Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,431
I suggested a specific thread for all woke movie/TV complaints but it didn't go over well.
Cleopatra
- Thread starter aardvark
- Start date
I suggested a specific thread for all woke movie/TV complaints but it didn't go over well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 3,200
If I'm watching a historical production then I'm going to be interested in historical accuracy. If I'm watching Th Equalizer I don't care if its Edward Woodwood or Denzel Washington.
It doesn't matter what you 'thought' as its a historical documentary, something that's supposed to provide a factual report on the subject it's about. But hey you've learnt something new with this thread, Cleopatra was white. Who said these threads aren't educational.
No, I don’t think Henry VIII would have married a black woman.
This has no bearing on the ability of a black actress, who is acting, to portray a woman that Henry the VIII actually married.
I mean, it’s more of a ‘logic horse’, surely?
Nobody is arguing this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 3,200
If a historical person is being portrayed it needs to be as close as possible to how that person was, skin colour included otherwise its just trying to be something its not.No, I don’t think Henry VIII would have married a black woman.
This has no bearing on the ability of a black actress, who is acting, to portray a woman that Henry the VIII actually married.
I mean, it’s more of a ‘logic horse’, surely?
Nobody is arguing this.
Caporegime
Ok for one and not for the other seems dangerously close to racism to me
Why? In circumstances where race is not fundamental to the material story of a historical character, why does the race of the actor/actress matter? It doesn’t matter at all. I encourage you to challenge your own reasoning on this.
Two additional points (on my own account i.e. not specifically related to @gingergundog’s post above):
- I acknowledge that there may be circumstances where it could be adverse to ‘character / story context’ to ‘race swap’ and this does go both ways, including if a white historical figure whose ‘whiteness is important to this story’ is portrayed by an actor that isn’t white, depending on the specific portrayal and the adaptation (i.e. I could foresee it being odd in the case of, say, Earl Warren). It’s not a ‘one way street’.
- As there has been a historical lack of representation of ethnic minorities in leading roles in Western cinema, I can see it being much more sensitive in that context to ‘race swap’ from ‘black to white’ than from ‘white to black’ in respect of historical figures. So, to a limited degree, under represented minorities are more entitled to protect their own representation on screen.
Soldato
Not that you made this point specifically, but I’d actually go as far to say it would be “an embarrassing lack of nuance” to infer that the a black person playing Anne Boleyn is broadly comparable (with regards to sensitivity) to a white person playing MLK
It's clear that you're OK with practice of race-swapping as, to use your own words, "they were actors, acting" and I'm fine with that statement, but yet you also say that a White "actor, acting" can't represent MLK, which comes across as hypocrisy at best and possible racism at worst but it also breaks your own logic too. I mean your own Logic says historical figures can be played by any race of actor as "they were actors, acting" so denying someone like Daniel Day Lewis (possibly the greatest actor alive right now) the chance of portraying MLK, when he's just "an actor, acting" because he's White, breaks the same logic that earlier said race swapping was OK.
To take your example from above of why the story of MLK’s race is "absolutely critical in his story," I do 100% agree with that statement so I think that a White person could easily play MLK as long as you also race-swap the people who opposed MLK from White people into Black actors - then the powerful story is exactly the same "one person's struggle against racism & bigotry" and, as you've said "they were actors, acting" no-one is allowed to complain, using your logic of course
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***EDIT*** - You posted the below as I was writing the above reply.
Wow, thats called racism, pure and simple - "one race is more entitled to protection than other races" - I was hoping you weren't a racist and just had some confused logic, but now you've said that I'm genuinely not sure now.
Just to show you how bad what you've just said is, I'm going to use Whites in South Africa as the "minority" from your above post, which now reads - "under represented minorities (like Whites in South Africa) are more entitled to protect their own" - see how racist that sounds now? I hope so, I hope just another confused post.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Or Queen Latifa (which is really really bad).
Last edited:
I did not say this. I said that the two examples were not broadly comparable in respect of how sensitive they should be considered.
All else being the same and ‘in a vacuum’, race swapping a character whose race is fundamentally important to their character is going to be more sensitive than race swapping a character whose race isn’t fundamentally important to their character. This goes both, and indeed all, ways.
To take your example from above of why the story of MLK’s race is "absolutely critical in his story," I do 100% agree with that statement so I think that a White person could easily play MLK as long as you also race-swap the people who opposed MLK from White people into Black actors - then the powerful story is exactly the same "one person's struggle against racism & bigotry" and, as you've said "they were actors, acting" no-one is allowed to complain, using your logic of course
This is a ‘straw man’ statement: it wouldn’t be using ‘my logic’ at all. Although, as difficult / challenging as it may be, it is not necessarily impossible to make an intelligent film along these lines, although no doubt it would be controversial to some.
You have (again) literally misquoted me.
I said:
“As there has been a historical lack of representation of ethnic minorities in leading roles in Western cinema, I can see it being much more sensitive in that context to ‘race swap’ from ‘black to white’ than from ‘white to black’ in respect of historical figures. So, to a limited degree, under represented minorities are more entitled to protect their own representation on screen.”
The relevance is not the race, but that a group of persons are ‘under represented’. It could be any group; it need not be race.
Yes, I do think that persons who are underrepresented are more entitled (to a limited degree) to defend their already ‘historically diminished’ representation, than those that are not underrepresented. That also goes both, and indeed, all ways.
