Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

BBC Cast a Black Woman as a Historical English Queen. Watch

    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Black man wanna see dat white bootay.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What about a Mongolian playing a Chinese person, or a Nigerian playing a Ugandan? Can an English Queen be played by a Greek woman? Can an English Queen be played by someone with a Scottish accent? Where does one draw the line when it comes to historical realism?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What about a Mongolian playing a Chinese person, or a Nigerian playing a Ugandan? Can an English Queen be played by a Greek woman? Can an English Queen be played by someone with a Scottish accent? Where does one draw the line when it comes to historical realism?
    Just the correct colour of skin for said historical figure. Nationality isn't really relevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you had a drama set amongst a Zulu tribe would it be ok to have half the tribe white .... No that would be stupid , so was this . Complete tokenism
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What about a Mongolian playing a Chinese person, or a Nigerian playing a Ugandan? Can an English Queen be played by a Greek woman? Can an English Queen be played by someone with a Scottish accent? Where does one draw the line when it comes to historical realism?
    Oh come on, don't be so dense. There is a big difference between casting somebody of a visually similar ethnicity and casting somebody of a blatantly different race. The former works fine in a film context, the latter is just jarring and obvious tokenism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    What about a Mongolian playing a Chinese person, or a Nigerian playing a Ugandan? Can an English Queen be played by a Greek woman? Can an English Queen be played by someone with a Scottish accent? Where does one draw the line when it comes to historical realism?
    Rebecca Ferguson, a Swedish actress, played an English queen in the White Queen. A mixed race boy played Dodger in Dickensian. No one had anything to say about them, so get over it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    This does bug me.

    I have no issue with historical drama/fantasy casting non white actors in roles that are not specific. I.e not casting Idris Elba as Henry the eighth But in an actual historical drama, then keep the ethnicity accurate (seeing as your putting so much money into things such as sets and costumes)
    It's a show. Everyone know that Margaret of Anjou was white; having a black woman play her isn't going to change the fact that she wasn't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Oh come on, don't be so dense. There is a big difference between casting somebody of a visually similar ethnicity and casting somebody of a blatantly different race. The former works fine in a film context, the latter is just jarring and obvious tokenism.
    It's not a matter of being dense. I am merely asking where the line should be drawn. In fact, some "visually similar ethnicities" might be offended by such a comparison, so that might not necessarily happen without causing offense either.

    I've heard many people, who having watched some Hollywood films, have complained about horrific attempts to impersonate English accents. How essential is an authentic accent when it comes to realism?

    Anyway, it is ultimately down to the producers. They should have full control of artistic creativity, and should be free to decide for themselves. If you don't agree with their choice of actor, you don't have to buy or watch their production. If they don't wish for their production to be entirely historically accurate, then that is their choice.

    (Original post by goldenshades)
    Rebecca Ferguson, a Swedish actress, played an English queen in the White Queen. A mixed race boy played Dodger in Dickensian.
    I was merely asking the question of how far people are willing to push the concept of historical realism.

    No one had anything to say about them, so grow up.
    This is a debate forum. It is meant to provide a platform through which people can ask questions and debate topics. If you don't wish to engage in a debate and don't wish to see people asking question, you don't have to enter this forum.

    (Original post by Ddma)
    If you had a drama set amongst a Zulu tribe would it be ok to have half the tribe white .... No that would be stupid , so was this . Complete tokenism
    Let us assume that Genghis Khan had visited Iceland and it was a major incident in the history of their country. If they were to put on a production of this story, would Iceland (a country which is like 98% white) have to hunt down and find an East Asian person just to play the role of Genghis Khan?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Now you can invoke Godwin's Law if you like. And fair enough.

    But you ain't ever going to see Hitler played by a black dude on a BBC TV drama. That is all I am sayin...
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Oh come on, don't be so dense. There is a big difference between casting somebody of a visually similar ethnicity and casting somebody of a blatantly different race. The former works fine in a film context, the latter is just jarring and obvious tokenism.
    How is it tokenism?
    What if she was the most talented actress that auditioned for the role?
    The skin color of the person should not matter unless their race was an integral part of the plot.

    White actors can play ancient Egyptian gods and a black woman can be an English queen.
    Honestly if this is what upsets people in this day and age then what hope is there for the future.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Now you can invoke Godwin's Law if you like. And fair enough.

