# I'm not been racist



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

But why has Channel 5 got a black actress to play Anne Boleyn when we all know she was white. I sorry but it wrong.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Why does the colour of the actors skin matter when it comes to playing a part?
We all know that the person playing the part isn't the actual person, we also know that TV is for entertainment...soooo, why does her skin colour matter?


Now if the lady in question turns out to be a poor actor and plays the role badly then feel free to suggest others that may have done a better job...but to judge her before its even shown based on nothing bet her skin colour!?!


----------



## Linda Weasel (Mar 5, 2014)

This is another example of ‘inclusivity’ gone mad.
There are enough portraits and history to know what she looked like!

It’s just such an unrealistic portrayal of a well-known figure.

This seems to happen a lot on TV now; it’s like they have to meet some sort of target.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

what difference to the character does skin colour make? Most people will have heard of her before and know she was white historically but even if they’ve never heard of her and falsely believe she’s black what difference does it actually make? It makes no impact upon her character. If it was a white actor who was slightly too tan/pale would we care? Probably not.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

It's not really clear that she was white - in as much as I know about history, historians pretty much 'white washed' everything so I'm sure there's many people in the past who are one thing but another. It's debatable. I kinda think she was..... but after so many stories came to surface about the manipulation of history, nothing is certain.

This article makes a good point though - why Anne Boleyn? Why not a queen whose story isn't so well known? https://www.theguardian.com/world/c...e-losing-their-heads-over-a-black-anne-boleyn


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

bmr10 said:


> what difference to the character does skin colour make? Most people will have heard of her before and know she was white historically but even if they've never heard of her and falsely believe she's black what difference does it actually make? It makes no impact upon her character. If it was a white actor who was slightly too tan/pale would we care? Probably not.


I disagree, I think it does affect the portrayal for some people. I do find it off putting when this happens & they try to make dramas more inclusive. I understand why they do this but surely this means maybe production companies should be putting on more programmes reflecting black history.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

I don't know anything about channel 5 but as recently as 2013 Johnny Depp, a white actor played a Native American in The Lone Ranger which personally didn't bother me though it did cause a little kerfuffle. 
There's a long history of using white actors to play minorities, able bodied actors to play roles of disabled characters, and using 'fat suits' on skinny actors to play the part of heavier actors, young actors to play the part of older actors, etc., etc.

The argument has always been that the directors/producers have a vision and this was the actor who fit in to that vision. 
Perhaps this is true here too, this actress was how the directors/producers saw the story they wanted to tell. It's all just fancy make-believe. If you don't like it, don't watch.



Linda Weasel said:


> This is another example of 'inclusivity' gone mad.


Perhaps. But this one, unlike some others we've discussed recently, doesn't bother me. There's no forced participation, it's not hurting or endangering anyone. It's just a TV show


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Cleo38 said:


> I disagree, I think it does affect the portrayal for some people. I do find it off putting when this happens & they try to make dramas more inclusive. I understand why they do this but surely this means maybe production companies should be putting on more programmes reflecting black history.


Why does it affect the portrayal for you? Aren't many historical dramas/shows rife with inaccuracies? Often the costumes are from a different decade or even time period. I know that netflix has a show about the royal family (don't know the name because I don't watch tv shows) and while being accurate in some areas, it is inaccurate in others. If the show is a dramatisation I don't think it matters because there will always be a little bending of the truth to make it more appealing to audiences. If it is a documentary then historical inaccuracies would be more of an issue imo.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Historically, men played the female roles in plays, in the not too distant past it was deemed acceptable for white men to 'blackface' as entertainment, in more recent times people have played ethnicities, religions, genders, sexualities & so on that aren't their own so I don't understand how this is any different really.

I'm sure it'll get the gammons foaming at the mouth though, while their outrage at the animal rights McDonalds blockades earlier in the week is still fresh in their minds.

In a world where there are so many very wrong things, this seems such a minor thing to get aerated over.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Happy Paws2 said:


> But why has Channel 5 got a black actress to play Anne Boleyn when we all know she was white. I sorry but it wrong.


 It's very strange. I wonder if they would use a Chinese actor to play Prince Philip (and what he would have had to say about it if they did :Hilarious!). Would they use a white actor to play Nelson Mandela?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Linda Weasel said:


> This is another example of 'inclusivity' gone mad.


Is it inclusivity, or is it diversity? Confused.com.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Honestly it did make me go ‘um ok’ when I first heard about it. It’s not like Hermione Granger where she’s a fictional character. Ultimately not a big deal though. I totally get how in the UK especially black actors get typecast and opening up this sort of role is a big deal.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

Why is Jesus so frequently portrayed as white when he was Arabic?


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Just realised I’ve contradicted myself by going from ‘not a big deal’ to ‘is a big deal’ in the space of one sentence, hopefully you still get me (not long woken up)


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

To be honest I don't see a need for it. I think it's just a publicity stunt to get people talking about it. If it had been a white woman I don't think I would have know it was going to be on to be honest. Then again maybe I'm just becoming cynical.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Calvine said:


> It's very strange. I wonder if they would use a Chinese actor to play Prince Philip (and what he would have had to say about it if they did :Hilarious!). Would they use a white actor to play Nelson Mandela?


As myself and others have already pointed out, yes, in the past there have been white actors used to portray black figures and other minorities.
Here's a list of some, including Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra - who was definitely not white, Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson, Mickey Rooney playing a Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Laurence Olivier playing Othello, Katharine Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in Jade, Jim Sturgess a white British actor portraying a Chinese American, and John Wayne playing Genghis Khan.

When this is the norm in Hollywood, it does start sounding off when there is 'outrage' over a white woman being portrayed by a black woman...

Sorry, meant to post the list:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/26-t...-really-gave-a-sht_n_56cf57e2e4b0bf0dab313ffc


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

SusieRainbow said:


> Why is Jesus so frequently portrayed as white when he was Arabic?


Um, excuse me. I'll have you know that Jesus was obviously a white American who loved guns, duh. Don't you listen to country music?


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

O2.0 said:


> Um, excuse me. I'll have you know that Jesus was obviously a white American who loved guns, duh. Don't you listen to country music?


I'd post one of those memes of Jesus riding a dinosaur with a massive gun but I don't want to offend anyone


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

O2.0 said:


> When this is the norm in Hollywood, it does start sounding off when there is 'outrage' over a white woman being portrayed by a black woman...


Personally think it'd raise more eyebrows if they'd had King Henry played by a black actor and doing colourblind casting for one of his wives is almost a cop out lol


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I just this black thing has gone to far.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I just this black thing has gone to far.


dare i ask what "this black thing" means...?


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I just this black thing has gone to far.


But what even is a 'black thing'?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

I think what bugs me is the inconsistency of it all.

To go from "why does it matter if the skin colour is different" to "how dare a non trans play a trans person".

Just difficult to know what to be outraged about these days


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

bmr10 said:


> Why does it affect the portrayal for you? Aren't many historical dramas/shows rife with inaccuracies? Often the costumes are from a different decade or even time period. I know that netflix has a show about the royal family (don't know the name because I don't watch tv shows) and while being accurate in some areas, it is inaccurate in others. If the show is a dramatisation I don't think it matters because there will always be a little bending of the truth to make it more appealing to audiences. If it is a documentary then historical inaccuracies would be more of an issue imo.


Because it is such an obvious inaccuracy for me it would be distracting. Same as if she was played by someone in a wheelchair, it's not a small thing but something that is instantly obvious rather being a bit vague with factual representations.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

MilleD said:


> I think what bugs me is the inconsistency of it all.
> 
> To go from "why does it matter if the skin colour is different" to "how dare a non trans play a trans person".
> 
> Just difficult to know what to be outraged about these days


I think that's because trans actors usually find it difficult to be cast in roles and for some reason directors would rather hire a non-trans person instead. It happens with gay characters too, the majority are played by straight people. Because these minorities as a whole struggle to land roles due to people having an issue with their identity some people do get upset and think "why not give this role to someone who is actually trans and who will struggle to get roles anyway?". Majority of actors are straight, white, cis, and able bodied so people out with these characteristics do deserve representation especially when they can be/are just as good actors. It's much much easier for white people to land roles, especially diverse roles, so a black woman playing a white character isn't viewed as taking away much needed representation since white people are... the major representation in most things.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Cleo38 said:


> Because it is such an obvious inaccuracy for me it would be distracting. Same as if she was played by someone in a wheelchair, it's not a small thing but something that is instantly obvious rather being a bit vague with factual representations.


To each their own I guess. I love Grease but it's very obvious, to anyone, that the actors are not teenagers and look like they have taxes to file.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

bmr10 said:


> I think that's because trans actors usually find it difficult to be cast in roles and for some reason directors would rather hire a non-trans person instead. It happens with gay characters too, the majority are played by straight people. Because these minorities as a whole struggle to land roles due to people having an issue with their identity some people do get upset and think "why not give this role to someone who is actually trans and who will struggle to get roles anyway?". Majority of actors are straight, white, cis, and able bodied so people out with these characteristics do deserve representation especially when they can be/are just as good actors. It's much much easier for white people to land roles, especially diverse roles, so a black woman playing a white character isn't viewed as taking away much needed representation since white people are... the major representation in most things.


Nope. Don't get it. Be inclusive, or don't be inclusive. This picking and choosing to suit the circumstance isn't right.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

MilleD said:


> Nope. Don't get it. Be inclusive, or don't be inclusive. This picking and choosing to suit the circumstance isn't right.


