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?

Given improvements in modern dental health, by the OPs premise only actors with a mouth like a bombed terrrace should play parts in historical dramas.

Oh do feck right off with this divisive bollox.

The Windrush generation started coming to the UK in the 40's never mind the 60's.

What a stupid thing to be bothered by.

You understand about representation and under representation, right? I can’t believe this is still something we have to explain.

I’d assume that about a fifth of the best actors would also be black.

If I’m watching a tv programme or film I’m not concerned if a character is from an ethic background or speaks with a different accent my only Issue is if the person is a bad actor. I think most historical dramas have a great cast and I trust the casting director to choose the best person for the job.

I was in school in 1980s, west of Scotland. Not rural. We had less than 20 ethnic minority kids in our school of 1,400. Whenever I see ethnic minorities in drama set in earlier times it seems extremely unrealistic - like giving someone in a dickens reproduction an iPhone - and is quite distracting.

I see the issue with ethnic minority actors not getting the same opportunities otherwise though.

I think this is the real issue. It’s a deep and structural one to do with who is commissioning and making material. Rather than another version of King Lear/Pride and Prejudice etc, why not broaden our horizons and seek out stories from other parts of the world and society that will naturally feature people who are/look/speak in ways we’re not so familiar with?
Indhu Rubasingham at the Kiln Theatre and now the National is a good example of how someone from a different background and with a different point of view can change the landscape for writers, directors, actors and other performers of colour.

But when historical truth is twisted to create a narrative that fits today's ideas then surely that is wrong.

For example the recent Elvis film has Elvis being great friends with BB King a black blues singer who recorded at the same tiny record studio as Elvis but 3 years before Elvis ever walked through the door.They probably never even met, if they did it was in passing. I can't find any record of them ever having met.

The same film has Little Richard (the black man who's records Elvis and other white stars "covered" aka stole) playing a support slot for big mama Thornton is a tiny club in Memphis... Richard was the main act in a Hollywood movie that year and was earning $10,000 a week.

So on one hand they promote a black artist into a more prominent role...and demote another to just be on hand to provide a story line.

Therefore I can agree that there is an issue about representation, but when representation is jarring or tokenism (the black guy in BBC's Arthur for example) or a downright lie then yes I have an issue with it's implementation.

There are loads of other inaccuracies in that film. He didn't meet Colonel Tom in the way shown. His comeback special wasn't Christmas themed, Priscilla wasn't the age shown when they met. Why are all these things ok to you, but it's the truth about colour that's "twisted"? If historical truth us so important, why aren't you commenting on hundreds of other inaccuracies instead of only those about race?

I didn't say anything about those "errors" but I pointed out the ones relevant to the point at hand. The fact that things were altered both to promote a person of colour into a prominent role and lie about the huge achievement of another....I gay black man selling records to and performing in front of white teenagers. I will go record and say Austin Butler is fantastic, the film is a pile of...

I have no issue with most colour blind casting. But if I was to film a biography of Shaka Zulu I would be castigated if I cast Brad Pitt as Shaka. But in the recent ITV adaptation of the Larkin's, Charlie the tax man is played by a black actor...how many black tax inspectors were there in rural Kent in 1958? It's jarring. The black policeman in Sister Boniface is not jarring as he has a realistic reason to be in 1960s great Slaughter.

My point is that every historical film has inaccuracies. Some of them should be jarring, they are so out of place. But for some reason, it's only ones related to race that have threads started to complain about them. And it's never about racism, it's "accuracy". But it's only race that has to have this standard applied.

Literal casting is a relatively recent demand. Little boys played all Shakespeare’s women when his plays came out. Women weren’t allowed to act till the 1650s.

One of Thackeray’s minor heroines was black, as was the first Mrs Rochester. (They were exploited for their money in both plots.) Black characters are not unknown in historical literature.

If the objection to colourblind casting is that it breaks your suspension of disbelief, audiences over the centuries have coped with a lot less literal casting.

It’s not clear that the first Mrs Rochester was black. The term Creole was also used to refer to settled white Europeans in the Caribbean at the time the book was written. I know there is a lot of debate on this topic but it isn’t clear from the description of her brother that they are mixed race. He is described as having sallow skin but there are other references to paleness.

