Colour Blind casting

[ThinWomansBrain]

I know any statement that starts "I'm not racist but..." is usually exactly that, but I find colour blind casting in period drama really distracting.
I've seen two films and a play in the last week where it's been really off - why go to all of the effort of period costume and make up, and then have really implausible actors?

Wicked little letters - first Asian police woman was 1970s. not 1920s
National Theatre production - 1930s play - white couple with an inexplicably Asian Child
Catherine Booth (co founder of Salvation Army) was not black

It's particularly jarring when they are supposed to be portraying real characters.

In contrast, I saw some contemporary dance/theatre this evening, I don't even race or gender of most of the dancers.

This is what disconcerts me. I think it was well done in Bridgerton as they explained it as a social experiment and it recognised that characters still face discrimination (at least in Queen Charlotte). Also in Sanditon in which a black character was the daughter of a wealthly gentleman and one of his slaves, but brought us as his daughter.

However I think completely ignoring the historial context is damaging, it feels like they are playing down or ignoring the discrimination minorities experienced during this period. This was really highlighted to me by my teenage niece commenting how amazing it was that all the Founding fathers were black, after watching Hamilton!

Ooooh this is a good topic. I am concerned that people are not educated in black history and the colour casting in historical dramas muddies the water even more. I had to explain to my newly adult son that American black history and British black history are not the same, he and a lot of his peers assumed we had black slaves/ servants, segregation etc in Britain. I generally don’t feel strongly about it but remarked the other day while watching ‘Shogun’, that colour blind casting wouldn’t work. The effort they have gone to to get the language correct in the subtitles. If the shogun were white, black or not East Asian, it wouldn’t work. Nor would you remake Roots with colourblind casting. So this probably is only relevant to a certain sort of white period drama. I have never seen a drama depicting Nazis with a non- white Nazi. It would be multi- level wrong. So there is something about colour blind casting that is very deliberate and manipulated, rather than just using the best actor. Only white characters can be substituted and only if they aren’t the bad guy or a minority themselves.

Isn't the idea that the audience sees the character portrayed, not the actor/actress and their colour?

Eventually it will be so normal the audience won't even see the colour.

What are you talking about? How did you extrapolate that from my post?

I think sometimes it doesn't matter to the story, sometimes it's silly and too jarring (the black Anne Boleyn for example), but other times it's very clever, and opens out the story in a fresh way (Indian actor playing the woman in One Day, because it gave the love story an unspoken dimension as to why he held off from them getting together. The other good example is the interpretation of Wuthering heights where Heathcliff was black, as the character was described as dark in the book, so again it adds to the story).

Also in many of the original stories used for period dramas when slavery was happening, there were a fair few Creole heiresses, so it seems just convention that these don't appear more often in the adaptations .

I agree

She’s not playing an Asian police woman. She’s just playing a police woman.

I think the point that it distorts history and people's understanding of discrimination is a valid point. The Uk was a very different place in the 19th century and I think historical drama needs to show this.

@Annielou67 A good book on this is "This is not America" by Tomiwa Owulade.

It is more an opinion piece rather than a historical essay but it poses some really interesting arguements.

Something that struck me that I hadn't considered is he notes that the black British experience is overwhelmingly (but of course not exclusively) a relatively recent (ie twentieth century) immigrant one, whereas most African Americans can trace their American ancestry much further back than many white Americans.

So everyone criticising OP is presumably ok with a white actor playing someone like Nelson Mandela if in a colour blind casting they were the best?

No, because there already aren't enough parts for black actors so no need.

Genuine question but why do black actors 'deserve' roles any more than any other group?

Do you argue that unattractive actors, over weight actors, ginger actors etc all 'deserve' roles for themselves?

Acting inherently unfair, everyone who gets into it knows that? 🤷‍♂️

bit condescending.

You could have read hundreds of books which, depending on the genre, wouldn't give you any insight into race relations or history at all.

And just because you don't, millions of people do rely on TV for their historical knowledge.

It's not even an indication of stupidity or lack of intellectual curiosity - I love history and read extensively but if I watch something about a period or place I have no knowledge of I tend to (with a pinch of salt) accept what is being presented as being fairly accurate. Most people would.

Particularly when we're moving into a period where people are warned off certain books because of possible 'triggers' and other books are being edited to remove overtly racist/homophobic elements (see recent roald dahl controversy).

It's actually quite easy to see how younger people, particularly those with only a very basic background/interest in history could grow up with a completely incorrect perspective on the extent of racism.

But it was preoccupation with race that caused a movement towards colour blind casting in the first place.