But nothing about this situation is not inclusive? Inclusive means including those who are usually left out? White people are not left out of hollywood so a black woman playing a white role is not excluding anyone?


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

bmr10 said:


> But nothing about this situation is not inclusive? Inclusive means including those who are usually left out? White people are not left out of hollywood so a black woman playing a white role is not excluding anyone?


No, inclusive means including everyone. Otherwise you are just treating people differently still.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

MilleD said:


> No, inclusive means including everyone. Otherwise you are just treating people differently still.


But how is this not inclusive? What group of people are being excluded??


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

bmr10 said:


> To each their own I guess. I love Grease but it's very obvious, to anyone, that the actors are not teenagers and look like they have taxes to file.


Hahahaha, don't they just?! I hated Grease .... but not because the actors were so old tho


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

bmr10 said:


> But nothing about this situation is not inclusive? Inclusive means including those who are usually left out? White people are not left out of hollywood so a black woman playing a white role is not excluding anyone?


I'd just prefer we be intellectually consistent. 
If the argument is that a white person playing Genghis Khan is not accurate, then you don't fix that inaccuracy by doing essentially the same thing, having a black person play someone who was, as far as we know, white. 
If the argument is accuracy in portrayal, then have accuracy in portrayal.

If the argument is inclusivity, the same applies. You don't exclude people in order to include minorities.
It feels forced for one, which is part of why this is getting such pushback, and frankly it's condescending to minority actors for a couple of reasons. 
One, it implies minority actors wouldn't get roles otherwise. 
Two, it implies that the stories of people of color aren't as interesting, or don't need to be told. As someone else mentioned, why not tell the stories of those minorities and make movies out of those stories, and *gasp* hire minority actors to tell that story.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Put in simple terms. If a film was made of your life. Would you want a white person playing it if you are black, and vice versa? I wouldn't. *
*Another example, could you imagine the uproar if a film came out and our queen was portrayed as black, or as an example, Donald Trump was portrayed as black? *


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

If this was put forward as a documentary that was filled with facts then maybe I could understand the backlash because it is understood that she was white...
This programme is a Drama/ thriller....which is written to look through a feminist 'lens' re-imagining her struggles... it is a made up story based on some facts, so the colour of someones skin is about as relevant as their sexual orientation.


Instead of getting upset or annoyed by the colour of someones skin because it doesn't fit with what you expect to see then why not just watch something else?


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I just this black thing has gone to far.


:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious
I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh.
I have a feeling you have no idea how that comes across, and certainly don't mean it the way it comes across.

HappyPaws I say this with gentleness, "black thing" the way you're using it here, sounds very rude - as in impolite. "Black" is an entire group of people with a complex history and relationship with other peoples, and the way you say it sounds dismissive at best.

It's also not in good form to start a sentence with "I'm not being racist but..." Just say what you feel without the disclaimer. If you're not racist the disclaimer is not needed, if you are racist, that's okay too - seriously. I'm ready for racist to no longer be a bad word. We are all humans with biases and bigotry and the sooner we learn how to talk about it honestly without judgement, the better off we will all be.

I'm not saying this to you meaning you should change your ways, just to point out that if you get a negative reception to anything you say following "I'm not being racist but..." this is likely why. If that doesn't bother you, carry on. If it does bother you how you might come across to others, then hence my explanation above


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

StormyThai said:


> Instead of getting upset or annoyed by the colour of someones skin because it doesn't fit with what you expect to see then why not just watch something else?


Or turn off the TV altogether and read a book about history. Then you can picture the characters in your head however you want them to be 

I'm always annoyed at movie portrayal of books in general because I'm a very visual reader and I have a very clear picture in my head of what characters look like, and the movie always disappoints enguin


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

O2.0 said:


> I'd just prefer we be intellectually consistent.
> If the argument is that a white person playing Genghis Khan is not accurate, then you don't fix that inaccuracy by doing essentially the same thing, having a black person play someone who was, as far as we know, white.
> If the argument is accuracy in portrayal, then have accuracy in portrayal.
> 
> ...


I asked how a black woman being cast as a white historical figure in a drama is excluding anyone. White people as a group are not excluded from any industry. Nobody has been excluded here? White people always have, and always will be included in mainstream shows/movies. Black people for a long time have not been included in these, in the instances they have, it's often been weird stereotyped roles. A black woman playing Anne Boleyn is not excluding white people imo so I asked why it was.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> If this was put forward as a documentary that was filled with facts then maybe I could understand the backlash because it is understood that she was white...
> This programme is a Drama/ thriller....which is written to look through a feminist 'lens' re-imagining her struggles... it is a made up story based on some facts, so the colour of someones skin is about as relevant as their sexual orientation.
> 
> Instead of getting upset or annoyed by the colour of someones skin because it doesn't fit with what you expect to see then why not just watch something else?


*It isn't a case about getting upset about the colour. It's about at least portraying a person as they were.*


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

JANICE199 said:


> *It isn't a case about getting upset about the colour. It's about at least portraying a person as they were.*


Yeah, but where do you draw the line with that. Are you going to be upset if the actor isn't the exact same age as the character was when these historical events took place? Or if their hair isn't the right shade or length? If the filming doesn't take place in England?? Like where is the line. If the changes do not impact the story then I can't see the issue.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

bmr10 said:


> I asked how a black woman being cast as a white historical figure in a drama is excluding anyone. White people as a group are not excluded from any industry. Nobody has been excluded here? White people always have, and always will be included in mainstream shows/movies. Black people for a long time have not been included in these, in the instances they have, it's often been weird stereotyped roles. A black woman playing Anne Boleyn is not excluding white people imo so I asked why it was.


I never said a black woman playing a white woman wasn't inclusive.

But you can't got from that to (for instance) not allowing non trans to play trans roles as that very definitely isn't inclusive.. Screams of having your cake and eating it.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

bmr10 said:


> Yeah, but where do you draw the line with that. Are you going to be upset if the actor isn't the exact same age as the character was when these historical events took place? Or if their hair isn't the right shade or length? If the filming doesn't take place in England?? Like where is the line. If the changes do not impact the story then I can't see the issue.


*Going by your logic, then why use her name? Pick some random person and do the story. But they know by using her name it sounds more interesting.*


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

MilleD said:


> I never said a black woman playing a white woman wasn't inclusive.
> 
> But you can't got from that to (for instance) not allowing non trans to play trans roles as that very definitely isn't inclusive.. Screams of having your cake and eating it.


I didn't say that non-trans people shouldn't be allowed to play trans characters though? I haven't said that anyone shouldn't be allowed to play any character at all. I said that when a non-trans actor plays a trans role some people will think "why not give this role to someone who is actually trans and who will struggle to get roles anyway?". When most trans characters are not played by trans people, and trans people don't land any other roles, then people will wonder why not give them a role they have real-life experience in and will add to the representation trans people need in media?


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

JANICE199 said:


> *Going by your logic, then why use her name? Pick some random person and do the story. But they know by using her name it sounds more interesting.*


Well, I guess that is why many movie/television/book characters are actually based upon historical figures without using the figures actual details. I've never watched it but I know that one of the characters on game of thrones is based on Anne Boleyn. They could have created a unique character name and based it off of her with this but as you said the name entices people. Period dramas are a hot thing at the moment.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

bmr10 said:


> I asked how a black woman being cast as a white historical figure in a drama is excluding anyone. White people as a group are not excluded from any industry. Nobody has been excluded here? White people always have, and always will be included in mainstream shows/movies. Black people for a long time have not been included in these, in the instances they have, it's often been weird stereotyped roles. A black woman playing Anne Boleyn is not excluding white people imo so I asked why it was.


Of course white people are excluded in all sorts of contexts. 
We can bring the trans debate over here, there are white trans people you know  
What about fat white people, they're very much excluded in the film industry. Unattractive white people too, well, technically unattractive white women. If you're ugly and a woman it's more of a detriment than if you're ugly and a man. 
People of all types are excluded in all sorts of industries. I'm not going to get a swimsuit modeling deal any time soon, nor will I be hired as a mathematician, plumber, or translator for Swahili. Should I claim discrimination? Or should I accept that differences are okay and that we all don't have to fit in to every niche of society?

Inclusivity is good in theory, but not to the point that we start trying to pound square pegs in to round holes. 
It's like Syndrome on The Incredibles said, "everyone can be a superhero! And when everyone's super. No one will be."


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> Hahahaha, don't they just?! *I hated Grease* .... but not because the actors were so old tho


Same!


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

O2.0 said:


> Of course white people are excluded in all sorts of contexts.
> We can bring the trans debate over here, there are white trans people you know
> What about fat white people, they're very much excluded in the film industry. Unattractive white people too, well, technically unattractive white women. If you're ugly and a woman it's more of a detriment than if you're ugly and a man.
> People of all types are excluded in all sorts of industries. I'm not going to get a swimsuit modeling deal any time soon, nor will I be hired as a mathematician, plumber, or translator for Swahili. Should I claim discrimination? Or should I accept that differences are okay and that we all don't have to fit in to every niche of society?
> ...


But white people are not excluded due to being white. White people as a group are not excluded. I'm not talking about individuals. Everyone deserves representation imo. White people, and their skin colour, will always be represented in western media and so a black woman playing a white character doesn't take away any representation to me.

If someone has the skills required to be a model, mathematician, plumber, or translator and they are barred from it because of their appearance then... yeah I'd say that's discrimination. If it's purely because you don't have the skills required, say you can't speak a lick of Swahili then no? Entry into a workplace should be based upon skills so lacking those skills is a reasonable ground for no entry?