    But you ain't ever going to see Hitler played by a black dude on a BBC TV drama. That is all I am sayin...
    Has the BBC ever shown the movie Gandhi to Hitler with Raghubir Yadav as Hitler?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghubir_Yadav
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Has the BBC ever shown the movie Gandhi to Hitler with Raghubir Yadav as Hitler?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghubir_Yadav
    No.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chutzpah)
    Doesn't shock me I know the BBC is full of self hating anti-White cultural Marxists which is why I will never, ever give them a cent.
    cultural Marxists
    Yeah, about that...

    (TL;DR = It's a conspiracy theory.)

    (Original post by http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism)
    Cultural Marxism refers to two things:

    First, extremely rarely, "Cultural Marxism" refers to the application of Marxist ideology and/or critical theory to social sciences. (Studentus note: Marxism refers to class and society as it refers to economics, if you read Karl Marx's writings you'll note that while he has lots of funny ideas about money and society, race doesn't come into it. Period.)
    Second, much more commonly, "Cultural Marxism" is used as a snarl word by reactionaries to red-bait anyone with progressive tendencies. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers in media, academia, and science are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Perhaps with some "Sexual Bolshevism" thrown in for good measure.
    Hehe.
    Snarl words are easy but intellectually hollow.

    Yeah. A final thought for you:
    The conspiracist usage originated in Nazi Germany, where Kulturbolschewismus ("Cultural Bolshevism") was used as a political term of abuse, as well.[1] The Nazis being the Nazis, they of course often mixed it with their idea that all Bolshevism was a Jewish plot.

    So if anyone rants about "Cultural Marxists taking over culture!", kindly remind them that they're literally spouting Nazi propaganda.

    Anyway, back to the topic, I'd say it's sorta white-washing, definitely revisionist.

    On the other hand it's just another in a long line of TV and movies which cast actors who aren't the ethnicity of the character they portray (blackface, whiteface, yellowface, etc).

    As long as my history textbooks aren't trying to make such claims then so be it, the rest is for internet goons to argue over.

    Have fun with that, I'll believe you when you say your opinion isn't informed by white supremacy or an innate discomfort around brown people, honest.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vikingninja)
    Why the **** do people actually care about the skin colour of someone in a role. They gave avatar as an example with them being lighter skinned than the originals, who gives a ****? "sorry guys have to turn you down for the role, too white", that would be racist and ****in ridiculous.

    People didn't care when attack on titan live action was played by japanese people rather than Europeans. So why at this?
    Would you cast a Wiener dog to act the role of a German Shepard if you had a huge supply of German Shepards?

    Race and racial history are an important part of identity so that simply isn't cool to do such things. You might not have a strong group identity but others do and to some extent that's something you ought to have the common courtesy respect where it doesn't impact you. In some cases it is actually a form of racial abuse to deny and attack people's group identity and right to have one.

    It wouldn't be cool for me, a non-Muslim, to wear Muslim attire purely for kicks or just because. If skin colour is merely superficial (it isn't entirely and this is a scientific fact) then so are clothes. So why shouldn't the BBC shoot a Nazi era German film where all the Germans are speaking Arabic, wearing Islamic attire and using an star/crescent symbol instead of a swastika?

    Me wearing Islamic attire would not be cool but it wouldn't be the end of the world either. It's one of those things like burping out loud around a load of crowded people. It's still uncouth though.

    In this case I don't really trust the BBC as they have a bias agenda. I do not think that they are innocent. There are a lot of rules about what is cool and what isn't. This isn't a case where it's particularly cool. The system of unwritten rules is more expansive and complex than those that are written. If Obama on giving a speech opened with a massive burp then started the speech as normal as if nothing happened then half way through did a massive loud fart, continued again as normal to the end a few people would start to question his sanity and request that he go for a psyche evaluation and it wouldn't take there being any written rules for people to come to that conclusion as it is simply natural law, common sense. It's impossible to write down everything so no one bothers unless the need arises.

