Disgust - The Reform party Racist Sarah Pochlin

Hugh Quarshie as Henry IV, Adrian Lester as Henry V and David Oyelowo as Henry VI have all played the roles with great success. Skin colour is irrelevant.

Lathyrus3

A drama about Nelson Mandela would be about “universal themes” of injustice, oppression, triumph over adversity.

All universal themes.

So your argument that this is what makes it acceptable for any actor to take on a role also applies here.

No I disagree.

White historical character roles should be protected just the same as you are advocating for protection of black historical roles.

A drama about Nelson Mandela would be about “universal themes” of injustice, oppression, triumph over adversity.

All universal themes.

So your argument that this is what makes it acceptable for any actor to take on a role also applies here.

Allira

^to say yet again, the purpose of drama is to engage us in the dramatic world^

So you are saying it matters not a jot if black actors take the parts of white historical people and white actors take the parts of black historical people as long as the drama is engaging and encourages people to watch.

Yes, that about sums up my POV, although I know others' will vary.

It would matter if the role was about someone persecuted for their skin colour, or who was powerful because of it, or in something like Noughts and Crosses where colour is integral to the plot, but not if it is, as Wyllow says above, a story about psychopathy and how absolute power corrupts. Colour was entirely irrelevant to that.

Wyllow3

the whole story of Henry V111's reign and the role of the 6 wives in it is huge and complex. its the story of a probably psychotic monarch, with absolute power, who completely changed the faith and of the nation and was embroiled in manipulating and being manipulated by courtiers Thomas Cromwell - Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas More, Cramner....

The playout of other women as well as the wives, Mary and Elizabeth....

The role of those wives in a Tudor world, and their manipulation by their families

but these are not just about events in Henry V111's reign, it ia a tale of absolute power and its consequences, the role of women broadly, the role of those close to Henry and their rise and fall of power (this is bingeing to sound like Trumo and other s who are trying to or who have "Absolute power" (as in Trump blaming that he is above the law, even the supreme court, currently

These universal themes do not demand specifically in my POV that only white Women can play the wives.

to say yet again, the purpose of drama is to engage us in the dramatic world created in that play, and therefore engaging a wide range of players including black ones engages more people, and gives us a chance to make both parallels and differences between power and its use in the Tudor world as opposed to now.

If it doesn’t matter if a black actor plays a Queen of England, then it shouldn’t matter if a white actor plays Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Malcom X etc.

After all inclusivity should work both ways…

to say yet again, the purpose of drama is to engage us in the dramatic world

So you are saying it matters not a jot if black actors take the parts of white historical people and white actors take the parts of black historical people as long as the drama is engaging and encourages people to watch.

Wyllow3

Why on earth does it really really actually matter? They are not figures like Nelson Mandela or ML King.

Wow.. Well that puts women firmly in their place.

Even wearing the crown of England doesn’t make you of any significance.

Nor being well educated, politically aware and concerned about social problems.

It doesn’t apparently matter how these real historical figures are portrayed because well - I guess they were women 😱

the whole story of Henry V111's reign and the role of the 6 wives in it is huge and complex. its the story of a probably psychotic monarch, with absolute power, who completely changed the faith and of the nation and was embroiled in manipulating and being manipulated by courtiers Thomas Cromwell - Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas More, Cramner....

The playout of other women as well as the wives, Mary and Elizabeth....

The role of those wives in a Tudor world, and their manipulation by their families

but these are not just about events in Henry V111's reign, it ia a tale of absolute power and its consequences, the role of women broadly, the role of those close to Henry and their rise and fall of power (this is bingeing to sound like Trumo and other s who are trying to or who have "Absolute power" (as in Trump blaming that he is above the law, even the supreme court, currently

These universal themes do not demand specifically in my POV that only white Women can play the wives.

to say yet again, the purpose of drama is to engage us in the dramatic world created in that play, and therefore engaging a wide range of players including black ones engages more people, and gives us a chance to make both parallels and differences between power and its use in the Tudor world as opposed to now.

but let's not change history just to be inclusive

Correction - black actors.

In regard to the arts casting people for quotas etc

I appreciate this is anecdotal but this Summer I went to Cosi Fan Tuttle and a non binary person ( it said so in the programme) was cast in one of the female roles.

I was prepared to suspend my idea of what a beautiful woman should look like -I mean opera is quite often about suspending the look of the singers - but I did find the masculine gestures and movements distracting to the role.

The voice was such a disappointment. They sang falsetto and were good in that range but they couldn’t reach some of the higher notes and their voice didn’t have the timbre of a female voice.