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Just realised Jodie Turner Smith (the actress in question) is American. Thought she was English. Now I actually am outraged*


*not really calm down


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

O2.0 said:


> Or turn off the TV altogether and read a book about history. Then you can picture the characters in your head however you want them to be
> 
> I'm always annoyed at movie portrayal of books in general because I'm a very visual reader and* I have a very clear picture in my head of what characters look like, and the movie always disappoints* enguin


I totally agree!

I recently watched the first episode of The Stand remake & much as I love Whoopi Goldberg she's just not right for the part of tiny, frail centenerian Mother Abagail.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Calvine said:


> It's very strange. I wonder if they would use a Chinese actor to play Prince Philip (and what he would have had to say about it if they did :Hilarious!). *Would they use a white actor to play Nelson Mandela*?


I think that's the point. That would never happen nowadays, and rightly so imo.

Irrespective of what happened in the past, who played who, etc. (hopefully we know better now) if it's a portrayal of a real person, then the ethnicity isn't up for interpretation imo.

If Anne Boleyn were known to have been black (never seen any suggestion that she was, however) then absolutely she shouldn't be played by a white actress. But as I said, that would never happen.

The rules have to work both ways though imo.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

bmr10 said:


> To each their own I guess. I love Grease but it's very obvious, to anyone, that the actors are not teenagers and look like they have taxes to file.




Though, of course, it was a work of fiction


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Its not historically accurate . I would like idris elba to play james bond.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

bmr10 said:


> But white people are not excluded due to being white.


Is that how you want to play this? Because the next point then becomes, if I exclude you due to something other than your skin tone, then that's okay? 
Or are you saying that we are all reduced to the color of our skin? Because I don't like that direction either.

MLK dreamed of us being judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. I feel like we're losing that vision. 
It's not about focusing on skin color. It's about focusing on who a person is, what they have to offer, what their life experiences are, their talents, their drives. 
Even saying something like 'white people' is right up there with HappyPaws saying "this black thing" 
Who are "white people"? Do white people who don't speak English get included in White People, or just English-speaking ones? What about Latinos like Cameron Diaz, if she counts herself as white does she have to give up the Latina label? How far do we want to take this identity thing? Which parts do we want to count and which ones should we discount?

I think by focusing so heavily on race and skin color we're missing so much of the big picture of what makes us human, where we make connections, where we are similar, where we are different, and how we can better learn to live together.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Lurcherlad said:


> Though, of course, it was a work of fiction


William Wallace played by an American with a dodgy accent in Braveheart, a movie which I personally have not seen but I know is rife with inaccuracies including brave heart not even referring to William Wallace but Robert the Bruce- obviously a completely different guy. Despite having a completely different character and storyline than the movie is named after it's still a fairly popular film and its inaccuracies are taken lightheartedly? Most historical movies and shows are like this. As I said before; unless it's a documentary I don't see much harm in changing details.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

O2.0 said:


> Is that how you want to play this? Because the next point then becomes, if I exclude you due to something other than your skin tone, then that's okay?
> Or are you saying that we are all reduced to the color of our skin? Because I don't like that direction either.
> 
> MLK dreamed of us being judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. I feel like we're losing that vision.
> ...


As I said previously I believe everyone deserves representation and that groups of people being excluded is not okay under any circumstances. I said that white people are not excluded from media purely for being white, black people often are. As most actors are white and so white people grow up seeing their skin colour represented in mainstream media whereas black people don't, I don't think placing a black actor in a white role is excluding anyone as white skin has always been included/represented and always will. The term white people, although subjective, typically refers to caucasians so people who have ancestry from Europe. That is who I refer to when I say white people.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> William Wallace played by an American with a dodgy accent in Braveheart, a movie which I personally have not seen but I know is rife with inaccuracies including brave heart not even referring to William Wallace but Robert the Bruce- obviously a completely different guy. Despite having a completely different character and storyline than the movie is named after it's still a fairly popular film and its inaccuracies are taken lightheartedly? Most historical movies and shows are like this. As I said before; unless it's a documentary I don't see much harm in changing details.


Thee trouble with inaccuracies in historical films is that there is are those that think it's the truth and the real truth gets lost. There are incidences of this happening already particularly in online websites such as Wikipedia which seem to be taken as correct in all incidences by some.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

I had to look it up, but Mel Gibson has dual citizenship - Irish and American, and he has permanent residency in Australia. 
So just like skin color, nationality is complex and often not easily reduced to a simple "he's American" because, well, he's also Irish, and grew up in Australia. 

However, he's definitely not Scottish and that movie got a ton of flack (rightly so IMO) for its historical inaccuracies, Gibson's terrible attempt at an accent, and the depiction of historical figures. 

No, the inaccuracies were not taken lightheartedly at all. I remember it being in the news and all the talk of the film inspired me to look up more about Scotland's history. Not that you could look things up easily back then in 1995, I think I was still on a modem using Altavista


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

O2.0 said:


> I had to look it up, but Mel Gibson has dual citizenship - Irish and American, and he has permanent residency in Australia.
> So just like skin color, nationality is complex and often not easily reduced to a simple "he's American" because, well, he's also Irish, and grew up in Australia.
> 
> However, he's definitely not Scottish and that movie got a ton of flack (rightly so IMO) for its historical inaccuracies, Gibson's terrible attempt at an accent, and the depiction of historical figures.
> ...


Living in Scotland I've never met someone who holds anything against the film though. People think the inaccuracies are funny from what I've experienced but there is no feeling of outrage or anger towards it. It's just seen as a made-up version of history. Perhaps the reaction was different when it was released but from my experience, teenagers and adults alike don't hold any grievances towards it. I don't hold any grievance towards a white woman from history being played by a black actor because it's just a period drama, which tend to be inaccurate in many ways - the wrong skin tone is just the start.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> I totally agree!
> 
> I recently watched the first episode of The Stand remake & much as I love Whoopi Goldberg she's just not right for the part of tiny, frail centenerian Mother Abagail.


I didn't even know The Stand was a movie, let alone a remake lol. I'll pass on both. The Stand is about my absolutely most favorite book. I'll keep it in my head the way it is.

The only movie/book combo I actually approve of is True Grit. Book is one of my favorite re-reads. And I adore the original movie. I once tried to watch the remake and turned it off after 5 minutes lol.

My sister was just telling me they've had to have all these workshops at work about "inclusion/diversity". I was in agreement with her that these classes create more differences. The employers are pointing out "this person is different but treat them like you would this other person". What the heck is that?

Well it's the way of the world. We keep trying to get to a place where everyone is accepted as the individual they are, but human nature being what it is, I don't know if we'll ever get there. I grew up in a small town in an all white school. But I find now, I don't even actually notice what color people are. If someone asked me, what skin color was the cashier at the store, or my customer paying a parking ticket who just walked away from my window, I wouldn't be able to tell you. I might not even be able to remember the gender! Perhaps that's just poor observation skills, or perhaps I am lucky that skin color matters so little to me I really just don't notice.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Siskin said:


> Thee trouble with inaccuracies in historical films is that there is are those that think it's the truth and the real truth gets lost. There are incidences of this happening already particularly in online websites such as Wikipedia which seem to be taken as correct in all incidences by some.


That is a fair point and a possibility but as I previously mentioned where is the line? If a documentary, which is meant to be informative, has inaccuracies this is akin to a textbook having an inaccuracy- not okay. If a period drama, which is meant to be enjoyable, has inaccuracies then is it not expected? As I previously said, there is a show on Netflix about the royal family which is really popular but not very accurate- but then it's a drama so it's not really made to be. If I watched it and thought that Diana and Charles met in a certain way, when in reality they didn't, well 1) when watching a drama you should take it with a pinch of salt due to it naturally being a twist of the truth and 2) it doesn't really affect my life any which way if I falsely believe it.

Additionally, although there are exceptions I don't think people young enough to not know who Anne Boleyn is are watching period dramas. So I think we are safe there for the most part.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

O2.0 said:


> As myself and others have already pointed out, yes, in the past there have been white actors used to portray black figures and other minorities.
> Here's a list of some, including Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra - who was definitely not white, Joseph Fiennes playing Michael Jackson, Mickey Rooney playing a Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's, Laurence Olivier playing Othello, Katharine Hepburn playing a Chinese woman in Jade, Jim Sturgess a white British actor portraying a Chinese American, and John Wayne playing Genghis Khan.
> 
> When this is the norm in Hollywood, it does start sounding off when there is 'outrage' over a white woman being portrayed by a black woman...
> ...


and English actors playing American parts, badly!

One of the nicest dramas on TV recently was The Durrells very loosely based on the stories of Gerald Durrell and they used a Greek cast for the Greek parts as opposed to Brian Blessed (English actor) shouting loudly in a previous version.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> and English actors playing American parts, badly!
> 
> One of the nicest dramas on TV recently was The Durrells very loosely based on the stories of Gerald Durrell and they used a Greek cast for the Greek parts as opposed to Brian Blessed (English actor) shouting loudly in a previous version.


I've not seen the 'new' new one yet but I enjoyed both the original one from the 1980s & the one made about 10-ish years ago, but as always the books are better.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Slight digression but I illustrate books and also commission illustrators which means I get to look at the briefs for illustrations for a lot of children's books for global publishers. One of the shameful things to see was the marking up of the illustrators work to include diversity _after_ George Floyd's murder. The terms used were 'be more diverse' by authors and editors with no specifics which I found astounding. This are publications designed to teach kids and it was awful to see that it wasn't considered in the first instance _before_ last summer's events or with better diligence over details. And this included history and humanities titles. We still have a problem with this in my opinion, in being mindful about diversity anyway.

