Ethnic Revisionism - Mary: Queen of the Multicultural Scots

Odhinn

Francesca Sour Stomach wrote: »

Yeah fantastic mini-series adaptation of Les Miserables (no singing) on BBC at the moment with Javert, the police inspector played by a black actor, David Oyelowo. He's excellent but doesn't this colour-blind approach lack sense when there are also films revolving around skin colour? A black man would not have been a senior police officer in Paris in the first half of the 19th century.

.......................

In fairness, it wouldn't be that much out of the question - a rarity but not impossible. Dumas father, for example.

Dyr

branie2 wrote: »

A black man played Achilles in a recent TV adaptation of the Iliad, and there's a black man playing Javert in the TV series Les Miserables at the moment; doesn't bother me in the slightest.

They should give Achilles an AK-47 while they're at it so. Be grand.

The level of neurosis present in an industry that they expect people to suspend disbelief to such a level is impressive.

branie2

QuintusFabius wrote: »

How progressive of you, what about more famous historical characters ?
would it work ?

Javert and Achilles are fictional

Dyr

branie2 wrote: »

Javert and Achilles are fictional

You watch your damn mouth you call Achilles fictional :mad:. He's mythical.

looksee

Wibbs beat me to it. In a kind of double take people are assuming that the same attitudes existed in the 1500s as existed here in the 1800s and now in the 2000s. While, on balance, I would suspect that people of other ethnicities would not have been prevalent in court circles of the time, it is a bit unreasonable to dismiss the idea, or push the notion that the op is being some sort of racist by objecting to it. We don't know, and it is arguable. Arguing does not make it racist. This could be an interesting discussion if so many people were not so busy jumping up and down shouting racist.

I would suggest that the wild and ridiculous inaccuracies of programmes like The Vikings, which did propose itself as some sort of docu-drama are much more relevant to the argument about anachronisms. And any of the historical films where the actors have perfect skin and teeth and immaculate, machine sewn costumes are much more grating than the odd ethnic substitute.

Undividual

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 was even a black person in Elizabeth's court, I believe. But that person was a trumpeter (-teer?), not an advisor to the queen.

Again, not the end of the world, just jarring from a consistency perspective.

Undividual

Peregrinus wrote: »

The answer to that question is obvious. The film is not supposed to be realistic. It's not documentary. It's not historical reconstruction. It's an intentionally modern take on historical events. And the filmmakers signal this by deliberate anachronisms, including racial ones.

Exactly the same is true of the other film mentioned in the OP, The Favourite, although the conspicuous anachronisms there do not happen to have racial elements.

If you're looking for realism or historical accuracy, neither of these films is for you. But, then, neither of them pretends to be; in fact they go out of their way to make that clear.

Just wondering what you thought the inclusion of these anachronisms was meant to illustrate?

It seems to me that Mary in particular is imbued with a hodge podge of modern liberal values (tolerance of gays/transvestites, non-toxic feminism and 'colour-blindness') that serves nothing more than making her character more likeable to a certain modern demographic.

BoJack Horseman

Margaret of Anjou (born 1430) was an armoured, sword wielding black woman.

Anyone who says otherwise is literally Hitler

James Brown

pjohnson wrote: »

Theres really not much of the old "snowflake" threads in AH these days. Just people offended by everything now.

Now? I remember when the gays were going to turn us all gay and fiddle with kids and before my time single mothers were locked away and cut out of the family.

Amirani

Francesca Sour Stomach wrote: »

Actually just recently watched a documentary on the American War of Independence - a mixed race woman said she didn't agree with the musical Hamilton deliberately casting black and Latino actors as historical political figures who were white, seeing as black and Latino people of the time could not have hoped to be in such positions.

To stay on the theme of popular broadway/West-End musicals; The Lion King casts many white, black and latino human actors as lions and various other creatures indigenous to the plains of sub-saharan African. This is entirely unbelievable as historically, these humans could not have hoped to achieve statuses such as the King of Pride Rock or Rafiki.

BoJack Horseman

Amirani wrote: »

To stay on the theme of popular broadway/West-End musicals; The Lion King casts many white, black and latino human actors as lions and various other creatures indigenous to the plains of sub-saharan African. This is entirely unbelievable as historically, these humans could not have hoped to achieve statuses such as the King of Pride Rock or Rafiki.

Exactly. Impervious logic.

Ditto for the musical "Cats"

Numerous honkeys playing actual cats.
In real life humans are not cats.

They are completely different species.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but that's the post Brexit world we live in.

