we don't.

I know that a lot of whitewashing has already happened. However, films and programmes already made cannot be changed except for an explanatory message being shown. This is about setting a standard for the future and it needs to be a consistent one. I don't think the answer is just sticking (no doubt very good in this case) black actors in the roles of real white people and saying 'well, she's the best actress and race wasn't a big part of the story'.

This is not just an artistic point, it is of course also a political point to do with the push for equality. I personally don't think this sort of casting helps. This is no reflection on Jodie Turner Smith.

If it's a fictional character, be that Guinevere or Gail Platt, or a non-realistic portrayal rather than just a dramatic retelling (such as that film about Bob Dylan where all sorts of actors play him) I fully agree that unless race is key to the story then the race of the actor is not important.

The flaw for me here is that we don't object in theatre productions. And, I know the argument about theatre being more obviously fake/require the suspense of disbelief has been hashed out but ultimately but he tv/film and theatre put on dramatic interpretations of historic events - why should the skin colour of actors be a problem on one but not the other?

@terrywynne that is fascinating and yes, that could make for an amzing drama! I am going to spend whole fay googling🙈
I honestly had no idea. Thanks!

Don't see the issue. White actors have posed as ethnic minorities on film many times in the past (e.g. The Mummy, Prince of Persia etc), and no one batted an eyelid then so why bother to highlight it when it's done the other way round?

@ConfusedcomMum

Don't see the issue. White actors have posed as ethnic minorities on film many times in the past (e.g. The Mummy, Prince of Persia etc), and no one batted an eyelid then so why bother to highlight it when it's done the other way round?

Many things were happening in the last and no one batted an eyelid🤷🏻 Either we want to adress the topic or we will just keep a status quo as it was. It is being addressed from all angles now even the white actors playing non white roles.

Plus neither of the examples you given were actual people before, historical characters.

@ConfusedcomMum

Don't see the issue. White actors have posed as ethnic minorities on film many times in the past (e.g. The Mummy, Prince of Persia etc), and no one batted an eyelid then so why bother to highlight it when it's done the other way round?

People certainly bat an eyelid now though. It's universally recognised as being a wrong thing to do. Not sure how casting black actors as historical (not fictional, as in your examples) white characters is OK for this reason?

This just comes across as patronising virtue signalling to me. Henry VIII would have never married a black woman and its just weird that all of the characters would just ignore this, it makes it not believable at all for me.

I agree that it would be better to do more TV shows about black history and historical figures rather than yet another series about our own white historic monarchy that everyone knows about anyway.

But then I do like it in historical drama for the actor to bear a resemblance to the character, some people aren't bothered. I loved the first two series of The Crown because I just thought Claire Foy played Elizabeth so brilliantly, and she looks so like a young Elizabeth as well, it was brilliant. When they switched to Olivia Coleman I was really disappointed because now the Queen just looked like... Olivia Coleman! Even the fact she had the wrong colour eyes pissed me off! Im at the end of series 3 and just about getting used to her now!

TerryWynne Well, I think that in a drama such as this that is a retelling of someone's life story at the theatre, even if a lot of freedom has been used in terms of actual facts, the real person is still not just a cypher for a good story, they are a real human with a background. So I might argue this case even then.

The exception here for me would be very long established plays like Shakespeare's where Richard III and co are of course based on real people but the parts have taken on a life of their own as shorthand for certain character traits, when do we really know that Richard III was as tyrannical as the part suggests? I wouldn't have a problem with race or gender blind casting here as I see these plays as playing a much bigger cultural role in themselves than yet another Tudor costume drama series.

Also, I would say that at the theatre, the physicality of the actor is far less important than their speech, movement and expression which are emphasised more in stage acting compared to screen which is usually more realistic. Although we can of course see theatre actors, maybe it is a closer equivalence to voice acting where someone's skin colour does not matter at all, but their accent would tell the story of whereabouts they come from and even their class. Obviously not an exact equivalent because actors can change their accents but not their skin colour (without resorting to outdated techniques).

Theatre is also a lot more experimental usually than just making events seem a bit more exciting which is what this series seems to be about in turning Anne Boleyn's experience into a thriller. This, for me, gives space for more freedom in casting.

Im well aware that my response is not watertight, definitely not. However the arts don't exist in a vacuum. In the context of the ongoing push for recognition and equality, I personally feel like this casting is a bit of a misstep. As I say, I think a route forward needs to be consistent- either real characters' race is preserved or it isn't.

If you look at the fictional works of Stephen King Roland in the gunslinger series is described as looking like Clint Eastwood throughout the books but had the fantastic Idris Elba play him in the film. Unfortunately the film was a mess, but it didn't matter because Idris is a great actor. In the upcoming version of The Stand Larry Underwood (who is a white guy from New York who sings like a black man) is played by a black man (Jovan Adepo) now and Judge Farris is now a middle-aged white woman now. Do I care, not much as long as their acting is good. There has been some righteous annoyance about not casting a deaf actor in a main role of a deaf character because surely that makes sense in this day and age and should be fairly easy to cast. As a middle-aged white guy I can't get too stressed about colour-blind casting because I don't feel anything is being taken away from me rather opportunities are being given to a wider range of people, which is no bad thing.

Some of the ideas here are great, i especially like the idea of Emma set in India. I think the casting is wrong, white, rich and priviledged is who these people were, i think the casting in this case should reflect that. There is no real reason why Scrooge couldn't be black though.

If you look at the fictional works of Stephen King Roland in the gunslinger series is described as looking like Clint Eastwood throughout the books but had the fantastic Idris Elba play him in the film. Unfortunately the film was a mess, but it didn't matter because Idris is a great actor.

Have to disagree with you about 'great actor' but it's not like an unknown black actor was cast, is it? Elba is hardly in need of recognition.

As a middle-aged white guy I can't get too stressed about colour-blind casting because I don't feel anything is being taken away from me rather opportunities are being given to a wider range of people, which is no bad thing.

The vast majority of actors of any skin colour are underemployed though. Casting already established actors like Elba or Turner Smith is hardly giving opportunities to a wider range of people.

titbumwillypoo

I've not read the books or seen the film but Idris Elba and Clint Eastwood do share a lot of physical characteristics other than race, handsome, athletic, tall, masculine etc that might make Idris Elba a good fit if that description is to suggest that that's the kind of guy the character is.

@CrotchBurn

Oh fucking hell MORE Tudor stuff? I'm getting really really bored of endless rehashes of historical periods and franchises.

Re your point: I agree. Its ridiculous. If you make historical fiction and massively obvious points aren't historically accurate then what's the point? Just put them all in jeans in that case, set it in New York, and it might actually be a series with something new to offer.

Historical FICTION.

It's loosely based in history and the big events of the time, but the rest is made up. Why does it matter what race some of the characters are? Most of what they'll be saying is completely made up anyway.