I don't think it's the 'black thing gone too far' (it's not gone far enough IMO) but that tokenism has.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> That is a fair point and a possibility but as I previously mentioned where is the line? If a documentary, which is meant to be informative, has inaccuracies this is akin to a textbook having an inaccuracy- not okay. If a period drama, which is meant to be enjoyable, has inaccuracies then is it not expected? As I previously said, there is a show on Netflix about the royal family which is really popular but not very accurate- but then it's a drama so it's not really made to be. If I watched it and thought that Diana and Charles met in a certain way, when in reality they didn't, well 1) when watching a drama you should take it with a pinch of salt due to it naturally being a twist of the truth and 2) it doesn't really affect my life any which way if I falsely believe it.
> 
> Additionally, although there are exceptions I don't think people young enough to not know who Anne Boleyn is are watching period dramas. So I think we are safe there for the most part.


Some films do have a disclaimer stating that it is not historically accurate and that conversations are imagined etc, however the Netflix royal family series (The Crown) does not have this disclaimer and the producer refuses to put one on. There are a lot of younger people particularly in other countries who are taking what they see as historical fact. I was born in 1951 not long before the queen ascended the throne. Much of what is seen on the program is utter rubbish at times. Saying it doesn't matter and that everyone should know it's not for real is wrong as many are believing what they see. It is especially hurtful as this is more recent history and the people who were directly involved are very much still alive and being adversely effected


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MilleD said:


> Just difficult to know what to be outraged about these days


Just be outraged about everything possible, that way you are bound to be OK about many of them.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

O2.0 said:


> However, he's definitely not Scottish and that movie got a ton of flack (rightly so IMO) for its historical inaccuracies, Gibson's terrible attempt at an accent, and the depiction of historical figures.


But he has got a lovely bum!


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MilleD said:


> But you can't got from that to (for instance) not allowing non trans to play trans roles as that very definitely isn't inclusive.


You will remember not long ago (it was discussed on PF) that Halle Berry issued a ridiculously grovelling and self-demeaning apology for considering taking a trans role; at the same time Jodie Foster (gay lady) has never issued an apology for considering and playing straight roles excellently (don't get me wrong, I don't see why she should - she's probably my favourite actress, too). She didn't say: ''Hell, I'd better apologise for all the straight roles I've played''.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Siskin said:


> Some films do have a disclaimer stating that it is not historically accurate and that conversations are imagined etc, however the Netflix royal family series (The Crown) does not have this disclaimer and the producer refuses to put one on. There are a lot of younger people particularly in other countries who are taking what they see as historical fact. I was born in 1951 not long before the queen ascended the throne. Much of what is seen on the program is utter rubbish at times. Saying it doesn't matter and that everyone should know it's not for real is wrong as many are believing what they see. It is especially hurtful as this is more recent history and the people who were directly involved are very much still alive and being adversely effected


Is it any different to the hundreds, if not thousands of opinions & allegations presented as facts that get shared on social media every day though?

Little nobodies are as adversely affected as anyone famous.



SusieRainbow said:


> But he has got a lovely bum!


Hahahaha! True that.

Fun fact loosely based around Mel G, I have the Mad Max trilogy on DVD & the first film has the option of the original Australian dialogue, or you can watch it in..... really badly done American accents.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> But white people are not excluded due to being white. White people as a group are not excluded.


Well, sometimes they are: have you forgotten this (not a million years ago)?
BBC criticised for banning white job applicants for trainee role | Metro News


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Calvine said:


> Well, sometimes they are: have you forgotten this (not a million years ago)?
> BBC criticised for banning white job applicants for trainee role | Metro News


Never heard of it but I have read through the article and I agree with the tweets by Matthew Sims. A white person may not get that role but the majority of the roles in the BBC, and other media networks, will be open to white applicants and most often preferentially hire them. If the people in charge of hiring are consciously/subconsciously preferring white applicants then it's necessary to exclude them sometimes to give others the chance they deserve but are not usually offered. This article highlights this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46927417.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Siskin said:


> Some films do have a disclaimer stating that it is not historically accurate and that conversations are imagined etc, however the Netflix royal family series (The Crown) does not have this disclaimer and the producer refuses to put one on. There are a lot of younger people particularly in other countries who are taking what they see as historical fact. I was born in 1951 not long before the queen ascended the throne. Much of what is seen on the program is utter rubbish at times. Saying it doesn't matter and that everyone should know it's not for real is wrong as many are believing what they see. It is especially hurtful as this is more recent history and the people who were directly involved are very much still alive and being adversely effected


The point about the disclaimer is right actually. I hadn't considered that and didn't know they exist in dramas (never watched one) but I think all dramatisations of real-life events should require one because in truth there are people who are susceptible to believe what they are told/see without fact-checking. So I apologise for jumping to the conclusion of "it's obvious some parts are not real if it's a drama" because to some people it isn't obvious. Providing it is obvious to an individual that something is not 100% the truth, then changes to the plot or characters are not detrimental really. I don't personally believe dramatisations should be made of living people without their consent but that is just me personally.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> A white person may not get that role but the majority of the roles in the BBC, and other media networks, will be open to white applicants and most often preferentially hire them.


Firstly: I knew you would disagree with me. Secondly: you know (maybe) that the writer of the article is not white (no guesses for that), so possibly/likely biased?


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Calvine said:


> Firstly: I knew you would disagree with me. Secondly: you know (maybe) that the writer of the article is not white (no guesses for that), so possibly/likely biased?


Idk why you've added that first point but yeah the writer could be biased completely but then you'd have to find the actual study to see the raw data where the statistics are taken from the find that out. Science is often biased but I still held my own opinions prior to seeing that article. I'm classed as having a disability and have been told not to disclose it to potential employers (doesn't impact my work) because it has the potential to affect my outcome. Whether the person going through my application has a conscious or unconscious bias it still happens and it's not okay. The NHS offers the option for applicants with disabilities to be guaranteed an interview because of this reason. Not quite the same as excluding non-disabled applicants but I use this example because biases do happen and if I disclosed my medical history in job applications I would have never worked a day in my life probably.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> I agree with the tweets by Matthew Sims


I don't even know who this man is - is he famous - should I know him? I don't take posts on Twitter and FB that seriously, and I certainly would not quote them as a source of believable information; if I wanted Matthew Sims' opinion, I would join Twitter which I don't intend to do.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2021)

*I'm not been (sic) racist but…*

No, of course not.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Calvine said:


> I don't even know who this man is - is he famous - should I know him? I don't take posts on Twitter and FB that seriously, and I certainly would not quote them as a source of believable information; if I wanted Matthew Sims' opinion, I would join Twitter which I don't intend to do.


I didn't quote him as a source of believable information, I said that I agreed with his opinion. Meaning that my perception of the media industry aligns with his tweets within the article. You linked me to the article and instead of writing my own thoughts when they were the same as his I just said I agreed with his points. If you don't want a member of the public's opinions then perhaps do not read newspapers that include it.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Douglas' Dad said:


> *I'm not been (sic) racist but…*
> 
> No, of course not.


That old chestnut again..............give it a rest it means nothing


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2021)

rona said:


> That old chestnut again..............give it a rest it means nothing


Oh because you say it doesn't?
You *must* be right then.

If anything is a hackneyed cliché dissimulating as an unpalatable truth, it's the title of the thread.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

bmr10 said:


> Idk why you've added that first point but yeah the writer could be biased completely but then you'd have to find the actual study to see the raw data where the statistics are taken from the find that out. Science is often biased but I still held my own opinions prior to seeing that article. I'm classed as having a disability and have been told not to disclose it to potential employers (doesn't impact my work) because it has the potential to affect my outcome. Whether the person going through my application has a conscious or unconscious bias it still happens and it's not okay. The NHS offers the option for applicants with disabilities to be guaranteed an interview because of this reason. Not quite the same as excluding non-disabled applicants but I use this example because biases do happen and if I disclosed my medical history in job applications I would have never worked a day in my life probably.


I interview potential applicants. Why would you think something that doesn't affect your work would affect if you are offered a role?


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

MilleD said:


> I interview potential applicants. Why would you think something that doesn't affect your work would affect if you are offered a role?


When leaving secondary school I was forced to talk to a careers advisor and then later talk to a skills advisor firm because I had 0 plans about my future. In both instances, I was advised against saying that I have Crohn's disease as the explanation to why I have no qualifications or prior experience and to just not mention it at all if possible. They told me that a history of long absence periods would be taken as a liability. I think in a graduate job this would apply less but in something like retail work where one position has hundreds of applicants why would employers take the risk when someone the exact same but healthy has applied? It's never once affected my education at university or my employment but I still do not mention it purely because I know some people do have an unconscious bias.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> then perhaps do not read newspapers that include it.


