Bbc tv casts black people in the role of the bad guys :/

[Peuri]

White people: I don't see race, stop talking about it!
Also white people: *types 15 paragraphs about how STUPID, HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, and frankly OFFENSIVE it is that they cast a black guy to play Hannibal*

Nice generalisation there.

 

[Lexicus]

White people: "stop whining about black lives and racism, grow up snowflake"
Also white people: *gets highly offended at the mention of white people*

 

[civver_764]

White people: I don't see race, stop talking about it!
Also white people: *types 15 paragraphs about how STUPID, HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, and frankly OFFENSIVE it is that they cast a black guy to play Hannibal*

Leftists: White people can't play black people, that's racist!
Also leftists: What do you mean black people can't play white people? What are you, some kind of racist?

 

[Lexicus]

Leftists: White people can't play black people, that's racist!
Also leftists: What do you mean black people can't play white people? What are you, some kind of racist?

1/10, derivative

 

[Peuri]

I wouldn't mind if a black person played Joukahainen or whom ever in an edition of the Kalevala. Unless the show was was supposed to be realistic. Then it would be strange, it would destroy the immersion. As would a white/asian/female Shaka.

What is more, why do we need yet another Troy film/series/whatever. If BBC wants diversity, why not produce an african myth/folklore series? I'm sure there are great stories there too. With all care taken and pretty pleases with sugar on top in order to not offend the "cultural appropriation" people. Or just take "my" culture and make a Kalevala series. No one will mind, it's just lying there unused. Please, just don't cast any swedes, we're supposed to dislike them for some reason. Alledgedly they colonised this place before, or what ever.

 

[Lexicus]

Unless the show was was supposed to be realistic.

A realistic Kalevala seems like a contradiction in terms.

 

[Peuri]

A realistic Kalevala seems like a contradiction in terms.

I don't know how that would be so. Obviously it's a piece of fiction, but a piece of fiction that is set somewhere in the northern hemisphere around modern day Finland or Karelia mostly in an iron age setting. Not very many people of immediate african descent there during those times. Things that would also make it unrealistic include, but are not limited to: gunpowder, the stirrup, compasses, huge castles etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

Leftists: White people can't play black people, that's racist!
Also leftists: What do you mean black people can't play white people? What are you, some kind of racist?

I also dislike that, but i wouldn't term it as "leftist". Not that view myself as "leftist", but usually the term means people who in theory care about social equality. But this isn't the same as sjw-type (for want of a better term) views.
Personally i think it should go without saying that i started the thread cause i thought it would be fun. I am somewhat aware i won't get to make the bbc change its show. Moreover i wouldn't really want to be anywhere near the bbc; way too many scandals (and those tend to not involve black people at all ).

 

[Traitorfish]

Leftists: White people can't play black people, that's racist!
Also leftists: What do you mean black people can't play white people? What are you, some kind of racist?

In what sense is Achilles, the character, "a white person"? In what sense, and to what degree, is this an important aspect of his character?

As I pointed out before, the Homeric myths, as imagined by most Westerners, have very little to do with Greece, and everything to do with a jumbled, half-articulated concept of "Western civilisation". Greeks may regard Achilles as a specifically Greek figure, as a national ancestor, but that legacy has been so heavily plundered that, to non-Greeks, insisting that Greeks are Greek-speaking Greek people from Greece seems quaint and parochial. Hollywood certainly has no tradition of portraying ancient Greece, even in the historical era, with any real interest in Greek culture. They could usually be dressed up as vikings or Romans or knights and it wouldn't make any fundamental difference to the story, so long as the audience understands that these are people from Ancient Times who care about Honour and Courage and Yelling Real Loud About Honour and Courage. The last real swords-and-sandals hit, 300, was more or less a garbled retelling of the British mythology of the Second World War, distinguished mostly by the fact its Churchill-figure had more muscles and less clothes than traditional depictions. "Greece", in these films, has no more historical existence than Gondor, because it's not supposed to represent a real place, but a mythological starting-point for a Western civilisational identity. Achilles, then, is only as "white" as the West is white, and the West is increasingly not-white, so why should we insist that its myths not follow?

As to the second point, a large part of the reason that casting white actors in originally non-white roles is that non-white roles are so relatively limited in Western media that racial background does tend to become constitutive of the character, whether or no it's the authors intention. It feels like a misstep and even an insult in a way that casting a non-white actor in an originally white role does not. Casting a black actor as Heimdall doesn't really change anything, because Heimdall's race is pretty much irrelevant to the character. Casting a white actor as Black Panther, well, that's a different story, because Black Panther in his fundamental premise a black character.

And that's not to say that there are not certain characters who are not integrally white. Steve Rogers pretty much has to be white, because his whole deal is that he's a distillation of the 1940s United States- or perhaps, more specifically, American progressivism of the 1940s- and just as his strength derives from its virtues, so his failings derive from its weakness. Captain America has to be a straight white male, and just a little clueless about it, because how characters related to Cap is in part an expression of how they related to America's past, and that past is dominated by clueless straight white men. A black Cap would have to be a post-Rogers Cap, which is why even the ham-fisted vandals who run Marvel Comics had the sense to make their black Cap a friend and protege of Rogers, rather than just rebooting him.

