Ethnic Revisionism - Mary: Queen of the Multicultural Scots

suicide_circus

anybody should be allowed play any character.

or

People should only play characters who are exactly like themselves in every way.




which is it to be?

pleas advice

Saoirse Ronan does a good Scottish accent in fairness, its just a pity Mary would have spoken French

facehugger99

suicide_circus wrote: »

anybody should be allowed play any character.

or

People should only play characters who are exactly like themselves in every way.




which is it to be?

Depends on the film.

tigerboon

What about Star Wars. It was a galaxy far far away but the humans seemed to have undergone the same evolution and have the same skin colours as ourselves....although a "long time ago".

knucklehead6

Are we not missing the point here? He brought the Wife & Girlfriend to see the film. At the same time.

We haven’t seen this sort of carry on since taxAHcruel

Undividual

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Are we not missing the point here? He brought the Wife & Girlfriend to see the film. At the same time.

We haven’t seen this sort of carry on since taxAHcruel

I had to sit them rows apart and keep making excuses like "I forgot to lock the car" when I moved from one to the other. I should really write a rom-com about it.

robbiezero

The film is absolute muck anyway.

Alun

You do know that there actually were black people in Elizabethan London?

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18903391

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history

RandomName2

sk8erboii wrote: »

Im so grown up i write paragraphs on boards.ie because i saw a brown guy on the telly

Personally I think Samuel L. Jackson would make a great Michael Collins. :pac:

To be honest getting the races, appearances, and mannerisms of the historical figures its depicting were the least of this movie's factual errors, when it plain makes up many of the scenes. Mary and Elizabeth never clapped eyes on one another in real life. Also Mary was more French than Scottish

professore

sk8erboii wrote: »

LOL. Someone actually typed that all out

Reverse snow-flake syndrome.

Ah sure history doesn't matter.

VinLieger

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I take it you would have no issue with white actors playing Zulu chiefs or Japanese Emperors?

Not if the movie isnt meant to be historically accurate which the favorite is very much not meant to be, its a dark comedy

VinLieger

professore wrote: »

Ah sure history doesn't matter.

Yes when the movie is a comedy it doesnt really matter

ohnonotgmail

Sonic Youth wrote: »

That's silly but surely you have the brainpower to understand why putting coloured actors into historical dramas for the sake of ' diversity' is equally silly?

Or maybe they put them in because they are good actors?

pjohnson

professore wrote: »

Ah sure history doesn't matter.

Surely there should be offence taken by the fact that Robbie is Aussie and Ronan Irish if people want historical accuracy?

Undividual

Grayson wrote: »

Just as an FYI, psychiatrists are a different type of doctor.

I did not know that, thank you.

cgcsb

Undividual wrote: »

The WAG and I went to see The Favourite last week and Mary: Queen of the Scots tonight.

Both movies are based in ye olden times. Both were ok (The Favourite was far better IMHO). One thing that stuck out like a sore thumb in M:QotS was the inclusion of black and Asian actors/actresses in prominent roles. The envoy for the British monarch was a black man and her lady in waiting was an Asian woman. Apparently a black actor can play a white historical character though the opposite is problematic.

What was interesting is that these were included without any comment on their race. Effectively, their ethnicities were ignored within the film while simultaneously ignoring the supposed real-life impact such placements would have resulted in. For example, a scene where the black envoy is kissing a white lady in waiting is not commented on for being (what I assume would have been) semi-scandalous at the time.

I don't know if this kind of thing is a response to 'Oscars so White' etc, but it pretty much broke the 4th wall for me. The movie 'A Knights Tale' did something similar but it was much more light-hearted, and thematically it was a timeless story. It seems bizarre to do the same with a historical piece.

'Mary' overall was fairly ideologically inconsistent, with her on the one hand being a devout Catholic and on the other being completely tolerant of a gay man (who wore ladies clothing and had it away with her hubby).

:pac::pac::pac:
I was saying the EXACT same thing. Loved the favourite, very funny, didn't take it's self too seriously but at the same time emotional and engaging.

Mary Queen of Scotts, what a bizzar film. I didn't actually cop that these people were playing 'white' roles, I thought we were supposed to just accept that the 16 Century Court of Mary Queen of Scots was an exceptionally ethnically diverse and LGBTQ friendly environment at the time.