I will read whatever I like, so please do not be snarky or condescending (neither need nor want your advice on that matter); and until I have read something, I have no way of knowing what is included, have I? I am not psychic.
I would, if you don't mind, point out to you that I have taken jobs where a* certain skill* was required ('able to communicate in German/Russian/some French' - not that I had to *be* German or Russian or French-born, but simply *to speak the languages*). This was because the jobs entailed meeting/speaking to/writing to German-speaking Germans/Swiss/Austrian and Russian speakers and without the necessary language skill I would not have managed to do the job. But I have never accepted a job, nor would ever accept, on the basis that I was black/white/ mixed race/Asian/Chinese/Red Indian or whatever. Only on what I could do, not what colour I was. The job should surely go to the person best qualified to do it in the opinion of the interviewers, regardless of colour/gender/religion? And with Auntie Beeb, you are not sure that it ever does. I reckon they should change their name to ''Biased Broadcasting Corporation''. Just saying.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Calvine said:


> I will read whatever I like, so please do not be snarky or condescending (neither need nor want your advice on that matter); and until I have read something, I have no way of knowing what is included, have I? I am not psychic.
> I would, if you don't mind, point out to you that I have taken jobs where a* certain skill* was required ('able to communicate in German/Russian/some French' - not that I had to *be* German or Russian or French-born, but simply *to speak the languages*). This was because the jobs entailed meeting/speaking to/writing to German-speaking Germans/Swiss/Austrian and Russian speakers and without the necessary language skill I would not have managed to do the job. But I have never accepted a job, nor would ever accept, on the basis that I was black/white/ mixed race/Asian/Chinese/Red Indian or whatever. Only on what I could do, not what colour I was. The job should surely go to the person best qualified to do it in the opinion of the interviewers, regardless of colour/gender/religion? And with Auntie Beeb, you are not sure that it ever does. I reckon they should change their name to ''Biased Broadcasting Corporation''. Just saying.


The job should go to the suitable applicant with the highest skills but this is often not the case due to conscious/unconscious biases. Criminals are often discriminated against in workplaces, regardless of their skillset, and many companies (Boots for example) now advocate against this and promise to give every applicant a fair hearing. Whether that happens or not I don't know. The point is that bias in the workplace is a real thing, especially with race, and that this is the reason that role for BBC required someone to be an ethnic minority. Because a white applicant and a black applicant could have similar skill sets, but there is a hell of a lot of employers who would have a bias towards who they choose based upon the applicant's race. That situation is not fair so sometimes (especially in news stations where diverse backgrounds/opinions are essential for unbiased coverage of the news) positions are made that try to eliminate this bias.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A bit like the fire service who were made to take on women even though they had to reduce the weight they were able to carry just to get the quota  I think they also reduced the height restriction too :Banghead

How ridiculous is that when everyone is getting heavier?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

idk, I think Im kinda on the fence about the issue. I think if a minority actor is cast just to tick boxes and get woke points then it usually results in a bad film/tv series because that person was miscast.... however if a minority actor is cast because they are brilliant at their job then they can totally sell it and you will get so caught up in the story that you will forget wether Anne Boelyn was white or black!

I say let everybody audition for whatever role they want. If that means Abraham Lincoln is asian or Othello is white then what the hell, movies/shows have to make money so hopefully casting directors would cast the best person for the job. (and yes, if you want equal opportunities it does mean that you also have to let white actors audition for minority roles.... you cant demand equality on one hand and try to reverse the bias on the other. Obviously white people have had privelages for so long but surely we need to move forward together and make the society we want to live in now rather then obsess about the past which cant be changed).


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> When leaving secondary school I was forced to talk to a careers advisor and then later talk to a skills advisor firm because I had 0 plans about my future. In both instances, I was advised against saying that I have Crohn's disease as the explanation to why I have no qualifications or prior experience and to just not mention it at all if possible. They told me that a history of long absence periods would be taken as a liability. I think in a graduate job this would apply less but in something like retail work where one position has hundreds of applicants why would employers take the risk when someone the exact same but healthy has applied? It's never once affected my education at university or my employment but I still do not mention it purely because I know some people do have an unconscious bias.


To be honest yes, employers will pick people considered healthy because that is better for business. If you take sick days it's not going to be easy to get someone in to replace you. 
Especially now when most employers are having to tighten their belts even more. And demand so much from each worker.

Unconscious bias I find an annoying phrase. There's so much out there, so many conditions, no one can become unbiased in how they think about everything. Everyone will have some sort of prejudice.

There is often prejudice against the working class or poor. That often gets overlooked. Especially in the white group. Poor white boys are the most disadvantaged group in schools now. But oddly I don't see much being done to help get them into higher education etc


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

HarlequinCat said:


> To be honest yes, employers will pick people considered healthy because that is better for business. If you take sick days it's not going to be easy to get someone in to replace you.
> Especially now when most employers are having to tighten their belts even more. And demand so much from each worker.
> 
> Unconscious bias I find an annoying phrase. There's so much out there, so many conditions, no one can become unbiased in how they think about everything. Everyone will have some sort of prejudice.
> ...


Well yes, that is why I don't mention it. I don't take sick days. I don't take a day off work or education because of a cold or a headache because I am used to much more pain than that. But employers will look at my diagnosis and assume the worst. Every person on earth harbours some form of prejudice towards something because it is a natural psychological phenomenon. What is vital is recognising that prejudice and then correcting yourself when you notice you are acting upon it. On a larger scale, industries taking responsibility by acknowledging these biases exist and taking steps to eliminate them is key too.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

HarlequinCat said:


> To be honest yes, employers will pick people considered healthy because that is better for business. If you take sick days it's not going to be easy to get someone in to replace you.
> Especially now when most employers are having to tighten their belts even more. And demand so much from each worker.
> 
> Unconscious bias I find an annoying phrase. There's so much out there, so many conditions, no one can become unbiased in how they think about everything. Everyone will have some sort of prejudice.
> ...


Now openly honest about my involuntary childless and health around that. I might be seen as a good bet in work - no distractions and no chance of maternity pay - but there are cliques and perception of responsibility. Add in dyspraxia and that's why I (successfully I think) run my own business. And in the rest of life too. That's not to undermine any other demographic but to do my best to empathise too.

Agree, everyone has a bias. I wished I didn't have any, but bet I do.


----------



## margy (Dec 9, 2018)

Happy Paws2 said:


> But why has Channel 5 got a black actress to play Anne Boleyn when we all know she was white. I sorry but it wrong.


Yes I agree and would you have white actors playing the part in Roots. When we know they weren't white.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

margy said:


> Yes I agree and would you have white actors playing the part in Roots. When we know they weren't white.


Im not sure its the same thing though. I mean Roots is about slavery and the way african americans were treated, I dont remember Anne Boleyns race being an integral part of her story. Maybe its all context?? (its all too confusing to me anyways!).

I suppose a modern day example would be RDJs role in Tropic Thunder being played by a black actor....it would make literally no sense at all and we would of been deprived of a massively funny character!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I have a real interest in Royal history and particularly the Tudor and Stuart Dynasties.

One series I loved, although years ago, was about Elizabeth the First, played by Glenda Jackson. She was so well cast and portrayed her beautifully, I thought.

This particular actress as Anne Boleyn simply wouldn't work for me. Not because she's black, but because she simply could not be Anne Boleyn.

Not to be flippant, but it would be a little like a remake of Lassie, with a Dachshund taking the lead role.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

bmr10 said:


> Well yes, that is why I don't mention it. I don't take sick days. I don't take a day off work or education because of a cold or a headache because I am used to much more pain than that. But employers will look at my diagnosis and assume the worst. Every person on earth harbours some form of prejudice towards something because it is a natural psychological phenomenon. What is vital is recognising that prejudice and then correcting yourself when you notice you are acting upon it. On a larger scale, industries taking responsibility by acknowledging these biases exist and taking steps to eliminate them is key too.


In the US it is against the law to ask someone about their health status at a job interview. It would never come up.


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

catz4m8z said:


> I think if a minority actor is cast just to tick boxes and get woke points then it usually results in a bad film/tv series because that person was miscast..


 Affirmative Action, yes. Very controversial. Never thought about it in terms of movie making before. I find it hard to have an opinion. It goes back to those inclusion/diversity "trainings" my sister has to attend. Where do you draw the line? In an ideal world it would always be simply the "right one for the job". But never is it that simple.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I guess we're also overlooking that all actors playing historical parts have perfect teeth when the person they portrayed prob had very few, stunk to high heaven and poor skin from powders or smallpox. This is fascinating - what Elizabeth I may have looked like and the idea of wearing a 'mask'
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ctually-look-artist-has-suggestion-180970553/

there was once an article on what Mr Darcy would have looked like but I have remained in denial. For the well-being of the forum I shall not share details. He is fictional and therefore will forever be Colin Firth.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> I suppose a modern day example would be RDJs role in Tropic Thunder being played by a black actor....it would make literally no sense at all and we would of been deprived of a massively funny character!


Not quite in the same vein as RDJ or Anne Boleyn, admittedly, but Morgan Freeman was cast (well, IMO) as Red in The Shawshank Redemption. In Stephen King's novel, the character is a white man with ginger hair who describes himself as Irish. Go figure.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

catz4m8z said:


> Im not sure its the same thing though. I mean Roots is about slavery and the way african americans were treated, I dont remember Anne Boleyns race being an integral part of her story. Maybe its all context?? (its all too confusing to me anyways!).


 what if a white woman played michelle obama? I cant see black women being happy about that. 
Ive even seen black american women complaining that black brit actresses are stealing their roles in films.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

lorilu said:


> In the US it is against the law to ask someone about their health status at a job interview. It would never come up.


Same in the UK...discrimination still happens, just because the employer doesn't shout out that they are over looking your application, it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Believe me...it happens all of the time...
If two people apply for a job and both those people are suitably qualified and have a matching work ethic but the only difference is that one has a medical condition...without a doubt the one without the health condition will get the job over the person that doesn't.

I know because it has happened to me and many other people with medical conditions.
I've seen people overlook an application because they didn't like the hand writing when hand writing is not part of the job...skin colour and where people come from make a difference...it shouldn't but it is so deep routed most don't even see it!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

kimthecat said:


> what if a white woman played michelle obama? I cant see black women being happy about that.
> Ive even seen black american women complaining that black brit actresses are stealing their roles in films.


