Permanently Deleted
I know it's maybe reactionary but I really never liked the race changed historical figure casting. Idk it just feels weird and pointless. Unless you're trying to do something with it. You could make the argument about representation but it's literally a European monarch. There's nothing aspirational or representative about it.
There are literally thousands of stories you could be telling but instead it's all like "what if Mary Queen of Scots was black" but it also doesn't change the story in anyway.
What's actually progressive about telling the story of a white woman using a black woman? Surely it's just taking away from the potential story of POC people throughout history. Sure, it's a black woman getting a role instead of a white woman but it's still a white woman's story.
I have written an electronic-mail to mr. BBC and he says they are seriously considering never doing anything about the tudors or the monarchy ever again on your reccomendation, but unfortunately their current shows and films already in production will have to proceed for cost reasons. I am assured that if you can all hold off on shitting your pants every time a black person appears on film pre-1939 without every other character gasping or slurring them for three more years, the queen will die and they can wrap on The Crown and focus on only telling stories about racism, a thing which they are very good at
More directed at the thread in general than you specifically, the 'bothered by black people in mary poppins' energy is strong throughout and I'm just firing them off from the hip
What I mean really is, its fine to say "they should do more POC stories rather than tired Henry VIII adaptations", I agree, but it's a non-starter since they will be doing English royal shit roughly every two months for the next 100 years, that is just the reality, and given that reality this is a positive thing.
Have you seen the Bridgertons? If you haven't, don't, it's trash. One of the main characters, the Duke of Hastings, is black, along with a bunch of other characters, including the queen. I thought they were doing a color blind cast, which I mean that's cool I don't really care one way or another on that, it's a schlocky romance adaptation after all. But it's not color blind casting. There's a completely unnecessary scene where one character explains that black people were accepted into English high society because the king chose a black woman to be his queen. I was dumbfounded. This raised so many questions. What happened to the old white Duke of Hastings? Was his title expropriated and given to a black man? Who and by what metrics were the new black nobility chosen? Lottery, relation to the Queen, some watery tart threw a sword at them? None of the implications are examined, its the laziest writing I've ever seen, and I'm left feeling like the only point is that somehow Meghan fucking Markle is going to solve racism.
Yeah, we all remember how welcoming the British public were with Meghan Markle.
I mean, that's the worst of both worlds to me. If you're gonna do a colorblind casting, ok. If you're going to go with a sort of "fantasy" world loosely based on 19th century England, ok too. But to go with something SO ahistorically ridiculous like early modern Europeans being totally cool with creating a multiethnic society just because the king had a black wife, c'mon that's ridiculous. Reality is if a king did that back then he'd probably find himself murder by his brother and no one would give a shit.
I think its more about actors getting roles than progressive elements in the story really. Hollywood has a casting and paying problem separate from the decisions around which stories get told and how, which is of course also a problem
Also though fwiw I disagree with your point because these aren't really effective historical accounts, they are stories and stories are more reflections of their tellers than their subjects. Like, most of the shit in period pieces is hollywood invention anyway, why not be inventive away from white supremacy rather than in favor of it in that case
But why keep telling those same stories about the same four or five white people. It's just like Henry VIII (and wives), Mary Queen of Scots, Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria. There's like a billion stories about these people.
I get that it's good to actually boost the amount of roles available for POC but why not also boost the stories of real POC at the same time? Hell, it might even get people to learn about these people and such.
It just reinforces that the only stories worth telling in history are rich white people, no matter who plays them.
I haven't seen anything about Shakespeare the person
It just reinforces that the only stories worth telling in history are rich white people, no matter who plays them.
I think its common all over to have historical fiction based on the powerful. In India we've got historical fiction about kings fighting kings
It is sort of making the best of a bad situation, true. But its still a sign of progress. Definitely easier to cast black people than getting people to stop making or watching things about Henry VIII, even if that's the ideal
Yeah it's stupid, and not for the reactionary reasons.
So the characters are just gonna pretend she's white basically. And now the production can't really acknowledge or explore anything related to race or ethnicity because the characters are all colorblind.
If it's a really abstracted film, it can be cool to cast people differently and it can serve the point of the work in various ways, but really doesn't do anything in a serious context like this.
To me it kind of feels like splashing multicolored paint on random people and having them walk around like that. "Race makes me uncomfortable, let's make it not exist"
It can definitely be done badly, as in Hamilton and I guess Brigerton (I can think of other examples for sure) where it ends up overwriting and disguising racist history, but the alternatives are saying either just don't make these stories, make them but don't cast black people in them, or cast black people but every scene they have to be victims of brutal oppression. I think each of those would end up being more racist than just not being upset because of black people being treated 'white' where you might as well just substitute 'normal' because that's what that means in a filmic context
This actress might bring a specific take particular to her identity into this role, the movie might use it to make some race-related point, even as limplib as 'black women can be as regal as whites', or she might not and it could be totally race blind, either way its just a movie and ultimately the content is less important than the labor question of whether black people get a fair amount of roles
I think "don't tell these stories" is close, more like "don't tell these stories so damn much"
It would be cooler if filmmakers used it to familiarize people with mom European parts of history.
the alternative is the mainstream arts establishment reinterpreting the biographies of problematic (for the mainstream) figures to support the mainstream. the real solution is to divest from these kinds of prestige arts productions entirely, although that's easier said than done I guess.