 

[Kyriakos]

In what sense is Achilles, the character, "a white person"? In what sense, and to what degree, is this an important aspect of his character?

As I pointed out before, the Homeric myths, as imagined by most Westerners, have very little to do with Greece, and everything to do with a jumbled, half-articulated concept of "Western civilisation". Greeks may regard Achilles as a specifically Greek figure, as a national ancestor, but that legacy has been so heavily plundered that, to non-Greeks, insisting that Greeks are Greek-speaking Greek people from Greece seems quaint and parochial. Hollywood certainly has no tradition of portraying ancient Greece, even in the historical era, with any real interest in Greek culture. They could usually be dressed up as vikings or Romans or knights and it wouldn't make any fundamental difference to the story, so long as the audience understands that these are people from Ancient Times who care about Honour and Courage and Yelling Real Loud About Honour and Courage. The last real swords-and-sandals hit, 300, was more or less a garbled retelling of the British mythology of the Second World War, distinguished mostly by the fact its Churchill-figure had more muscles and less clothes than traditional depictions. "Greece", in these films, has no more historical existence than Gondor, because it's not supposed to represent a real place, but a mythological starting-point for a Western civilisational identity. Achilles, then, is only as "white" as the West is white, and the West is increasingly not-white, so why should we insist that its myths not follow?

As to the second point, a large part of the reason that casting white actors in originally non-white roles is that non-white roles are so relatively limited in Western media that racial background does tend to become constitutive of the character, whether or no it's the authors intention. It feels like a misstep and even an insult in a way that casting a non-white actor in an originally white role does not. Casting a black actor as Heimdall doesn't really change anything, because Heimdall's race is pretty much irrelevant to the character. Casting a white actor as Black Panther, well, that's a different story, because Black Panther in his fundamental premise a black character.

And that's not to say that there are not certain characters who are not integrally white. Steve Rogers pretty much has to be white, because his whole deal is that he's a distillation of the 1940s United States- or perhaps, more specifically, American progressivism of the 1940s- and just as his strength derives from its virtues, so his failings derive from its weakness. Captain America has to be a straight white male, and just a little clueless about it, because how characters related to Cap is in part an expression of how they related to America's past, and that past is dominated by clueless straight white men. A black Cap would have to be a post-Rogers Cap, which is why even the ham-fisted vandals who run Marvel Comics had the sense to make their black Cap a friend and protege of Rogers, rather than just rebooting him.

Is it also parochial and too much to ask for the usual motley scots and irish to play greeks?
Afterall, apparently there are no south euro people working as actors in the UK. Brexit hit them hard..

Re 300 Churchills, yeah, current Greece may not be important, but same goes for current UK, so if anything of the sort it would just tie to US ^^

 

[warpus]

As to the second point, a large part of the reason that casting white actors in originally non-white roles is that non-white roles are so relatively limited in Western media that racial background does tend to become constitutive of the character, whether or no it's the authors intention. It feels like a misstep and even an insult in a way that casting a non-white actor in an originally white role does not. Casting a black actor as Heimdall doesn't really change anything, because Heimdall's race is pretty much irrelevant to the character. Casting a white actor as Black Panther, well, that's a different story, because Black Panther in his fundamental premise a black character.

And that's not to say that there are not certain characters who are not integrally white. Steve Rogers pretty much has to be white, because his whole deal is that he's a distillation of the 1940s United States- or perhaps, more specifically, American progressivism of the 1940s- and just as his strength derives from its virtues, so his failings derive from its weakness. Captain America has to be a straight white male, and just a little clueless about it, because how characters related to Cap is in part an expression of how they related to America's past, and that past is dominated by clueless straight white men. A black Cap would have to be a post-Rogers Cap, which is why even the ham-fisted vandals who run Marvel Comics had the sense to make their black Cap a friend and protege of Rogers, rather than just rebooting him.

I agree with most of the above, but I think there are more cases where attention to the actor's skin colour is important. Even in cases where the original character isn't defined around race much, it still wouldn't make sense to me to cast a bunch of Chinese actors to play Egyptian slaves building the pyramids for instance. Or a black king of Poland. Or a Swedish man playing Cleopatra. Unless the movie was specifically a farce of those events i.e. a comedy making a mockery of some sort of the events in question, or an alternate history type of movie maybe.

In the grand scheme of things if the suspension of disbelief isn't broken when these characters are introduced onscreen, then in my mind the right actors were cast for the roles. But if someone goes "Hey wait a second, the first man on the moon wasn't in a wheelchair" then I would call that a mistake.