If it was a factual documentary then no, a white woman should not play the part....if it was like for like...a made up story based on some facts to give it some juicy ratings...then any colour could play the character.
If a white woman was to 'black face' to play the character then Oh hell no!

I find it interesting to see lots of people suggesting that this actor isn't right for the part...it's not out yet...how do we know what this actor will bring to the part until it's actually aired?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> there was once an article on what Mr Darcy would have looked like but I have remained in denial. For the well-being of the forum I shall not share details. He is fictional and therefore will forever be Colin Firth.


Hahaha, me too!


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

lorilu said:


> In the US it is against the law to ask someone about their health status at a job interview. It would never come up.


I don't know if it's lawful for an employer to ask "tell us about your medical history" in the UK, particularly Scotland where I am, but pretty much every application/interview asks "do you have any health conditions or disabilities that may affect your ability to work here?". While I get that this may be in part for appropriate accommodation for people with health issues/disabilities (all for that!!) I am just a suspicious person and would not volunteer that information unless I knew it would later affect my work. The question is a bit subjective anyway.


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

StormyThai said:


> Same in the UK...discrimination still happens, just because the employer doesn't shout out that they are over looking your application, it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
> Believe me...it happens all of the time...
> If two people apply for a job and both those people are suitably qualified and have a matching work ethic but the only difference is that one has a medical condition...without a doubt the one without the health condition will get the job over the person that doesn't.
> 
> ...


Although this does not make it excusable in any way, I think a lot of it is unconscious. If you learn something new about someone, your opinion of them automatically changes to accommodate that information. It's just unfortunate that for a lot of people that change can take a negative turn. Ideally they would be told I have Crohn's, look at the grades I get in university, and be impressed that regardless of what pressure I'm under in my life I'm still able to maintain very high standards but /: that is an ideal world and most people do not.

Even an application containing a foreign name that the employer can't guess on how to pronounce can create a negative feeling, intentional or not. I think majority of unconscious prejudice is rooted in what you have seen growing up in the news/from people around you. Even if you don't believe it those feelings have been ingrained into you that sometimes they can unintentionally be an immediate reaction.


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

Happy Paws2 said:


> I just this black thing has gone to far.


What?! What exactly does this mean? I'm quite frankly sick of the "racist thing".

Oh, and that old cliche, the title of the thread, "I'm not been* racist....." followed by something racist. 
*sic

I am an avid Tudor history fan, and have been for over 20 years. I have read extensively most of the big author's non-fiction on the period as well as some of the lesser-known authors. As well as the specific books about specific people in the era as well as specific books about Henry VIII's health etc. I know the characters inside-out.

Am I bothered about Anne Boleyn being played by a black actor? No.

I am also very critical of any drama I see of the period. 90% of them are appalling. Just look at the Tudors, it was all tits and style over substance and acting.

I am more bothered about the series being realistic and not taking liberties with the history. I'd rather the person be a great actor and great in the role with great writing. There is no need for making up characters or the series being completely inaccurate, the period is very well known, well researched and studied and it's exciting enough, there is no need to take liberties.

The Tudors is a great example. Katherine of Aragon was short, plump, and ginger-haired. The actor who played her was tall, dark with black hair. No complaints about that? Nah, didn't think so. Henry VIII was tall at 6ft 2, athletically big and ginger and in his later years, massively obese. The actor was short and brown-haired and they never had him in a fat suit. Again, no one here complaining about that here. (And the actor, Jonathan Rees Myers was terrible) and the series was awful. The actors who played any of the six wives (apart from Anne Boleyn) didn't look anything like the person they portrayed. It was all about superficial beauty.

*So, people say nothing about actors whose eye or hair colour, height, weight, and overall appearance is nothing like the original character, but if they're black, everyone loses their mind. 
*
And this is why covert racism exists*. *Just because it doesn't affect you, and you don't experience it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. *
*


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

bmr10 said:


> Although this does not make it excusable in any way, I think a lot of it is unconscious.


Absolutely...given my example it just makes sense to employ the healthy person over the one that has a diagnosed condition...
Their bias only hurts them though because I have taken less sick days in the last 10 years than many of my healthy, fit and active friends


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

bmr10 said:


> Although this does not make it excusable in any way, I think a lot of it is unconscious. If you learn something new about someone, your opinion of them automatically changes to accommodate that information. It's just unfortunate that for a lot of people that change can take a negative turn. Ideally they would be told I have Crohn's, look at the grades I get in university, and be impressed that regardless of what pressure I'm under in my life I'm still able to maintain very high standards but /: that is an ideal world and most people do not.
> 
> Even an application containing a foreign name that the employer can't guess on how to pronounce can create a negative feeling, intentional or not. I think majority of unconscious prejudice is rooted in what you have seen growing up in the news/from people around you. Even if you don't believe it those feelings have been ingrained into you that sometimes they can unintentionally be an immediate reaction.


Yes. And we all need to take a long, hard look into ourselves and our own privilege and our own prejudices. Covert racism (as well as disability discrimination) exists everywhere. Just because we don't experience it personally, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bmr10 said:


> _conscious_/unconscious _biases_.


I would consider that making a position available only to non-whites is extremely conscious bias; not you though; you don't think so? I imagine if I advertised for a cleaner or a nanny and said or ''Whites need NOT apply'' or ''Only whites need apply'' I would be accused by many (you included) of racism. I also imagine it would be illegal. Apparently in the sixties people would advertise a room/flat and put ''No blacks, no Irish no dogs'' . . . sometimes they added ''No coloureds'' just for good measure, and to me it is reminiscent of this, and not any better. Don't forget, these are the people who get £159 of your money each year for a (supposedly) fair and unbiased service. .


----------



## £54etgfb6 (Dec 25, 2020)

Calvine said:


> I would consider that making a position available only to non-whites is extremely conscious bias; not you though; you don't think so? I imagine if I advertised for a cleaner or a nanny and said or ''Whites need NOT apply'' or ''Only whites need apply'' I would be accused by many (you included) of racism. I also imagine it would be illegal. Apparently in the sixties people would advertise a room/flat and put ''No blacks, no Irish no dogs'' . . . sometimes they added ''No coloureds'' just for good measure, and to me it is reminiscent of this, and not any better. Don't forget, these are the people who get £159 of your money each year for a (supposedly) fair and unbiased service. .


I understand what you are saying and no it's not ideal for anyone to be excluded from any position unless the exclusion is based upon skills (no colourblindness for pilots for example) but I think this example comes down to whether you think it is justified or not. Because of the prejudice ethnic minorities face while applying to jobs, and how they will undoubtedly be beaten by white applicants with the same skills purely due to skin colour, I think at a certain point something needs to be done. News coverage is meant to be unbiased (supposedly) and that requires people from all walks of life with opposing opinions. If a panel of radio hosts is all middle class and white they are not going to have as diverse a coverage as opposed to a panel of people with completely different upbringings. Because of discrimination within the industry, a lot of the successful applicants are going to be similar. It is not ideal to essentially ban people from applying for a position but unless every single persons conscious/unconscious prejudices can be eliminated then I think sometimes it is necessary to "force" inclusion. Otherwise, people who face these prejudices won't be on the same level of playing field as the rest of us who are judged solely upon our skills.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Now we're getting in to equality of opportunity vs. outcome. Forcing inclusion would be equality of outcome, and I'm not sure I can get behind that.
I understand where the intent comes from, and it is a good place but it's problematic in so many ways, not the least of which is that we can never account for all the advantages and disadvantages that play in to opportunities. 

We have this idea that race, skin tone is a huge deciding factor and make adjustments for it and then forget other factors. A well-educated, intelligent woman of color from a middle-class background is going to have more 'privilege' than a white man raised in poverty without parental support. Yes the way we look at 'forcing inclusion' would still exclude the poor white man.

I think we also need to listen to the people in the black community like John McWhorter who find affirmative action condescending at best and damaging at worst. His are compelling arguments.


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

bmr10 said:


> I understand what you are saying and no it's not ideal for anyone to be excluded from any position unless the exclusion is based upon skills (no colourblindness for pilots for example) but I think this example comes down to whether you think it is justified or not. Because of the prejudice ethnic minorities face while applying to jobs, and how they will undoubtedly be beaten by white applicants with the same skills purely due to skin colour, I think at a certain point something needs to be done. News coverage is meant to be unbiased (supposedly) and that requires people from all walks of life with opposing opinions. If a panel of radio hosts is all middle class and white they are not going to have as diverse a coverage as opposed to a panel of people with completely different upbringings. Because of discrimination within the industry, a lot of the successful applicants are going to be similar. It is not ideal to essentially ban people from applying for a position but unless every single persons conscious/unconscious prejudices can be eliminated then I think sometimes it is necessary to "force" inclusion. Otherwise, people who face these prejudices won't be on the same level of playing field as the rest of us who are judged solely upon our skills.


Yes, it's about equity vs equality. 
If people weren't forced to be inclusive, things wouldn't change.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Wow some of the comments on this thread.

I don’t understand why this upsets people.

I find it depressing that it is assumed tokenism or being woke. It may just be the casting director felt this actress was the best person for the role. As someone else said the show will no doubt be littered with historical inaccuracies. Why focus on this one ?

I very much doubt a channel 5 show had the power to re write history.

Comparing one bbc advertisement really is not comparable to the years of inequality, slavery and racism that black people have faced.

Only today a footballer has received racist abuse after a match. Racism continues to happen in our society.