#CatsLivesMatter

BoJack Horseman

After the Norman invasions of England, the priests were black.

That is a fact.




It is also a fact that the people of Romano-Britain in the 4th century were largely black.



History is remarkable.

goose2005

Sardonicat wrote: »

Really is it any different to having a blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus as we did in years gone by? I'm not sure there has ever been an "ethnically correct" actor cast in that role.

When was Jesus ever blond? And blue eyes are not unknown in the Near East.

Wibbs

looksee wrote: »

Arguing does not make it racist. This could be an interesting discussion if so many people were not so busy jumping up and down shouting racist.

+1000

I would suggest that the wild and ridiculous inaccuracies of programmes like The Vikings, which did propose itself as some sort of docu-drama are much more relevant to the argument about anachronisms. And any of the historical films where the actors have perfect skin and teeth and immaculate, machine sewn costumes are much more grating than the odd ethnic substitute.

Though to be fair if it's set pre around 15-1600 people generally had better teeth on average than today. If people today didn't have access to dentists the way they do it would be a sight to behold.

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

You watch your damn mouth you call Achilles fictional :mad:. He's mythical.

It's quite possible he existed in some form, or as a mix of different heroes of the Trojan war.

Wibbs

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

After the Norman invasions of England, the priests were black.

That is a fact.

Aye, that would be highly unlikely.

It is also a fact that the people of Romano-Britain in the 4th century were largely black.



History is remarkable.

Funny enough there have been a fair few African origin folks found in England from that time. At it's zenith Rome covered the lands around the Mediterranean, north and south of it and a large chunk of France, Germany etc. Stable empires tend to beget movement within through the military and trade. I seem to recall they found the skeleton of a Black woman in southern England from that time, so she likely came there through marriage or was trading locally, or both.

Going even further back again in England at Stonehenge they found a lad of around 18 who had traveled there all the way from Southern Europe(isotope analysis and his grave goods). That's some trek. And he wasn't the only example they found of people coming from far away. IIRC one older lad with a dodgy leg(born without a kneecap) had come from around present day Germany. Which illustrates a few things. The site was well known and at quite a distance and people could and did travel fair old distances even in the "Stone Age".

It's easy to imagine that before trains and planes people tended to stay local and they mostly did, but there was always a percentage of people who had the wanderlust and moved remarkably long distances away from home. A few years ago they were excavating an old Roman graveyard in Greece IIRC? and among the usual Italians and the occasional Spaniard, they found an Asian guy. Ireland seems to have been generally off the ancient backpackers trail, but there was a Barbary ape skull found at Tara. Now it could have been just a skull kept as a treasured item brought through trade(and they loved the old skulls at the time), but it might also have been a live pet. The nearest population of them is in Gibraltar.

Alun

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It is also a fact that the people of Romano-Britain in the 4th century were largely black.

Not largely black, I'll grant you, but the Romans that came to Britain, and especially London, came from all across the Roman Empire at the time, including the Middle East and North Africa. They weren't all of pure Italian extraction by any means.

History is remarkable.

Isn't it just.

Alun

Wibbs wrote: »

It's easy to imagine that before trains and planes people tended to stay local and they mostly did, but there was always a percentage of people who had the wanderlust and moved remarkably long distances away from home.

Indeed. If you believed some on here, then the "indigenous" peoples of most countries sprouted out of the ground magically like mushrooms rather than getting there by migration.

Nermal

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

However black people playing historically white roles is common on the US stage right now, broadways biggest musical is exactly that.

A stylistic decision in keeping with the play as a whole. The casting was obviously intended and makes thematic sense.

But most of the time - including this film, and Les Miserables, and with Achilles - it's ahistorical and sinister pandering to multicultural sensibility.

Tell us an interesting story from African history with black actors. Don't pretend our history was a Benetton ad.

FunLover18

Nermal wrote: »

A stylistic decision in keeping with the play as a whole. The casting was obviously intended and makes thematic sense.

But most of the time - including this film, and Les Miserables, and with Achilles - it's ahistorical and sinister pandering to multicultural sensibility.

Tell us an interesting story from African history with black actors. Don't pretend our history was a Benetton ad.

How is it sinister?

Undividual

FunLover18 wrote: »

How is it sinister?

It avoids the uncomfortable feelings that people have about homogeneity (rather than accepting widespread homogeneity / tribalism as the pre-existing state of 'normality' prior to the mass migrations of modern times).