I don’t think anyone can state for certain whether or not they were mixed race (racial prejudice would explain some of the references to her madness as it was a clear trope at the time).

I think a fictional drama set in the 1960's can have anyone in it. Red, brown, blonde or green. It's fiction!
I would only think it odd if it is based on real people and we know how they looked. But even with that, the further back in time you go the more difficult it becomes to be accurate. So just give film makers that artistic freedom and let them cast who they believe is best for the role.

I think this is a fair point, and I’m sure some of the objections to colour-blind (or gender-blind) casting do spring from people simply disliking the sense that inclusive politics are affecting what they see on their screens.

It’s just not the only reason people can find this worth discussing, that’s all. I don’t, personally, ‘object’ to it, at all, but I think it raises questions - because, unlike food choices and ahistorical clothing/decor etc, gender and ethnicity are intimately tied up with long-term structural power differentials that affect people’s lives to this day. Unlike the presence of the potato in the 1530s, these things still matter and are still live political issues.

So some of the discussion on these things can be motivated by racism or discomfort with representation, or wanting have have a go at ‘woke’ or whatever - absolutely - but it’s not the only reason some of us find this interesting to talk about.

Somone said earlier these things always devolve into an argument between authenticity and representation. I don’t think that’s quite right, because my argument is about how important it might be to have truthful representation (not just authenticity). I think the divide is between those of us who think the representation of material facts has a real and meaningful value, versus those who think that historical injustices can be (partially) addressed by a sort of fantastical collective effort of will, a construction of an imagined and more just past.

You’ve missed the point in your last paragraph. It’s not about ‘a construction of an imagined and more just past.’. Nobody is expected to think or believe the past was like that. It’s just about not denying good actors work because the past was like that. It does assume people arent totally uneducated, I guess. But wouldn’t it be sad if great actors didn’t work because some people hadn’t taken advantage of the free education we all get in the U.K. or the plentiful historical programmes, podcasts and books available to them?

But why does that have to mean denying actors work? Why can't we have more period dramas set in different parts of the world? Apparently, there’s yet another Pride and Prejudice adaptation coming out this year; wouldn't something different have been much more interesting?
The choices don't have to be endless Jane Austen adaptations with an all white cast, or endless Jane Austen adaptations but the latest one has a diverse cast. There's so much more to history, and there are so many more stories to tell.

Oh, I agree that a wider range of drama would be good (in many ways, not just about casting) but unfortunately that’s not the situation. Plus most iconic stage roles would be unaffected anyway.

But it could easily be done, it's a shame there doesn't seem to be much effort to diversify in that sense. Theatre's different, I think colour blind and gender blind casting works well there because theatre involves suspension of disbelief anyway, it's not meant to be realistic in the way tv often is.

I find it really irritating when they do that! But i’m an absolute stickler for historical accuracy.

Tv and film are expensive to produce. They only green light profitable things - even the BBC has an eye on overseas sales. When you see so much racism about, why would you risk it? It’s part of a bigger problem.

Are you? Do you object to actors with chemically coloured hair, or who have had cosmetic procedures? Do you expect the correct level of dirt and darkness in internal scenes?

I don't mind this at all, obviously it isn't always historically accurate but it can be a useful way of reflecting the diversity of modern society in films even if they are historical, after all they are just films and it also means that talented actors of all backgrounds get a chance to work and show their skills. It may also mirror diversity in historical times perhaps not exactly but it would show that many cities were even in medieval times were surprisingly cosmopolitan.

Yes, roll up, roll up for, say, an Austen adaptation where the actors have historically-accurate dreadful teeth (Regency gentry had a fair bit of sugar in their diet, and Lizzy Bennet's teeth being 'tolerable' according to one of the Bingley sisters almost certainly means 'not missing any, and not that crooked'), the actresses have hairy legs and armpits, everyone's hair looked seldom washed, and everyone is extremely hot and sweaty at Assembly balls with energetic dancing in unventilated, crowded rooms. Not that we would be able to see much of this anyway, if we're filming by candlelight.

This has made me think about another issue related to acting - Eddie Redmayne saying that he regrets starring in The Danish Girl because he thinks a trans character should be played by a trans actor, and the controversy over Helen Mirren playing Golda Meir because Mirren is not Jewish. And I think: God, we really have completely lost sight of the whole concept of acting, haven’t we?