I don’t think the Black Lives Matter movement has gone far enough because attitudes have not changed. This thread has been a very disappointing read.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Boxer123 said:


> Wow some of the comments on this thread.
> 
> I don't understand why this upsets people.
> 
> ...












Thank you...you have echoed my thoughts.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Boxer123 said:


> Only today a football has received racist abuse after a match


No way to treat a football.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Calvine said:


> No way to treat a football.


Edited because of course that was the take away point from my post.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Jackie C said:


> Yes, it's about equity vs equality.
> If people weren't forced to be inclusive, things wouldn't change.
> View attachment 469275
> View attachment 469276


Like I said, I agree with the effort here, and I get where it comes from and I think it comes from a good place, but again, not all disadvantages are represented here. 
What about the kid who is blind. That barrier is still there. 
What about the kid who is living in terror at home because of abuse? There is no enjoyment from watching the game because the child simply can't focus on anything but safety. 
What about the child who isn't interested in the game and wouldn't care about being able to see it anyway?

We will never be able to account for all the disadvantages someone might face and be able to level the playing field fairly. Not that we shouldn't try, we should, but it needs to be done very carefully and with thought because very often moving that barrier for one group creates a different barrier in another area.

For example, one area that is completely overlooked in my experience working with kids is trauma. Children who live with trauma have developmental delays that aren't going to be ameliorated by affirmative action policies or forced inclusion. There are definitely interventions that *do* work with children with trauma, but none of the current policies focus on any of that. I try not to be cynical about it, but part of me can't help but be exasperated that we're so concerned with some -isms but leaving children of abuse and addiction out to dry because childhood trauma just isn't trendy enough these days.

This is all kind of discombobulated, I have a lot of thoughts in my head, in no particular order....

I once participated in a privilege walk as part of bias training. I ended up at the back of the line with one other person after all of my 'disadvantages' were accounted for. I left me feeling a little indignant to be honest. Some of what others considered disadvantages I had never considered as such and some were things I was told were disadvantages, I am actually quite proud of, certainly not something to be pitied for.

Anne Lamott has a great quote about helping "Our help is usually not very helpful. Our help is often toxic. And help is the sunny side of control. Stop helping so much. Don't get your help and goodness all over everybody." 
I feel that in a lot of this ideology of trying to 'help' people less fortunate. 
Maybe I'm old and I just don't get it. Or maybe all this wokeness is just more of White American unconsciously trying to prove how superior they are. I don't like it. Something about it doesn't sit right with me.

And I'm not the only one. 
I mentioned John McWhorter earlier. I've been following him for years as a linguist because I'm a language nerd, but his more recent writings on racism, and equality are very thought provoking. 
We have to find a way forward that genuinely helps. And a lot of what is going on now doesn't help, and actually hurts minorities. But we don't see it because we're so busy being 'helpful'.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I'm not getting into the racist/not racist debate.

I won't be watching anyway, because I'm frankly sick to death of dramas and docudramas about Anne Boleyn. With a few exceptions, it's almost like she and Catherine of Aragon were the only two wives Henry had.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

And as if Henry VIII was the only king we have ever had!


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

Jonescat said:


> And as if Henry VIII was the only king we have ever had!


Oh I know, there's so many about him! They need to do more on ones like Edward the first etc. That I would be interested in


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

There is so much more history that they could do but Henry had 6 wives and split from Rome so what else do you need to know. They usually don't even mention his books, his forts and the navy.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

References to gingers . Perhaps red haired is a better. My oh and his family are red haired. Lots of jibes and jokes . Are they protected by any laws. Red hairs get called g*nger minger . Get beaten up at school. Get asked what colour their pubes are. No one seems to care.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Employers do discriminate against people with disabilities or perceived disabilitys. Most jobs applied for on line. Send in the same details with different names . They dont reply to the one that mentions disabilty.


----------



## cat001 (Apr 12, 2008)

I'm not overly bothered by the casting as it's not my kind of show so won't be watching it but do find the casting a bit jarring (as I would if a male was cast instead, or if she was really old, or whatever other characteristics that clash with expectation - just simply actress doesn't meet expected portrayal). I'd feel a bit funny if a white guy was cast as Martin Luther King too as it's just not what I would expect for a casting choice to represent that person. Either way I'm not really that fussed as it's not my kind of show anyway lol.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Boxer123 said:


> Wow some of the comments on this thread.
> 
> I don't understand why this upsets people.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I thought of this thread when I read Marcus Rashford's comments.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Stereotyping works in all sorts of ways. 

But some can only go with the crowd


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> References to gingers . Perhaps red haired is a better. My oh and his family are red haired. Lots of jibes and jokes . Are they protected by any laws. Red hairs get called g*nger minger . Get beaten up at school. Get asked what colour their pubes are. No one seems to care.


 I had red hair, not ginger more like the colour of an Irish setter, but red enough plus I was very tall and skinny. I was teased constantly. I hated the colour and wanted to dye it all the time and slouched about trying to appear smaller until I left school and went out to work. When I look back at old photos of me I realise how beautiful it was and how lovely and slim I looked. 
If only I could have been left alone


----------



## Psygon (Apr 24, 2013)

Martin Luther King is known as being a black civil rights activist who did an enormous amount to give black people basic civil rights. 

Anne Boleyn was known as being the beheaded wife of one of our kings. 

Pretty sure that picking a white actor to play the first is insulting (and would feel like whitewashing), and picking a black actor to play the second isn't because her being white is never a feature of what history tells us about her.


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Psygon said:


> Martin Luther King is known as being a black civil rights activist who did an enormous amount to give black people basic civil rights.
> 
> Anne Boleyn was known as being the beheaded wife of one of our kings.
> 
> Pretty sure that picking a white actor to play the first is insulting (and would feel like whitewashing), and picking a black actor to play the second isn't because her being white is never a feature of what history tells us about her.


Exactly we'll said.


----------



## cat001 (Apr 12, 2008)

Psygon said:


> Martin Luther King is known as being a black civil rights activist who did an enormous amount to give black people basic civil rights.
> 
> Anne Boleyn was known as being the beheaded wife of one of our kings.
> 
> Pretty sure that picking a white actor to play the first is insulting (and would feel like whitewashing), and picking a black actor to play the second isn't because her being white is never a feature of what history tells us about her.


I think you're replying to me? I agree it would certainly be insensitive, I'm just not really coming from the angle of representation, I'm just coming from an angle of the individual actor and their characteristics, not really a comment on race. I don't really view things in terms of race, prefer viewing in terms of the individual. If we were all crystal people, there were square crystals and spherical crystals, with different shaped centres, I'd expect the crystal to look similar enough to the one they're representing. Maybe it's because I'm autistic I strip things down a little more simplistically, I just see skin shade as another attribute like big nose or bumpy toes, short hair or square jaw. It's nothing really about her race, just expectation based on how much of a facsimile she is to the reference material. Hope that clarified where I was coming from a little bit better, I know I tend not to think like other people do. I think on the core point we both agree really, that discrimination is bad.


----------



## Psygon (Apr 24, 2013)

cat001 said:


> I think you're replying to me? I agree it would certainly be insensitive, I'm just not really coming from the angle of representation, I'm just coming from an angle of the individual actor and their characteristics, not really a comment on race. I don't really view things in terms of race, prefer viewing in terms of the individual. If we were all crystal people, there were square crystals and spherical crystals, with different shaped centres, I'd expect the crystal to look similar enough to the one they're representing. Maybe it's because I'm autistic I strip things down a little more simplistically, I just see skin shade as another attribute like big nose or bumpy toes, short hair or square jaw. It's nothing really about her race, just expectation based on how much of a facsimile she is to the reference material. Hope that clarified where I was coming from a little bit better, I know I tend not to think like other people do. I think on the core point we both agree really, that discrimination is bad.


Yes sorry I was replying to you - although there have been previous comments on the thread about picking white actors to play prominent historical figures who have done a lot to move forward civil rights for black people.

But I do see your point, and agree that discrimination is bad.

I just wanted to raise the point that picking white actors to play prominent black historical figures would be whitewashing.


----------



## HarlequinCat (Nov 29, 2012)

Psygon said:


> Yes sorry I was replying to you - although there have been previous comments on the thread about picking white actors to play prominent historical figures who have done a lot to move forward civil rights for black people.
> 
> But I do see your point, and agree that discrimination is bad.
> 
> I just wanted to raise the point that picking white actors to play prominent black historical figures would be whitewashing.


Just out of curiosity how would you feel if it was someone from an Asian background or mixed race?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Psygon said:


> Martin Luther King is known as being a black civil rights activist who did an enormous amount to give black people basic civil rights.
> 
> Anne Boleyn was known as being the beheaded wife of one of our kings.
> 
> Pretty sure that picking a white actor to play the first is insulting (and would feel like whitewashing), and picking a black actor to play the second isn't because her being white is never a feature of what history tells us about her.


Double standards or what?


----------



## Psygon (Apr 24, 2013)

HarlequinCat said:


> Just out of curiosity how would you feel if it was someone from an Asian background or mixed race?


I'd probably have a similar feeling to be honest.

I suppose it comes down to was someones place in history defined by their experience of being a black person. If the answer is yes then I think to pick someone who is not black to play them on screen is wrong. Could you have a white actor playing the first black president of the USA? That would just be bizarre..