Correct me if I’m wrong here please.
I’m fine with any and all representation (obviously not fascist or reactionary ones) in art and culture. But it always irks me whenever historical figures are changed like this. If say, it is an adaption of some famous play in the past, it’s fine to take an artistic license as long as it isn’t important to the character and story. (Looking at you Othello and every single blackface performance).
All historical fiction takes liberties with the "true story" for artistic effect, and there's no reason facts like a historical person's race can't be subject to that as well. Of course that's not a neutral decision, and changes what the work says, but it's not necessarily some sort of bastardization of the truth.
Hamilton is still a bad play though.
Thankfully I’ve never watched Hamilton.
And another comrade elsewhere in this thread worded their comment much better which is where I was going with this. I wasn’t sure how to word it myself exactly.
I think I pretty much agree with you, I just don't want to throw the artistic possiblity of racial recasting out entirely
It just serves no purpose to racially recast a historical figure. Especially a monarch which race also was a huge factor regarding their attitudes and subjugation of others. And what purpose does it serve as “art” if all it’s only substance is, “but what if this person was actually black?”
I think the idea with these representations is, if say British or American film/theater does historical works, they will basically always be working with a white cast. The cumulative effect is there ends up being a lot more work for white actors than for POC actors, so it's almost more of a workers rights issue than anything else.
That said, I agree with another comment here that when there is casting like this, it means the character essentially has to "pretend" they are interacting with a white person and not a POC, which brings up other issues.
I mean at some point it is unironically liberal Hollywood that prevents things like emancipatory or liberating revolutionary movies. Anything with class consciousness isn’t going to go either. They have ties to elites, the ruling class, they’re bourgeoisie, have offices in the pentagon and state department and vice versa.
I mean it just goes to show that it is one of the institutions of the state that is complicit in capitalist white supremacy and as such it will need to be destroyed.
For me I think the actual racism is a bit more subtle than how many actors of a certain race get work. I mean, that's part of it to be sure, but if the historical drama genre was adapting stories from all over the world then there would surely be work for every actor, but instead we're stuck adapting and readapting stories from the same handful of colonizers and their grandparents.
Casting a black person in a white role is fine, but what we need is more black roles.
That’s my overall point. We need more roles that expand upon other cultures and races, etc. I feel that changing the race of historical people as characters on a show has some sort of propagandizing effect, how it does or even if it does I couldn’t tell you.
I agree with you. I just think we won’t get anything like that until Hollywood is destroyed in a sense. Everything else now will be liberal empty of substance reboots and shit. Idk though.
lol at the western entertainment industry making every white character black for some reason now, so funny and dumb. good thing i consume none of your pathetic western entertainment or """"culture"""".
Being white isn't a thing you are, its a thing you do, much like veganism which is why I cannot do as you suggest and why you are still whitey
If I were to make a movie in which I cast the Founding Fathers as black, would I have to cast their slaves as white or also black?
Okay I would watch a movie with black Washington beating his white slaves regardless of the politics just for the comedy potential alone. Actually it would be funnier the worse the politics of it. The democrats are gonna do reparations and it will end up being only this movie
Actually it would be funnier the worse the politics of it.
So like a bunch of black British actors as the Founding Fathers talking about how they are white in the movie and a group of white actors playing slaves while doing the Nick Mullen Nigerian sandal salesman voice?
It seems like a struggle session happens no matter what so I want to see what the best one is. Am I taking away black roles from black actors by casting the slaves as white? White people get mad for casting all of the Founding Fathers as black, except for Ben Franklin, who is Chinese? Black American actors get mad because I used only black British actors? There's so many potential struggle sessions lol.
Franklin's racism was weird as hell, he'd probably be just as offended by being played by a Swede.
Can't blame him, I mean who'd want good Saxon stock being poorly portrayed by a dirty Swede.
It is just pandering true but what is your thing here, that it would be more progressive if she was played by a white woman, or if ann boleyn was killed by a black person or what? Weird post, reads as blind anti-wokeism
Fair enough but the costumes are usually prettier when there's queens in, but yeah Henry VIII has been done to death especially
Don't be distracted by the unsolvable conundrum of feudalist/bourgeois representation/assimilation/co-optation — le definitive answer is here 👉 TALKS AT THE YENAN FORUM ON LITERATURE AND ART, May 1942