I agree OP depending on the context. An imaginary time or fictitious place can have a diversity of characters and it wouldn't he noticed. A historical drama should not in my opinion. This also goes for gender too, it would be ridiculous to depict a powerful business woman regardless of colour in a time when this could never have happened. It makes all other elements of the show less believable. This goes particularly for a real person. A blonde freckled person playing Gandhi would be silly, as would a black person playing the Queen.

I’m not a person of colour so I daresay I don’t know what I’m talking about. But for me it seems really quite insulting to cast black people in period dramas as Lord and Lady XX or whatever and try to pretend it was absolutely fine for black people living in those days, nobody mentioned race, nobody oppressed people of colour, black and white people all lived in perfect harmony, there were opportunities for all.

I’d be the same if it was a drama set in the 19th century or whatever and it was showing that a woman was the prime minister or something. Yes it might be fiction but it’s pretty offensive to just pretend women would be able to get to such a position when we know in reality women were so completely oppressed at that time.

Also, there have been black people (and many other ethnicities and skin colours) in the UK for centuries. From the 1500s and likely a bit before that.
Whilst in context of the story/drama it might be a bit implausible to some of the audience that a person of colour would be represented, it isn't impossible.

I view it that acting is acting- so as long as the person is playing the character in a convincing way, it shouldn't matter to the story being told.

I wouldn’t expect a historical drama
to be historically accurate because it’s a drama. The same way any drama isn’t going to be reflective of reality because its whole purpose is to entertain. I don’t think employing a diverse cast reduces or removes historical racism or would make most watchers think racism didn’t (and doesn’t) exist.

Children are taught about the impact of colonialism in our schools, more so than ever before. A historical drama with black actors isn’t going to impact that- if anything, they can use their own knowledge to challenge that interpretation.

Genuine answer with a touch of spice at the end.

We know that racism (less high quality acting opportunities for POC) is a problem in Hollywood. Look at my example above about the history of Best Actor and Actress winners, who are predominantly white. Not everyone is anti-racist. However, society as a whole likes to think that fighting racism is a good thing. Hence why creating more opportunities for POC is often discussed as a good thing.

There are also other societal issues, which pop up in Hollywood: ageism, weightism, sexism etc. For example, the best parts tend to go to men of a younger age and a certain build. Similarly, older, fatter women really struggle to get the best parts - you don't see them in Hollywood, you don't see many parts for older women at all in Hollywood. These things need to be challenged too. We should create more roles for all kinds of different people. You are right.

However, this thread was specifically about colour blind casting, which is why people (like me) started to describe why it is important for POC to have more opportunities. It felt like the thread was discussing a (albeit imperfect) solution (colour blind casting) without talking about the problem it is trying to solve (lack of quality parts for POC). Colour blind casting is one solution among many. The solutions can work together.

Please start your own thread about age-blind casting, if it is an important issue for you. Or you could start a thread about writing and funding more high quality productions that centre the experience of older women. I will show up and support your thread! Feel free to tag me in it to draw my attention once you've set it up. I will go to bat for older actresses.

Note: Although I've taken my time and energy to address your "Genuine question" with a genuine answer. I do suspect your question not to be as "genuine" as you describe. It smells suspiciously like a classic case of "whataboutery", which aims to distract and derail. People don't run into a fundraiser for the British Heart Foundation, and say "why aren't we rasing money for Animals in Distress", so why does this always happen in conversations about anti-racism???

I was going to say it doesn't matter, but have you ever seen a white person play someone who would be assumed (or actually be) black? I suspect not.

I feel so strongly about this that I refuse to watch anything done in this way

It used to happen all the time! Othello. Native Americans in cowboy films.

But you haven't said why any group 'deserves' special treatment.

Only that you think it's important. (I'm sure you do) And that black people face racism in society (no doubt).

Hollywood isn't a public service, it's a business.

If people aren't as keen on some casting choices or themes then they don't spend their money and go to see the films. Same with TV shows. Make films and shows with diverse casts and if they succeed then there is obviously a demand.

If they don't then ok, that's life? 🤷‍♂️

The problem with colour blind historical drama is that (unfortunately) many people take what they see as 'accurate', so assume that there was little or no colour prejudice. It is misleading them into thinking there isn't a problem. This gives ammunition to those who cry 'there's no prejudice!'.

@Jaxhog yes. It used to happen all the time - Mickey Rooney, Al Jolson, Lawrence Olivier, Angelian Jolie, Kathryn Hepburn, John Wayne, Yul Brynner.

All white actors who played characters of different races and in some cases wore make up to imitate them.

I honestly think you are very naïve by underestimating the extent to which a huge proportion of the population get their knowledge from the entertainment they consume and don't think to challenge it.

Not just in relation to history - anything.

The number of people who are convinced they know police procedures and processes because they've watched line of duty, for example. Or legal processes because they've watched one courtroom drama.