Anne Boleyn

At the end of the day it’s all a nonsense. This is being done in the name of art by some right on director/producer.

The argument now is that gay characters are played by gay actors. Native American actors used to be thin on the ground in the days when westerns were the mode, but now those parts are played by them. I dare say in Africa all the actors are black. Seeing as people of colour only account for quite a small percentage of the population in the UK why should they play a larger part in the acting profession? If a film is being made focusing on the black community then, obviously, black actors would take those parts.

This Anne Boleyn play is ridiculous and the actress concerned may be the best actress ever but from the clips I’ve seen I just can’t relate to it. Also, as I’ve previously stated, AB and Henry VIII has been done to death. His whole reign was awful and the most horrific tortures were inflicted on people. I don’t know why they don’t do more on Charles II. Now there’s a king I can relate to.

Oooerr! Alegrias1 too much philosophising for my poor brain on sunny sunday!?

trisher I think it will take more time for black characters to be played by white actors, primarily because white actors and white roles now dominate. But if in the future the numbers equalize it would seem to be desirable
I would say there are now a lot of dramas and movies starring black actors and other races too. There are plenty of parts in TV dramas and movies, and even historical dramas without changing the sex and race of real people. Hopefully more writers will include black characters whether real of not without having to change history.

Toadinthehole

Maybe the question should be, are we fantasists or realists, and take ‘ racist’ out of the equation.
I know I’m definitely a realist. I’ve never liked pantomime. I wouldn’t watch something where the sexes were changed. I wouldn’t watch anything where a white person was portraying a black person, and the same the other way round.
A fantasist could do these things because they have good imagination. I don’t, and never have.
I struggled being adopted, because they weren’t my real family. This is something I can’t change.

You'd never watch anything where a white person was portraying a black person? So you've never watched a biblical epic? Or are white people playing middle eastern characters OK because they aren't that black? Maybe the same goes for westerns, I mean native Americans are OK to be played by white actors. It is only really black people who must never be confused with white people.

No there really isn't any racism is there.

I think some people are more interested in impersonators than actors.

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?

My DFiL used to think the most damning indictment of any series/program was that "it couldn't really happen, could it?" He liked a war film because they were all factual, weren't they?

Maybe the question should be, are we fantasists or realists, and take ‘ racist’ out of the equation.
I know I’m definitely a realist. I’ve never liked pantomime. I wouldn’t watch something where the sexes were changed. I wouldn’t watch anything where a white person was portraying a black person, and the same the other way round.
A fantasist could do these things because they have good imagination. I don’t, and never have.
I struggled being adopted, because they weren’t my real family. This is something I can’t change.

Nice article in the Sunday Herald this morning about the series. Explains how they were trying to get the best actor for the part. Interesting.

Not sure I'll watch it though, its got an Irish actor playing Jane Seymour. Jane Seymour wasn't Irish! And the actor playing Henry is only 33 and everybody knows he was 45 when Anne was killed!

Its just PC gone mad.

Agree lemongrove, chestnut, disco. It’s so ridiculous, I think it’s a wind up. To do what they suggest would turn all productions into pantomimes. A bit like this thread!

lemongrove

The woke posters are enjoying revelling in their wokeness!
What larks they are having. ?
I can only sit back in amazement at the weirdness of their views regarding casting.....although I think they are probably saying things for the effect, egging each other on ( as they giggle).I hope it’s that, and not that they really believe such daftness.Mind you, it’s GN so you never know.

?. Absolutely, it’s complete madness.

Chestnut

trisher

Chestnut

If we are going to enter fantasyland then why not get Bart Simpson to play Churchill?

Bart Simpson is a cartoon character not an actor Chestnut. Actors are real people. If you don't know the difference I understand it must be difficult to appreciate what is happening.

You've missed the point completely. ? Perhaps you need an explanation. You took us into fantasyland by suggesting Idris Elba or a woman to play Churchill, and I was just playing along with this silly game by suggesting something equally ridiculous. (I'd have thought that was obvious actually).

But women have been playing men's parts for years Chestniut, interestingliterature.com/2014/10/was-hamlet-a-woman-yes-and-no/
so why not a woman playing Churchill? Or a black actor? It isn't ridiculous. It's entirelt possible and it could be very interesting.
I think it will take more time for black characters to be played by white actors, primarily because white actors and white roles now dominate. But if in the future the numbers equalize it would seem to be desirable

Because different productions do things differently.

Tell me why do they have look alike actors to play certain people as in The Crown, or the new Canadian production about Meghan and Harry? Why not have a black actor playing Harry?

trisher

Chestnut

If we are going to enter fantasyland then why not get Bart Simpson to play Churchill?

Bart Simpson is a cartoon character not an actor Chestnut. Actors are real people. If you don't know the difference I understand it must be difficult to appreciate what is happening.

You've missed the point completely. ? Perhaps you need an explanation. You took us into fantasyland by suggesting Idris Elba or a woman to play Churchill, and I was just playing along with this silly game by suggesting something equally ridiculous. (I'd have thought that was obvious actually).

So, Damien Lewis as Martin Luther King? Reece Witherspoon as Rosa Parks?
Meryl Streep as Oprah Winfrey with a black sales assistant refusing to serve her?
Hugh Jackman as Barack Obama?

It's called acting and they are all very good.

