Historical drama

[Banananew]

Genuine question
Why do production companies use people of colour in dramas set in historically times? We were watching a program earlier set in the 1960's and there were a number of characters of colour. It was set in a very rural part of the country that my parents were from. This really would have been unusual/unlikely. So why does this happen?
I am not bothered as it doesn't particularly matter, but why?

Yeah, and that's allowed - I can see the argument that insisting on exceptionally good artistic visions would just bring us back to a situation where actors of colour find it harder to get good work. But I don't agree, I suppose, that this stuff is consequence-free. I like a PP's post about essentially Utopian visions - that's fine and I think almost everyone knows that eg Bridgerton is essentially existing outside time and space. But where you have it in eg Wolf Hall, which is an otherwise strenuous attempt at historical verite, I think the price we pay for it is the under-representation of the reality and consequences of oppression. I hope we also get some commissions of work that explores (as a PP said) the real stories of people of colour in eg the Tudor era. I'd watch!

They're often extras. And when they did this in Wolf Hall it appeared as odd as it would a nursery scene with 4 year olds played by pensioners.

There were hundreds of black people in Tudor England, including some who
lived in quiet rural communities. As more probate and other legal archives are properly investigated by historians, it is highly likely that more black people living here four hundred plus years ago will be revealed.

I grew up in a small town in the early 1970s where there were two black families in an otherwise white community.

No, it’s people like you, who live in cloud cuckoo land

For me there are two things going on. Firstly, colourblind casting, which I am in total favour of, allows for a diverse cast reflecting modern society and is more about who is the best actor for the role, rather than what they look like.

The issue is when people who only get their knowledge of history from watching programmes of this sort think it’s an accurate representation of society from the time period, and then can’t get to grips with modern issues around race and inequality in general, when as far as they are concerned POC and women have always had access to opportunities open to rich white men throughout history because that’s what they have seen on the telly. Of course this is down to lack of knowledge or education of the viewer and it could be argued that it isn’t within the remit of such programmes to educate the uneducated, however in an increasingly under-educated society I can see how this might become problematic.

Well it clearly isn't, as I'm not remotely upset by the skin colour of actors. If I was having little tantrums and getting all cross with people on a thread about it, I probably would be being a bit of a snowflake. But it isn't me doing that, is it?

Artistic license outweighs historical accuracy

Go to any theatre in the UK and you will see not just colour-blind casting, but gender-blind casting too. After a while, you don't even notice it. If the actor is good in the role, it ceases to become an issue, because they're acting.

@Banananew
I was borough up in a very rural area in the 1960s/70s and there were a few black people around.
One of my closest friends at high school was mixed race. Her father was a married black American servicemen at a base in East Anglia who went back to the US leaving my friend’s mum as a single parent.
I was also at primary school with a black girl and another mixed race girl.

As others have said, colour blind casting is very common these days. Personally, I prefer period dramas to be historically accurate where possible. I find it hard to watch American ones, because they'll be set in the 19th century and have the women all with full modern makeup and botox! Instead of just adding more non white actors to the usual rural English period drama setting, I’d be much more keen to see more of them set in other parts of the world. That would be really interesting and a good way to get more diverse casting.

I think this is the best analysis I have read on this. Most people aren’t going to look deeper, many people absorb their understanding of history from fictional sources. If we aren’t honest about who was where, doing what, isn’t there a danger that understanding of the impacts of historical inequalities and oppression will just be blurred and sidelined and over time disappear from the generally understood historical record?

it’s not about erasing prejudice from the past. It’s when there is a fictional show set in the past, that is pure fiction and not actually exploring themes of race and prejudice then using colourblind casting is preferable to making a show with only white people.

I understand that is your take on it. I disagree. You're presenting it as if that's entirely agreed upon. When in fact it's just been decided upon by a small group of people. As a trend for the 2020s.

And why is it preferable?

I found the casting of Anne Boleyn in that series to be totally rediculous. Black farmers in the Yorkshire Dales in the 1930’s (All Creatures Great and Small) was unrealistic, but a black Anne Boleyn was a step too far. You have to be a bit more realistic when featuring real people from history. There is also the issue that no one would cast a white actor to portray somebody who was black in real life.

And yet these threads come up on a regular basis and are incredibly vituperative, as if raceblind casting is doing some kind of injury to the poster.

You're just twisting what you think people think to suit your narrative. It's insulting.

Yes I agree.

Given how shit costume tend to research the period, leeway with the actual dates etc skin colour is the least of the issue.

But I'd put money that I wouldn't be cast in the role of Muhammad Ali's son though.

And an Australian William Wallace.

Because around 20% of the British population isn't white and so about one fifth of roles need to go to them - otherwise it's discrimination.

So that's more important than casting the best actor? The artistic merit is less important than the political message?

I would say the opposite - a black actor in a lead part like AB is so obviously colour-blind casting that it would take a seriously under-educated person not to realise this, so no harm done, and in fact it could be a bonus if the actor is fabulous and we wouldn't otherwise get to see them.
But if you make one or more of her anonymous ladies in waiting or servants black, that is misrepresenting the historical situation, which gives people a false impression of what things were like.

Most people are seriously uneducated though. I think you're indulging in wishful thinking.

But if you make one or more of her anonymous ladies in waiting or servants black, that is misrepresenting the historical situation, which gives people a false impression of what things were like

Does that matter? If you're looking at anything set a few hundred years ago, I guarantee everyone will be cleaner than they would have been in real life. They will be speaking a different version of English compared to the real dialect. They will probably be eating food that wasn't right for the time, the clothes could be wrong, the whole story could be only very, very loosely based on what actually happened (see Braveheart as a previously mentioned example). Nobody complains that people watching will get a false impression of what life was like if the TV-watching public see Henry VIII eating potatoes, but heaven forbid they see a black person in the background, that's not acceptable! FFS.

there may very well have been hundreds but they would still have been 0.001 percent of the population and concentrated heavily in London. Your average rural villager in Somerset or West Lothian could absolutely have gone their whole life without seeing a black person - just like your average rural villager in 1500s china could have gone theirs without ever seeing a white person!

OP there was a very long thread on this a few months ago but to be honest this one is already distilling the two arguments either side - either authenticity is more important or representation is more important. Most people think the truth is somewhere in the middle and can vary depending on the type of programme.
Most of the time someone's race isn't that important. Sometimes it is.

YABU…I’m assuming you’re white and see yourself represented in all era’s and historical settings. I am white also so cannot speak for people of colour., but my personal understanding is representation and diversity in modern programming so the largest amount of people are represented. I really really dislike this view that if PoC weren’t there in the 60’s they can’t be in programs made now! This is how we combat discrimination, by making sure they are. Or they could just be the best actors, with the best audition for the role?

100% this.

Any dramas are always an interpretation and a lot of artistic licence is always taken in various different ways. One of the most recent things is the number of A listers having so much work done it’s difficult for them to effectively communicate emotions which I personally thing is more an issue. I’ve not seen anything yet which had a POC actor and thought it was difficult to subsequently understand or enjoy the story.

Forward thinking policies are aiming to make the arts more inclusive so get used to more diversity is all I can say.