Wibbs

Alun wrote: »

Indeed. If you believed some on here, then the "indigenous" peoples of most countries sprouted out of the ground magically like mushrooms rather than getting there by migration.

Oh true, though the modern type of mass migration was extremely rare in the past. While there were certainly African folks(and Italians, Spaniards, Germans etc) in Roman Britain their numbers were tiny overall. Even in the centre of the Roman world, Rome itself, which had much more incoming migration, there were no enclaves of one group or another. Migration in modern times into Europe is very different.

Franz Von Peppercorn

goose2005 wrote: »

When was Jesus ever blond? And blue eyes are not unknown in the Near East.

The entire Mediterranean had the same skin colour back in the day, prior to the Arab invasions. I'd say its largely the same now. Of course that isn't blond but Jesus is rarely depicted as blond.

valoren

Let's say Neil Jordan was making Michael Collins today.

A scene featuring Dev making an anti-treaty speech will require two hundred extras and there is an open call made for a Saturday afternoon to film the scene.

Given the multi-cultural population today, would the casting crew let the likes of Ginesh, Tayo, Jin Pao et al be dressed up in 1920's garb if they showed up? Of course they wouldn't be as the casting description would be for Irish people of various ages because the people in the crowd back then were Irish people of various ages. If an audience watching the film saw chinese, indian or nigerian people mingling in the crowd cheering at Alan Rickman shouting about 'wading through Irish blood' they would be like 'whaaaa?'.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Alun wrote: »

Not largely black, I'll grant you, but the Romans that came to Britain, and especially London, came from all across the Roman Empire at the time, including the Middle East and North Africa. They weren't all of pure Italian extraction by any means.

Isn't it just.

Actually there were few blacks in the Roman empire. Its a long long trek from sub saharan Africa, although it could be done from Southern to Northern Egypt. So uncommon it was worthy of comment in the history of Septimius Severus who was African himself, but from Northern Africa, when he met some black soldiers in Scotland.

( I suppose it is true therefore that these black Africans were there before Anglo Saxons but not before other Britons).

Franz Von Peppercorn

valoren wrote: »

Let's say Neil Jordan was making Michael Collins today.

A scene featuring Dev making an anti-treaty speech will require two hundred extras and there is an open call made for a Saturday afternoon to film the scene.

Given the multi-cultural population today, would the casting crew let the likes of Ginesh, Tayo, Jin Pao et al be dressed up in 1920's garb if they showed up? Of course they wouldn't be as the casting description would be for Irish people of various ages because the people in the crowd back then were Irish people of various ages. If an audience watching the film saw chinese, indian or nigerian people in the crowd cheering at Alan Rickman shouting about 'wading through Irish blood' they would be like 'whaaaa?'.

I think thats where you are wrong, because in future that will in fact happen.

FunLover18

Undividual wrote: »

It avoids the uncomfortable feelings that people have about homogeneity (rather than accepting widespread homogeneity / tribalism as the pre-existing state of 'normality' prior to the mass migrations of modern times).

I still don't understand what's sinister about that though.

FunLover18

valoren wrote: »

Let's say Neil Jordan was making Michael Collins today.

A scene featuring Dev making an anti-treaty speech will require two hundred extras and there is an open call made for a Saturday afternoon to film the scene.

Given the multi-cultural population today, would the casting crew let the likes of Ginesh, Tayo, Jin Pao et al be dressed up in 1920's garb if they showed up? Of course they wouldn't be as the casting description would be for Irish people of various ages because the people in the crowd back then were Irish people of various ages. If an audience watching the film saw chinese, indian or nigerian people mingling in the crowd cheering at Alan Rickman shouting about 'wading through Irish blood' they would be like 'whaaaa?'.

Because as we all know, Neil Jordan's Michael Collins is all about historical accuracy. I'm not saying a black man could play the big man but would a few anachronistic anonymous black faces really take you out of a film in which Dev orders the Collins to be shot.

QuintusFabius

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

After the Norman invasions of England, the priests were black.

That is a fact.




It is also a fact that the people of Romano-Britain in the 4th century were largely black.



History is remarkable.

ehh ... not sure what to make of this ...

gw80

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).

Thank you,
I was dragged in to watch it myself last Friday, what an absolute pile of horse ****, it was the first time I had wanted to walk out of a movie,
I would not have chosen to see it myself, but the other half wanted to see it so I obliged, I taught it might be interesting in a historical sense, or maybe just a good story,but it was neither,
Was the queen of England coming out in declaring she was a man on a few occasions?
Utter horse ****.