They really couldn’t have been selected on their merit.

And not to do with race I know, but yes I do think the arts world allocates parts for reasons other than merit.

I would hesitate to go to another opera with that particular company.

Perhaps if we go further down this road we could question the white depiction of Jesus.
Lots of examples of white actors wearing make up to take on roles of black people or people of colour, though thankfully that rarely happens today and excellent lack actors and actors of colour now have a chance to play title characters rather than the black servant, villain, or joker.

sundowngirl

Allira - I suspect you said that tongue in cheek or Mary Seacole can be played by a white actress - if it's only history after all

😀

Babs03

That I didn’t know and find to be counterproductive, because Boleyn has been demonised throughout history, called a witch or just a manipulative madam, beheaded for her efforts. So not a great role to give to a black actor when you think about it.

So it would have been acceptable if Catherine of Aragon or Catherine Parr were played by a black actress????

Well, she wasn't all she was made out to be.
The propaganda machine was well oiled even back then, Henry and others made sure of that.

Allira - I suspect you said that tongue in cheek or Mary Seacole can be played by a white actress - if it's only history after all

That I didn’t know and find to be counterproductive, because Boleyn has been demonised throughout history, called a witch or just a manipulative madam, beheaded for her efforts. So not a great role to give to a black actor when you think about it.

sundowngirl

Babs03

“Nobody would accept a white actor playing Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or Ghandi.”

Neither would you see a black person playing Winston Churchill or Queen Elizabeth in The Crown etc., because they are real people not fictional characters in a play where it really doesn’t matter what colour of actor takes on the role.

Anne Boleyn was a real person and she was played by a black actress on the TV series. Was that acceptable??

Well, apparently it's ok.

Perhaps because there's no-one alive today who actually knew her so let's change her, it's only history after all.

If she had just said that there is a disproportionate number of non-white actors in ads when compared to the number in the population it would be different.

1 That could possibly be true proportion-wise.

2 Adverts drive me mad because they are not clever, witty or engaging any more. Full stop.

Two separate things.

Babs03

“Nobody would accept a white actor playing Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or Ghandi.”

Neither would you see a black person playing Winston Churchill or Queen Elizabeth in The Crown etc., because they are real people not fictional characters in a play where it really doesn’t matter what colour of actor takes on the role.

Anne Boleyn was a real person and she was played by a black actress on the TV series. Was that acceptable??

Six shows Henry's wives as modern women, which they were not. They didn't wear dresses split to the thigh, or enter singing competitions either, so why is it skin colour that attracts attention? 🤔
I've never been to see it, the excerpts of them prancing around together was enough to put me off 😀
However, DD went to see it and enjoyed it.

“Nobody would accept a white actor playing Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or Ghandi.”

Neither would you see a black person playing Winston Churchill or Queen Elizabeth in The Crown etc., because they are real people not fictional characters in a play where it really doesn’t matter what colour of actor takes on the role.

This argument is recycled every so often, and it seems people will never agree. My take on it is that where skin colour is relevant to the story (eg in a portrayal of Nelson Mandela) then of course a black actor should play the role. Where skin colour is incidental (eg Bridgerton) then the roles should go to the best person for the part. Not tokenism, but because skin colour is no more important than eye or hair colour. Six shows Henry's wives as modern women, which they were not. They didn't wear dresses split to the thigh, or enter singing competitions either, so why is it skin colour that attracts attention?🤔

As for Sarah Pochlin, how anyone can say that seeing more people of colour in adverts 'drives her mad', and then claim she is not being racist is beyond me. If she had just said that there is a disproportionate number of non-white actors in ads when compared to the number in the population it would be different. That is an observation - an odd one, but an observation.

Adding that this 'drives her mad' is racist. Is it because adverts show people in aspirational roles, rather than servile or underprivileged ones, and seeing black and Asian people in those roles upsets her? Would it 'drive her mad' if there were more green-eyed or red-haired people shown in adverts? Or would she not even notice, as she has nothing against those groups, and she doesn't object to their being shown on holiday, buying insurance or eating out of expensive dishes in fashionable houses? Who knows, but her comments do beg the question.

Wyllow3

Why on earth does it really really actually matter? They are not figures like Nelson Mandela or ML King.

Yes they were.

They were not fictional characters.
One was Spanish, one German and four were English.

Henry VIII' s father was born in Wales.

Why on earth does it really really actually matter? They are not figures like Nelson Mandela or ML King.