In all other instances I don't think I would even question it. And maybe that does seem like double standards @rona

Last year there was a thing in the media about Gal Gadot being selected to play Cleopatra. Gadot is Israeli, Cleopatra was (I think..) black or mixed race. As far as I am aware (my history is a bit rusty) Cleopatras experience was not defined by her being black so I honestly don't think it matters that much that it may not be fully accurate. The same way I don't think that picking a black actor to play Anne Boleyn is an issue.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Psygon said:


> Martin Luther King is known as being a black civil rights activist who did an enormous amount to give black people basic civil rights.
> 
> Anne Boleyn was known as being the beheaded wife of one of our kings.
> 
> Pretty sure that picking a white actor to play the first is insulting (and would feel like whitewashing), and picking a black actor to play the second isn't because her being white is never a feature of what history tells us about her.


Except every picture and depiction of her in history shows her as white.

Whether she was an activist or not is hardly the point, surely?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Psygon said:


> Anne Boleyn was known as being the beheaded wife of one of our kings.


No. Anne Boleyn was someone who changed the course of history.

The point is that she was white. Casting a black woman in the part doesn't make sense to me.

I would feel the same if this actress was Asian, Chinese or an Eskimo.


----------



## Psygon (Apr 24, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> Except every picture and depiction of her in history shows her as white.
> 
> Whether she was an activist or not is hardly the point, surely?





Rafa said:


> No. Anne Boleyn was someone who changed the course of history.
> 
> The point is that she was white. Casting a black woman in the part doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I would feel the same if this actress was Asian, Chinese or an Eskimo.


My point was that her being white didn't define who she was... it wasn't that she wasn't an activist.

And apologies, yes I was flippant with her role in the course of history.

Of course I know she was white, I too have seen the various art works of her. I just do not have an issue with her being represented by a black actor.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Psygon said:


> I'd probably have a similar feeling to be honest.
> 
> I suppose it comes down to was someones place in history defined by their experience of being a black person. If the answer is yes then I think to pick someone who is not black to play them on screen is wrong. Could you have a white actor playing the first black president of the USA? That would just be bizarre..
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying, but it's a slippery thing to hold on to because not every story is going to be as specifically linked to race as MLK's.

But what about a movie like Hidden Figures where the protagonists experienced sexism as much as racism? Was their experience defined by being black, by being women, by being mothers? It all matters. 
So would it be okay for a trans woman to play the role of a woman where the experience of being a woman is integral to the historical figure? 
Or... what if the story is of a mother? Can an actress who isn't a mother play that role?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Psygon said:


> My point was that her being white didn't define who she was... it wasn't that she wasn't an activist.
> 
> And apologies, yes I was flippant with her role in the course of history.
> 
> Of course I know she was white, I too have seen the various art works of her. I just do not have an issue with her being represented by a black actor.


And some do, but that doesn't make them racist imo.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> References to gingers . Perhaps red haired is a better. My oh and his family are red haired. Lots of jibes and jokes . Are they protected by any laws. Red hairs get called g*nger minger . Get beaten up at school. Get asked what colour their pubes are. No one seems to care.


I was really hoping somebody would link Tim Minchins song Prejudice when I saw this comment!

Im not sure we will ever have true equality though as it seems like society just naturally catagorizes and judges people....we arent happy unless we have stuck everybody in a little box and hopefully we can feel superior that our box is just a little bit better then theirs.
If we woke up tomorrow and race, sex, gender, religion, disability, etc was no longer divisive we would probably all be on here dicussing how badly people with moles are treated or how to get equality for the bad dancers!!:Hilarious


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> how to get equality for the bad dancers!!


My OH wants that...................NEVER.............I'm superior and he knows it


----------



## Psygon (Apr 24, 2013)

O2.0 said:


> I get what you're saying, but it's a slippery thing to hold on to because not every story is going to be as specifically linked to race as MLK's.
> 
> But what about a movie like Hidden Figures where the protagonists experienced sexism as much as racism? Was their experience defined by being black, by being women, by being mothers? It all matters.
> So would it be okay for a trans woman to play the role of a woman where the experience of being a woman is integral to the historical figure?
> Or... what if the story is of a mother? Can an actress who isn't a mother play that role?


I agree.

I suppose that's why I specifically talked about MLK and suggested getting a white actor to play him would be insulting. His place in history is definitely defined by being black. I appreciate not every other story person etc will be as clear cut. Exactly like your examples. Some will be - some won't.

Clearly not everyone shares my views and that's fine - I was just putting my thoughts and points across.


----------



## Psygon (Apr 24, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> And some do, but that doesn't make them racist imo.


I never said that someone with opposing views to me was racist. I haven't mentioned people being racist at all.

Yes I did say that picking a white actor to play MLK would be insulting but that's about it.


----------



## tyg'smum (Aug 14, 2018)

To be quite honest, I'm none too bothered if the actor's black, white or a green alien from the planet Zog. If she's a decent actress and the script doesn't deviate too far from recorded history, I'll be happy.

i thought Adrian Lester was excellent as Henry V, as was David Oyelowo as Henry VI.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Psygon said:


> I suppose that's why I specifically talked about MLK and suggested getting a white actor to play him would be insulting.


I agree it would be insulting to my mind too. But then if I sit here and start thinking about why that should matter, I get all convoluted in my brain about other issues that are just as important as race, that we don't have the same reaction to.

Does anyone remember when Charlize Theron played a serial killer in the movie Monster. And this big deal was made about how 'brave' she was to make herself out to be 'ugly' in order to properly portray the role? She wore facial prosthetics and gained a whole 20 pounds (eyeroll) and everyone was praising her on how committed to the role she was.

It didn't sit right with me. I mean, let's talk inclusivity here for a minute. Most women aren't Charlize Theron beautiful, why not hire a fabulous but otherwise overlooked actress who doesn't have to gain weight and uglify herself to look the part? 
But on the other hand, isn't that what acting is, being able to so completely transform yourself that you become the role you're playing. By those standards, shouldn't anyone be able to play any part if they're a good enough actor?

Like I said, I can't hold it firmly in my hands in order to really figure out what's right and what's not here. But it's not something I care enough about, and I don't have enough respect for the TV and film industry to care enough about fair representation there LOL!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Psygon said:


> I never said that someone with opposing views to me was racist. I haven't mentioned people being racist at all.
> 
> Yes I did say that picking a white actor to play MLK would be insulting but that's about it.


No, I know, but others have implied it.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Siskin said:


> I had red hair, not ginger more like the colour of an Irish setter, but red enough plus I was very tall and skinny. I was teased constantly. I hated the colour and wanted to dye it all the time and slouched about trying to appear smaller until I left school and went out to work. When I look back at old photos of me I realise how beautiful it was and how lovely and slim I looked.
> If only I could have been left alone


Im sorry you had to put up with that. OHs sisters still dyes her hair blonde.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2021)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> Not quite in the same vein as RDJ or Anne Boleyn, admittedly, but Morgan Freeman was cast (well, IMO) as Red in The Shawshank Redemption. In Stephen King's novel, the character is a white man with ginger hair who describes himself as Irish. Go figure.


Does it matter? I read both the book and saw the film and the colour of the character in either is of no importance to its development. In fact in the film the script alludes to the dissonance with subtle humour. Morgan Freeman is asked about his name and replies with a knowing smirk, "maybe it's because I'm Irish".

In the original by Tolstoy of course (God sees the truth but waits), the character is neither black nor Irish, he's Russian.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2021)

StormyThai said:


> Thank you...you have echoed my thoughts.


And mine. The musings of the contented as the famous economist, Galbraith, once said.


----------



## O2.0 (May 23, 2018)

Douglas' Dad said:


> Does it matter?


I think that's the whole point. To some people it doesn't matter at all. To other people a disconnect between the image they had in their mind of a book's character or historical figure and the movie portrayal matters a lot.
I don't think it's for me to say what should and shouldn't matter to an individual


----------



## Boxer123 (Jul 29, 2017)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, I know, but others have implied it.


To be clear I am not calling anyone racist and I am pretty sure @Happy Paws2 has broad enough shoulders that I can disagree with her. I hold the members on here in high regard you are an amazing helpful community and quite frankly this will probably be the first thread new members see and I find that a bit embarrassing.

However this thread I feel does have racist undertones as a member of this community it makes me uncomfortable. @O2.0 explained better than me why the title of the thread isn't really appropriate. And yet it has stayed.

The murder of George Floyd made me stop and think. A black man was murdered in full view of the filming public because his life was deemed to be worth so little he thought he'd get away with it and probably would have done if people hadn't protested. I found it sickening. It encouraged me to read about black history and to learn. To reflect on my behaviour.

Because I don't like confrontation I normally wouldn't respond to threads like this, I would ignore little comments from family but I don't anymore. Because if we don't learn from past we are condemned to repeat it.

I don't agree with bullying of any kind. I don't get how being bullied yourself would give you less reason to fight against racism. Red hair came up in the BLM thread I don't get it. Surely these experiences would give you empathy.

If you are a genuine history buff I apologise and look forward to your thread about the other historical inaccuracies in this drama there will be plenty I'm sure being channel 5. If you are not all I ask is you look inward at why it makes you uncomfortable.

Anyway I shall log off and take a break because I know I will be shouted down for this post I mean no offence to anyone I just hope you all understand what I am trying to say as an individual it has made me feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Yes @Boxer123, I do understand and feel the same really.

No need for people to fall out.

I'm not a history buff btw but do feel that any real person, alive or dead should be represented as accurately as possible, be they of colour or not.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

I think it may be time to close this. Like @Boxer123 I'm very aware that this could be the first thread newbies come across and I'm not comfortable with that either.
I'm amazed that we've got to 8 pages without 1 report though!:Locktopic


----------