The notion that a black person in Scotland at that time would be anything more than a curiosity or a servant is just a laugh. Britain hadn't even gained much ground in exotic parts of the world at the time, so I doubt that they would have ever even seen one. And certainly a black guy would not have been a nobleman and certainly wouldn't have been allowed to have a relationship with handmaid of the queen.

So lets imagine for a moment that it's a black person playing a white role and we're supposed to suspend disbelief regarding the actor's appearance. Fair enough, so why did they make Saoirse Ronan 'Scottish looking'? she had ginger hair, fake freckles, whiter than white makeup and a Scottish accent.

Also about her gay husband. Like yeah there are many historical accounts of famous folks being rumoured to be gay in antiquity. Queen Ann (of the Favourite) sure enough was indeed having lesbian affairs by all accounts. But to think that the King of Scotland at the time would be openly dancing suggestively with another man, on front of everybody, and then openly bedding eachother in the royal bed no less in full view of all staff and the queen herself, well that's just silly. How can we take this seriously?


I mean I would have been fine with it if it was the same format as the Favourite i.e. a black comedy not taking it's self too seriously.

VinLieger

pjohnson wrote: »

Surely there should be offence taken by the fact that Robbie is Aussie and Ronan Irish if people want historical accuracy?

LOL you know well its only the colour of their skin that matters to people complaining about this, having a different ethnicty to the character doesnt matter if your the right colour, i think there's a word for that.......


Also again it was a comedy movie so why historical accuracy matters to people is beyond me...... maybe its something to do with that word im having trouble remembering again.......

cgcsb

Francesca Sour Stomach wrote: »

Extremely dishonest to dismiss movies as pieces of fluff. That Spielberg eh, with his nonsense auld Schindler's List?

Some movies are pieces of fluff and some are examinations of really important topics and events.

That said though, The Favourite isn't trying to be historically accurate.

That's the key difference, you suspend your disbelief when watching a black comedy, satirical story. MQS was sold as a serious historical film. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it, cool story bro etc. but did cringe at the multi ethnic and lgbtq inclusiveness edits. Especially when Mary tells the gay (is he trans though??) character that it's 'important to be true to yourself' and 'I'd be honored to have you as a sister' etc. like as if.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Unless the movie is claiming that the black people or Asians were indigenous to Scotland - which they probably weren’t - there isn’t much of a problem. Otherwise non white actors would never get a role. I saw a black Scrooge once on a stage in San Fran. He was good.

I’m tired of aristocratic women though. There’s no normal 19C people anymore even though there’s a wealth of great literature from the 19C about the middle and lower income groups in Dickens.

cgcsb

FunLover18 wrote: »

IMO it's bad enough that people weren't allowed to rise to positions of power purely because of the colour of their skin without now telling them they can't even pretend to be a person in a position of power for the same reason. Unless it's a true historical drama where race is an important theme or crucial to the story, or you're casting real life people, I don't see the issue. But to limit black people to playing slaves and people in poverty in historical films because they're black doesn't sit right with me.

Given the fact that they had to make over Saoirse Ronan over to make her have a more 'north of the border' look it seemed like they were taking the ethnic difference between Carlow and Hollyrood pretty seriously.

OldGoat

cgcsb wrote: »

The notion that a black person in Scotland at that time would be anything more than a curiosity or a servant is just a laugh. Britain hadn't even gained much ground in exotic parts of the world at the time, so I doubt that they would have ever even seen one. And certainly a black guy would not have been a nobleman and certainly wouldn't have been allowed to have a relationship with handmaid of the queen.

You are historically inaccurate. There were plenty of envoys/ambassadors 'of colour' in the courts of the 16th century Europe and a numbers 'coloured' servants.
http://www.taneter.org/moors2.html

Franz Von Peppercorn

cgcsb wrote: »

Especially when Mary tells the gay (is he trans though??) character that it's 'important to be true to yourself' and 'I'd be honored to have you as a sister' etc. like as if.

Oh that’s total bollocks. She was strong believing Catholic.

