The problem with identity politics as I see it, is that far from giving us more freedom to be who we are, it just creates smaller and smaller boxes to put us in
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
The problem with identity politics as I see it, is that far from giving us more freedom to be who we are, it just creates smaller and smaller boxes to put us in
I understand, I'd not have a problem with a christian playing a jewish character or vice versa, or a straight actor playing a gay character,or vice versa, but skin colour can't be " acted "
But it's not impersonation ... it's acting ... that's what theatre is about ... the suspension of disbelief!
can I say again, " you can't ACT skin colour" . In fiction ,no problem, but acting folk who are / were real, for me, they have to be the same colour. Black and White Minstrels anyone?
The tendency of Hollywood to cast white men as the heroes and black men as either villains or victims 'white washes' history in a way that is particularly egregious. It does bother me when, for example, white actresses play Cleopatra because it perpetuates a 'wrong' idea that western culture has about her. And then there's the way Jesus is almost invariably portrayed. A white actor playing Ali or Martin Luther King would feel like part of that pattern.
But in some cases it wouldn't matter. In the same way it doesn't bother me if gay actors play straight characters (or vice versa) when that's not the point of the story. Where the race of a person isn't a central concern of their story, as Dove said, then so what? Anne Boleyn's story is about misogyny, politics and religion, not race.
The times when it could be actually useful is when swapping the race of the hero or the victim challenges unconscious bias. Elizabeth I and Walter Raleigh are heroes in popular culture (although more nuanced in 'true' history, these days) and much of what we lazily see as good in their stories looks a lot less rosy if you take a bit more context into consideration. So if they are played by black actors, who we have a habit of seeing as villains, would we see the 'good' as rather less good? And if white men were the victims of the appalling treatment that black slaves suffered, would we find it more shocking because it comes closer to home? Not everyone has that unconscious bias; those who don't would see nothing 'different'. But it's pretty well established that the majority of people do and if it made even a few of them question that, it would be a Good Thing, no?
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
Personally, I think it only matters when you know the 'story'. If I have never read the book or know the history then it matters not a jot to me who plays who (unless it materially affects the plot - but then if you don't pre-know the plot, you either think the story is good or bad anyway) as long as the story is good. It's entertainment surely? BUT i mentally create images of characters in books - so if the casting doesn't resemble my image, then I don't like it anyway. I don't like English people playing Americans (House - what was all that about?) - but I love Sean Connery playing a Russian or Michael Caine playing a Scot...make you smile eh? When has Sean Connery ever played anyone else than Sean Connery?
On casting, did anyone watch Black Earth Rising a couple of years back? We had it 'taped' and only just watched it... good story, well cast, well played and well filmed.
Posts
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Black and White Minstrels anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
It's what the audience is supposed to do .;. theatre is a two way experience.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
But in some cases it wouldn't matter. In the same way it doesn't bother me if gay actors play straight characters (or vice versa) when that's not the point of the story. Where the race of a person isn't a central concern of their story, as Dove said, then so what? Anne Boleyn's story is about misogyny, politics and religion, not race.
The times when it could be actually useful is when swapping the race of the hero or the victim challenges unconscious bias. Elizabeth I and Walter Raleigh are heroes in popular culture (although more nuanced in 'true' history, these days) and much of what we lazily see as good in their stories looks a lot less rosy if you take a bit more context into consideration. So if they are played by black actors, who we have a habit of seeing as villains, would we see the 'good' as rather less good? And if white men were the victims of the appalling treatment that black slaves suffered, would we find it more shocking because it comes closer to home? Not everyone has that unconscious bias; those who don't would see nothing 'different'. But it's pretty well established that the majority of people do and if it made even a few of them question that, it would be a Good Thing, no?
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”