Pet Peeves | Page 270 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

Ron Nasty said
Inappropriate casting in television and film without any creative argument.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to fictional characters having ethnicity or gender played with in adaptions for the screen. They are fictional characters, the playthings of creatives. When it comes to real historical figures however, you better have a damn good artistic reason to portray them differently to who they were.

That can happen. The film about Bob Dylan, I’m Not There, had Dylan portrayed by six different actors of different ages, races and gender. It was done that way to explore different aspects of his personality and the public perception of him. An artistic exploration of the subject which is legitimate.

But when you cast someone to play a historical figure who differs greatly from the historical figure without reason I object.

There is an upcoming drama series about Anne Boyleyn, second wife of King Henry VIII, on Channel 5 in the UK.

This is Anne Boyleyn:

And she is being played by Jodie Turner-Smith:

Now, call me un-PC if you want, but that is total insanity. It turns an historical figure into someone she wasn’t, with no hint that they exploring anything about the personality of Boyleyn by changing her ethnicity.

It just seems they wanted headlines by casting a black actor to play a white role.

I wonder what the reaction would be if someone were to do something with a white actor playing Martin Luther King, Jnr., Ray Charles, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Barack Obama, or Nelson Mandela?

  

The six wives are very in vogue at the mo, largely thanks to the musical Six, which has similar colour-blind casting:

I get where you’re coming from but for some reason I don’t really mind colour-blind casting for not that recent history. Like anything pre-1900’s say I have no issue with casting being a bit more diverse – Hamilton being a great example.

Also, in the grand scheme of things, I imagine that drama will have a lot of historically inaccurate stuff, purely because we don’t have many contemporary sources about Anne in general, they all focused on the king. So, I don’t mind having a black Anne, the show isn’t proclaiming itself to be a documentary.

If you really want to see a white Boleyn, there must be at least 50 different screen portrayals of her over the years, all I imagine played by white women.

The fact that this particular version of Anne is played by a black woman does not impact the story at all, so long as it’s a good performance, I don’t care who plays the part. Furthermore, I don’t think that anyone who would want to watch a show on Anne Boleyn would think “oh yeah the real AB was a black woman”. 

But thanks for bringing the show to my attention, I wouldn’t have known it was happening otherwise, will definitely record it.

meanmistermustard said
Not read the discussion so barging in here with no clue and many apologies.

Why is it totally unacceptable for a white actor to play a non-white part but it’s fine the other way around? I know the arguments and I’m not saying that’s my stance or that it’s right or wrong so don’t shout at me, I’m just wondering why. 

  

Of course I’m coming from a white girl perspective on this but I imagine it’s to do with the history of blackface and yellowface in both theatre and screen productions over the past however many years – Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, John Wayne as Genghis Khan etc. (I’m only saying these ones because they are still famous films, there are a lot more recent examples of it from the ’90’s and 00’s but they are TV shows and films, I imagine barely anyone has heard of). Basically white actors stealing roles that would be better suited to POC.

POC are underrepresented as leads in film and TV anyways, often being resigned to the ‘sidekick or villain’ role rather than the protagonist. So, having a role of say a Japanese woman in a book being played by a white woman in the film adaption could be considered as stealing another role from a POC artist (as I imagine there would be actors of Japanese heritage, or wherever, that would be just as, if not more, better suited to the role than the white woman). 

If someone writes back to me with “but Anne Boleyn in this is stealing the role from a white woman”, then you’re not understanding the point I’m making and I don’t think you will ever understand.

Also, I hope in future I’ll be seeing a list of pet peeves here of the inevitable inaccuracies/made-up material in this upcoming Anne Boleyn drama, seeing as we’re all very concerned with historical accuracy. 

Starr Shine? said

Ron Nasty said

Inappropriate casting in television and film without any creative argument.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to fictional characters having ethnicity or gender played with in adaptions for the screen. They are fictional characters, the playthings of creatives. When it comes to real historical figures however, you better have a damn good artistic reason to portray them differently to who they were.

That can happen. The film about Bob Dylan, I’m Not There, had Dylan portrayed by six different actors of different ages, races and gender. It was done that way to explore different aspects of his personality and the public perception of him. An artistic exploration of the subject which is legitimate.

But when you cast someone to play a historical figure who differs greatly from the historical figure without reason I object.

There is an upcoming drama series about Anne Boyleyn, second wife of King Henry VIII, on Channel 5 in the UK.

  

So are you ok with a thin hansome person playing a fat ugly Henry VIII? Cause I say that is more inacurate than having someone with a simaler bone structure/body shape playing Anne

  

Agreed Nessie, WE DEMAND HISTORICAL ACCURACY IN OUR CHARACTERS!

Henry being made pretty in every adaption sickens me, he was only hot when he was young!