Mind you I don't know much about ancient greece or what people back then really looked, so in the case of the OP it probably doesn't matter. But I would defer to an actually Greek person familiar with these stories in making that decision

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree with most of the above, but I think there are more cases where attention to the actor's skin colour is important. Even in cases where the original character isn't defined around race much, it still wouldn't make sense to me to cast a bunch of Chinese actors to play Egyptian slaves building the pyramids for instance. Or a black king of Poland. Or a Swedish man playing Cleopatra. Unless the movie was specifically a farce of those events i.e. a comedy making a mockery of some sort of the events in question, or an alternate history type of movie maybe.

You say that, but Egyptians are rarely portrayed by Egyptians. Cleopatra has been portrayed by actresses from Theda Bara to Elizabeth Tayor to Monica Belluci, but the only actual Egyptian portrayal I can find was Amina Rizk in the 1943 hit كليوباترا, which I think we can fairly say sits somewhere outside the Hollywood canon. We're not looking at a sudden disruption into a world of hitherto scrupulous historical rigour. We're looking at the same use of history as a handy reference point for what are essentially fantasy stories; all that changes is the skin-tones.

 

[Kyriakos]

@warpus I don't know if medieval polish people didn't look black, so i'd also defer to a polish person to pass that kind of knowledge

 

[BvBPL]

In what sense is Achilles, the character, "a white person"? In what sense, and to what degree, is this an important aspect of his character?

If you make the Iliad about an inter-cultural conflict between two groups are within themselves largely homogenous but see each other as the other than Achilles sort of has to be identifiable with his allies and separable from the Trojans. That doesn’t mean he necessarily must share an ethnicity, but it needs to be made clear to the viewer that Achilles is Greek as is Ajax and Agamemnon, etc.

If you make it about something else, like being a story about fraternity during war (which might benefit from examining differences between the Greeks), or a romance between Agamemnon and Helen, or just a cool war story then Achilles’s identity becomes less important.

So it depends on where the theme of the presentation falls.

 

[Kyriakos]

Let's not pretend the Bbc cast those roles out of a plan to "make the story matter, not what you see". As noted, they have racial quota to fill re hiring actors. That is understandable and i have no issue with that, but they could be a little less reckless than filling those quota in series set in the archaic age Greece, and moreover using the main protagonists of that setting. It just seems more trolling than anything rational, given they could easily not do it and don't seem to have the show gain from this decision either.

 

[warpus]

You say that, but Egyptians are rarely portrayed by Egyptians. Cleopatra has been portrayed by actresses from Theda Bara to Elizabeth Tayor to Monica Belluci, but the only actual Egyptian portrayal I can find was Amina Rizk in the 1943 hit كليوباترا, which I think we can fairly say sits somewhere outside the Hollywood canon. We're not looking at a sudden disruption into a world of hitherto scrupulous historical rigour. We're looking at the same use of history as a handy reference point for what are essentially fantasy stories; all that changes is the skin-tones.

Sure, but in all those cases the casting works well enough for the audience, it seems. So in the context of what I was saying, those casting choices seem to work.

My examples were extreme for a reason. It would be something that would cause audiences to stop and say "Hey wait a second, there were no black people in Poland in the 1100s" or whatever. It affects the story negatively. A non-Egyptian playing an Egyptian doesn't, if you do it right. I definitely do think that you've got to allow some wiggleroom for casting, you can't always find the most historically accurate person for the role, and in many cases it's not really required, as you say.

I mean, the skin tone of Jesus changes depending on what culture you're from. He wasn't white, but he is often portrayed as such, and nobody has a problem with that, because that audience expects it. So for the purposes of the story, it works, and I think that's the most important question here - Does the casting work, or does it unnecessarily confuse the audience?

 

[Arakhor]

... but they could be a little less reckless than filling those quota in series set in the archaic age Greece, and moreover using the main protagonists of that setting. It just seems more trolling than anything rational, given they could easily not do it and don't seem to have the show gain from this decision either.

Given that it's unlikely that any of the actors will be Greek and only a few (if that) will be at all Mediterranean, I am struggling to see your concern as anything other than a little bit racist. Seriously, your main concern appears to be the colour of their skin!

 

[Kyriakos]

Given that it's unlikely that any of the actors will be Greek and only a few (if that) will be at all Mediterranean, I am struggling to see your concern as anything other than a little bit racist. Seriously, your main concern appears to be the colour of their skin!

Eh, is this the emperor's new clothes? Isn't the discussion about using people who look VERY clearly different than expected for a part?
That isn't racism; i am not against them due to their skin-colour, i am certainly against using them in these roles, what is wrong with that in your view?

And ok, scots/english are a little whiter than greeks, but going from pics i saw here... not really much

 

[Synobun]

Eh, is this the emperor's new clothes? Isn't the discussion about using people who look VERY clearly different than expected for a part?
That isn't racism; i am not against them due to their skin-colour, i am certainly against using them in these roles, what is wrong with that in your view?

Well, it's that you're specifying that you're only okay with blacks if they're unimportant. Someone being black being cast in a leading role is something you've taken specific issue with.

 

[Lexicus]

That isn't racism; i am not against them due to their skin-colour, i am certainly against using them in these roles, what is wrong with that in your view?

You are certainly against using them in these roles because of their skin color...