The woke posters are enjoying revelling in their wokeness!
What larks they are having. ?
I can only sit back in amazement at the weirdness of their views regarding casting.....although I think they are probably saying things for the effect, egging each other on ( as they giggle).I hope it’s that, and not that they really believe such daftness.Mind you, it’s GN so you never know.

Chestnut

If we are going to enter fantasyland then why not get Bart Simpson to play Churchill?

Bart Simpson is a cartoon character not an actor Chestnut. Actors are real people. If you don't know the difference I understand it must be difficult to appreciate what is happening.

I saw Birth Of A Nation in 1966. I don't think we found it particularly racist because racism wasn't part of our world. As art students we really weren't that bothered what people looked like, only what sort of work they were producing and probably what music they liked. Extreme tunnel vision I suppose, our's was a very small world. I believe the film has been banned for a long time but it was an amazing piece of work for the time and not such an endurance test for the viewer as Intolerance.

Alegrias1

Okey dokey Chestnut, as the relevance of this seems to be escaping you.

Your words were: it was never considered racist to try and portray someone of a different race.

"Birth of a Nation" was arguably the first true feature film made in the US. One of the main characters is a black man attacked by the KKK. The "black" man is actually a white man in blackface. The film is generally thought to be one of the most controversial features in film history, especially for the way it portrays people of colour, both in their appearance and their character.

It set the tone for how people of colour were portrayed in later films, including the practice of blackface.

So, it is relevant to the casting of movie and TV productions because it is the prototype for how "blacking up" was done in later productions.

So I'm not ashamed of myself, no. It is vile, but not for the reasons you think.

Well maybe you should have made that point instead of posting a random picture with no explanation.

I didn't say I agreed with white people playing different ethnicities in movies. I made the point it was a long time ago and we've moved on since then. But it was done, and back then Hollywood attempted to make the white actors appear authentic in the role they were playing. That was called acting, and no-one considered it racist at the time, it was an attempt at getting the part right. I'm not saying it was right, but this is what happened.

Today we have moved on, and should be attempting to get it right, with black historical figures portrayed by black people and visa versa. We usually know real people's race or sex, and for some more recent figures we know their appearance too. In The Crown they made every attempt to get the hairstyles, the make-up and the costumes right for the people being portrayed, as well as their race and sex.
As I keep saying, it is disrespectful to change a real person's race or sex when portraying them.
What if a blonde haired, blue eyed actress played Tina Turner in a biographical drama? It would be daft. I want to see someone who looks like Tina Turner. In fact Anna Bassett portrayed her brilliantly in What's Love Got to Do With it and I would have been disappointed to see someone blonde and blue eyed who looked nothing like her in the role.

Apparently the costume designer is going for a modern take on Tudor fashions and not worrying about historical accuracy. I'm fairly sure electric blue didn't exist in the 16th century. Colours like this were a product of the chemical industry in the 19th century. Still we shall soon see how it all works out.

trisher

Chestnut

theworriedwell - you've mentioned Hugh Griffith playing the Sheikh in Ben Hur, Natalie Wood and George Chakiris in West Side Story as examples of white people playing non-white parts. But these are from the 1950s! I think we've moved on since then. And at least they tried to make the actor look the right ethnicity, they were all made up to darken their skin.

Oh Boy! Blacking up approved of! Whatever next?
Should they then have painted the black actress white? Would that have made it OK for you?

The examples given show how difficult historically it was for actors who weren't white to get roles in productions. It still is difficult. I hope at some point we canreach a stage where the quality of acting is what counts and not the colour of the skin. We seem to have managed this to some extent with male/female roles. But there is still a long way to go.

I hope we do get to the point where the quality of acting is what counts not the colour of the skin. This thread shows we have some way to go.

Although the examples I gave were mainly white actors playing various BAME characters I think they do show that it isn't the skin tone that matters and is just as true when it is a BAME actor portraying a white character.

Okey dokey Chestnut, as the relevance of this seems to be escaping you.

Your words were: it was never considered racist to try and portray someone of a different race.

"Birth of a Nation" was arguably the first true feature film made in the US. One of the main characters is a black man attacked by the KKK. The "black" man is actually a white man in blackface. The film is generally thought to be one of the most controversial features in film history, especially for the way it portrays people of colour, both in their appearance and their character.

It set the tone for how people of colour were portrayed in later films, including the practice of blackface.

So, it is relevant to the casting of movie and TV productions because it is the prototype for how "blacking up" was done in later productions.

So I'm not ashamed of myself, no. It is vile, but not for the reasons you think.

FannyCornforth

Yes - theworriedwell Kingsley was perfect. I only recently knew of his heritage - it never crossed my mind to think about it.

That's exactly it, it just wasn't relevant was it because he acted the part brilliantly.

Chestnut

Alegrias1

Fiona Shaw as Richard II.

He was a real man, she's a woman.

Honestly, its acting...

It was also acting in old movies when people of a different race were made up to appear like the person they were portraying. That included eye make up for Chinese roles (Christopher Lee) and skin darkening for various other roles. But doing that is now racist apparently. But as you say....... it's acting. As far as I know, facial make up has long been used in acting and it was never considered racist to try and portray someone of a different race.

But they didn't need the eye make up, it wasn't convincing, we knew Christopher Lee wasn't Chinese, he convinced he was Fu Manchu (or failed) by his acting skills.

Yes - theworriedwell Kingsley was perfect. I only recently knew of his heritage - it never crossed my mind to think about it.