Franz Von Peppercorn

OldGoat wrote: »

You are historically inaccurate. There were plenty of envoys/ambassadors 'of colour' in the courts of the 16th century Europe and a numbers 'coloured' servants.
http://www.taneter.org/moors2.html

They weren’t portrayed as ambassadors.

Wibbs

Alun wrote: »

You do know that there actually were black people in Elizabethan London?

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18903391

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history

There were indeed. They were a tiny minority within Europe in general, but Europeans would have been well familiar with "Moors" at the time. On the other hand Asian folks would have been extremely thin on the ground. Because of Silk Road trade going since late Roman times, the empire of Cathay(China) would have been known about to some degree by the common man from writings of guys like Marco Polo, but very few would have met Asians. Same going the other way too, a European in China would have attracted a fair bit of bemused WTF? from the locals.

That said, as far as films go it's all about bums on seats. The Asian market is a huge market and a growing one so Hollywood will add in Asian characters to cover their arses in that market. Which is almost certainly why they cast an Asian in flic that is the subject of this thread. They'll even do Asian specific edits of a flic(one of the Iron man franchise IIRC). Adding Black characters is more of an internal American thing, rather than a world marketing exercise. You can see this with the Star Wars franchise. The first one was whiter than a persil advert and this was remarked upon at the time, so for the second outing they wheeled in a single Black guy. It went a tad weird when Lucas came to do the prequels. Really dodgy Jamaican, Chinese and Jewish stereotypes that had me wondering at the time why nobody said WTF to George. The latest run tried to cover all the marketing boxes, though the Asian lass apparently didn't sell too well to Chinese audiences as they tend to be more old fashioned when it comes to actresses and prefer more dolly bird types. That said the last film died a death in China for all sorts of reasons, mostly because they don't have nearly the level of nostalgia and investment in the franchise and viewed it on its own merits(and it was pretty awful on that score).

But yeah, it's nearly always down to marketing with Hollywood. Demographic A is a growing market, add Demographic A to the cast list kinda thing. Historical accuracy in Hollywood films is a contradiction in terms. The list of "ah here..." historical howlers is a long one. That said even documentaries are always one persons view and choices as to where they'll point the camera. EG a documentary on say the Tang Dynasty will have a very different flavour coming from a European viewpoint compared to a Chinese one.

ohnonotgmail

cgcsb wrote: »

Given the fact that they had to make over Saoirse Ronan over to make her have a more 'north of the border' look it seemed like they were taking the ethnic difference between Carlow and Hollyrood pretty seriously.

are you unable to differentiate between an actor playing an historical character as Saoirse was and an actor playing a character invented purely for the film?

robbiezero

pjohnson wrote: »

Surely there should be offence taken by the fact that Robbie is Aussie and Ronan Irish if people want historical accuracy?

Who is taking offence at anything?

cgcsb

OldGoat wrote: »

You are historically inaccurate. There were plenty of envoys/ambassadors 'of colour' in the courts of the 16th century Europe and a numbers 'coloured' servants.
http://www.taneter.org/moors2.html

Perhaps they were in existence yes, although exceptionally rare, allowed to have an inter racial relationship? not on your nelly.

swimming in a sea

Pretty sure Morgan Freeman character in the Shawshank Redemption was a white man and only a lighthearted reference was when Freeman said he was called Red as he was Irish.

Wibbs

There's a long history of this stuff. I mean when you think of Romans in films they're almost always played by British actors poncing about with plummy RADA accents and forever in togas. Even Russel Crowe a dyed in the wool Aussie went that route. The reality would have been more like the Sopranos. If you brought a Roman, or Tudor type through time and showed them films of their era, they'd likely have a fit of laughter at how daft it looked and how wrong they get it. What is he wearing? kinda thing. Spartans would wet themselves with laughter at something like 300. Rellies of mine who were in World War 2 used to crack up at war films and that's only yesterday by comparison, though the ones still above ground when Saving Private Ryan came out were very impressed(though apparently it lacked the really black humour of the time).

cgcsb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you unable to differentiate between an actor playing an historical character as Saoirse was and an actor playing a character invented purely for the film?

What's with the hostile post?
Yes I am indeed able to tell the difference.