    Times where this is acceptable are where for example you are importing some fable from another place or it would simple be too much bother to hire appropriate actors. In this case the BBC should have no trouble finding appropriate actors so it is really obviously doing something deliberate with this. There is no mystery at all about what the historical character looked like which also poses a mild insult to the dead. It's not pure modern fantasy or absurd comedy but more of a history piece so that makes it more inappropriate. People are right to be moderately annoyed by it and to raise an objection. They can't force the BBC not to do it but you can complain and you can ditch your TV license, don't watch the show, block your kids from the BBC (and take them out of school). With the internet the BBC is potentially on the way out anyway as a national service.

    Someone else brought up yellowface and blackface. I don't actually believe these are racist so that's not my belief system and no one has the right to impose it on me. It's very funny that people who argue vehemently that skin colour is superficial are obsessed with enforcing superficial taboos about silly make up, symbols, names and even mustaches. Hitler's power and evil is unparalleled and far reaching even beyond the grave. Being able to ban a style of mustache for over half a century after death takes some serious clout.

    However I do agree that particular case was stupid, possibly trivially racist but definitely stupid. I am sure they would have been able to find a real Asian actor without having to make up one to look like it which is less authentic and completely contrary to the intended ends of acting. Anything but the real thing is a poor imitation.

    Sophie Okonedo is not black though but half-caste.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    It's not a matter of being dense. I am merely asking where the line should be drawn. In fact, some "visually similar ethnicities" might be offended by such a comparison, so that might not necessarily happen without causing offense either.

    I've heard many people, who having watched some Hollywood films, have complained about horrific attempts to impersonate English accents. How essential is an authentic accent when it comes to realism?

    Anyway, it is ultimately down to the producers. They should have full control of artistic creativity, and should be free to decide for themselves. If you don't agree with their choice of actor, you don't have to buy or watch their production. If they don't wish for their production to be entirely historically accurate, then that is their choice.



    I was merely asking the question of how far people are willing to push the concept of historical realism.



    This is a debate forum. It is meant to provide a platform through which people can ask questions and debate topics. If you don't wish to engage in a debate and don't wish to see people asking question, you don't have to enter this forum
    No, this is the News and current affairs forum. This thread is intended for the use of discussing things; if you don't wish to see people negatively reference your points then you can leave it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goldenshades)
    No, this is the News and current affairs forum. This thread is intended for the use of discussing things; if you don't wish to see people negatively reference your points then you can leave it.
    You might want to check again. This is a debate forum. My issue is with your puerile reply of "grow up" because somebody in a debate forum posed question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    The new series of the 'The Hollow Crown' on the BBC has cast a black woman (Sophie Okonedo) as Margaret of Anjou. This is an actual historical figure who was the wife of Henry VI and thus was Queen of England from 1445-1461 and from 1470-1471.

    See the trailer for the new series:




    The only reason I post this is because there always seems to be an outrage when movies/tv shows are supposedly 'white washed'. For example, more recently, Scarlett Johansson was cast as an Asian character in a Hollywood adaptation of a Japanese anime franchise: 'Ghost in the Shell'. There was outrage because this was apparently 'yellowface' (see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB0lrSebyng).

    That is just a fantasy character however. The difference with this is that it's a real historical figure being represented inaccurately. Just imagine the outrage if someone like Martin Luther King was cast as a white guy.
    Is the series a factual documentary or is something else?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    12 pages of white people complaining..i'll pass
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophiamarni)
    12 pages of white people complaining..i'll pass
    What an insightful and valuable contribution that was


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Yeah, about that...

    (TL;DR = It's a conspiracy theory.)



    Hehe.
    Snarl words are easy but intellectually hollow.

    Yeah. A final thought for you:



    Anyway, back to the topic, I'd say it's sorta white-washing, definitely revisionist.

    On the other hand it's just another in a long line of TV and movies which cast actors who aren't the ethnicity of the character they portray (blackface, whiteface, yellowface, etc).

    As long as my history textbooks aren't trying to make such claims then so be it, the rest is for internet goons to argue over.

    Have fun with that, I'll believe you when you say your opinion isn't informed by white supremacy or an innate discomfort around brown people, honest.
    "Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness."

    This is literally the first explanation when googled and blatantly what the poster was talking about, trying to misrepresent him so as to belittle and make obscure links to Nazism.

    Why do you feel the need to be so intellectually dishonest ? Your mask has slipped off, again, and your politically backwards reasoning showing. By all means, just make another reference to Nazis and be on your way.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.