My logic is wholly blind to race and the identity of the underrepresented in the specific context in which it may apply (black, white, whatever) is entirely incidental.
If white people were historically underrepresented in leading roles in Western cinema, then I would likewise say that white people were more entitled (to a limited degree) to be more entitled to object to white historical figures being ‘race swapped’.
This is another wild(er) ‘straw man’ statement that does not address my position on under-representation in the entertainment industry. See my comments above, which hopefully clarifies this for you.
I don’t think I can revisit this in a more readily comprehensible way than how I have presented it in this post, so if you still don’t understand my position then I’m afraid I’ll have to leave it there.
Permabanned
I'm glad I went to bed early last night.
Soldato
Now you mention it, Denzel Washington probably would have been better!!
Soldato
What a disgusting hypocritical thing to say. One rule for one race and another for everyone else.
You're part of the problem.
*sigh / facepalm* - ‘one rule for a race and one for another’ is the the opposite of what I have said.
What I have said is that under represented persons in leading roles are (to a degree) more entitled to be protective of their existing representation. This applies equally and to all groups (not just races).
This means that in circumstances in which they were underrepresented, white persons would also be more entitled (to a degree) to defend their already limited representation.
(… are people really struggling with this that much?!)
Soldato
Underrepresented minorities in a historical sense (The past) is NOT an excuse to raceswap what you deem as the minorities in the present day. You're simply making excuses to treat people differently in the current day. This is prejudice and quite racist. White people have just as much right to complain if they are being race swapped as any other race in Tv & Film. Not just some arbitrary statement from you that they are 'more entitled' because of 'historical underrepresentation'.
That is simply wrong and fitting your own agenda.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 3,200
I just feel it removes me from the experience slightly, the image on the screen doesn't tally with what it actually looked like, it needs to have some resemblance. Just as I would like to see the correct clothes etc from the time period.
Last edited:
My god… this is like pulling teeth
I agree with this statement. You are countering an argument that I haven’t made
I haven’t suggested that people should be ‘deliberately race swapped’ for any reason.
Instead, I have said (****ing hell how many times to I need to type this): “under represented persons in leading roles are (to a degree) more entitled to be protective of their existing representation.”
The best actor or actress should get the role. They are acting. I am completely unbothered by race swapping conceptually and I think there is no reason to limit casting to a particular race. This goes all ways and extends beyond race.
There are two collateral points :
- It is understandably more sensitive to ‘race swap’ a character whose race is of critical importance to their story. On that basis, it is entirely logical and reasonable that people will be more sensitive to ‘race swapping’ historical figures like, for example, Martin Luther King (a black man) or Earn Warren (a white man), then ‘race swapping’ a character whose race is entirely incidental to their story and circumstances.
- The point which seems to have been misunderstood: Western cinema exists as a catalogue and there is a very real context that, to date, certain groups have been underrepresented in leading roles in Western cinema <- this is a reality and it would be obtuse to ignore it.
^^^ This does not ‘entitle’ ‘race swapping’ and I have not suggested as such.
It does, however, entitle such groups to say (to a limited degree):
“Hey we are currently underrepresented in this catalogue of film, so for now I’d really rather you didn’t *race/gender/sexual-orientation etc* swap this role as it may erode our representation even further.”
^That would be a completely logical and wholly reasonable position for anyone who finds themselves in that position, whatever their race/gender/sexual-orientation etc.
I agree with this statement. You are countering an argument that I haven’t made
I haven’t suggested that people should be ‘deliberately race swapped’ for any reason.
Instead, I have said (****ing hell how many times to I need to type this): “under represented persons in leading roles are (to a degree) more entitled to be protective of their existing representation.”
The best actor or actress should get the role. They are acting. I am completely unbothered by race swapping conceptually and I think there is no reason to limit casting to a particular race. This goes all ways and extends beyond race.
There are two collateral points :
- It is understandably more sensitive to ‘race swap’ a character whose race is of critical importance to their story. On that basis, it is entirely logical and reasonable that people will be more sensitive to ‘race swapping’ historical figures like, for example, Martin Luther King (a black man) or Earn Warren (a white man), then ‘race swapping’ a character whose race is entirely incidental to their story and circumstances.
- The point which seems to have been misunderstood: Western cinema exists as a catalogue and there is a very real context that, to date, certain groups have been underrepresented in leading roles in Western cinema <- this is a reality and it would be obtuse to ignore it.
^^^ This does not ‘entitle’ ‘race swapping’ and I have not suggested as such.
It does, however, entitle such groups to say (to a limited degree):
“Hey we are currently underrepresented in this catalogue of film, so for now I’d really rather you didn’t *race/gender/sexual-orientation etc* swap this role as it may erode our representation even further.”
^That would be a completely logical and wholly reasonable position for anyone who finds themselves in that position, whatever their race/gender/sexual-orientation etc.
I do understand this. I made a comment (above) that I initially found the representation in Bridgerton distracting and that was merely a straight up drama.
After some contemplation, I realised that all the actors were acting and I decided that my ability to suspend disbelief over an actor’s acting should not materially impacted by the colour of the skin. Instead, I would rather focus on the calibre of their acting.
One I adopted that approach, it was far less distracting - to the point of being a non-issue - and I could enjoy the show (Bridgerton).
You can’t help how you feel, but perhaps give this some contemplation the next time something like that bothers you.