Ethnic Revisionism - Mary: Queen of the Multicultural Scots

beauf

FunLover18 wrote: »

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.

The point some are trying to make here is that Brendan Carroll could play anyone. Collins, Gandi, MLK, the Queen, Tom Jones, Reacher, and you shouldn't have an issue with it.

Lot of people aren't happy with Cruise as Reacher, its sizeism?

FunLover18

beauf wrote: »

FunLover18 wrote: »

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.

The point some are trying to make here is that Brendan Carroll could play anyone. Collins, Gandi, MLK, the Queen, Tom Jones, Reacher, and you shouldn't have an issue with it.

Lot of people aren't happy with Cruise as Reacher, its sizeism?

What point are you trying to make though, because you brought up the black people as extras in Michael Collins which is what I was addressing. EDIT: Sorry beauf, that wasn't actually you who made that comment.

Jack Reacher is a fictional character open to interpretation. His size is important in the books as it affects how other characters treat him, it affects the atmosphere in a room when he walks in but it's also important to consider the medium. In a film a character can have that imlact with a look regardless of size whereas in a book the author has to work a lot harder to convert that impact in the reader's imagination and size is an easy visual shortcut.

jmayo

beauf wrote: »

The point some are trying to make here is that Brendan Carroll could play anyone. Collins, Gandi, MLK, the Queen, Tom Jones, Reacher, and you shouldn't have an issue with it.

Oh jaysus.

Some of those portrayals would rank up there with John Waynes Genghis Khan.

jamesbere

I generally find that when Hollywood makes a film based on historical events they mess it up. What annoys me the most is that people believe a certain event happens cos the film shows it when it didn't happen at all or was partly true.

beauf

All movies are open to interpretation.

Seven samurai magnificent seven.

We have modern interpretations of Shakespeare.

What about Barry Lyndon

beauf

jmayo wrote: »

Oh jaysus.

Some of those portrayals would rank up there with John Waynes Genghis Khan.

Well exactly. Bad movie or wrong?

Odhinn

jmayo wrote: »

Oh jaysus.

Some of those portrayals would rank up there with John Waynes Genghis Khan.

In fairness I think Brendan as Gandhi would be in a class of its own.

branie2

beauf wrote: »

The point some are trying to make here is that Brendan Carroll could play anyone. Collins, Gandi, MLK, the Queen, Tom Jones, Reacher, and you shouldn't have an issue with it.

Lot of people aren't happy with Cruise as Reacher, its sizeism?

I like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher

beauf

branie2 wrote: »

I like Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher

Yeah I thought he did a good job.

But I can see why people feel it changes the narrative of the character.
It changes the context of how people respond to the character.

But its an interesting question, changing the physical appearance of a character, do you suspend belief, does it change the context. Historical, or fictional.

Certainly its interesting to reverse the situation and look at how its treated today vs how it was treated in the past.

Chris_Heilong

'Oscars so White' as you say is a part of it alright, But I think some people want to live in a fantasy world and avoid the real world as much as possible, I am sure if they had their way they would re-write history to show the past as a multicultural society were everyone is "inclusive", apparently the BBC started this with an animated series on the roman Britain and changed many of the Romans into African centurions.

Gimme A Pound

The "You're a racist" crowd tried to shut down the discussion with their usual idiocy devoid of any actual thought (and that sk8r person - I've seen people banned for less) and "if you say so" type comments when they didn't have a comeback, but thankfully sense prevailed and an actual discussion took place, with some great well thought out points from various perspectives. I've certainly rethought some of my views on the matter.

Bannasidhe

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).

Black people were not uncommon in Tudor England, and did live at Court so no - it's not revisionism nor are Black actors necessarily playing 'white historical characters' unless you can state the name of the historical figure and we can check if he was white.

Africans were already known to have likely been living in Roman Britain as soldiers, slaves or even free men and women. But Kaufmann shows that, by Tudor times, they were present at the royal courts of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and James I, and in the households of Sir Walter Raleigh and William Cecil. The book also shows that black Tudors lived and worked at many levels of society, often far from the sophistication and patronage of court life, from a west African man called Dederi Jaquoah, who spent two years living with an English merchant, to Diego, a sailor who was enslaved by the Spanish in Panama, came to Plymouth and died in Moluccas, having circumnavigated half the globe with Sir Francis Drake.

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

William Cecil (Lord Burghley) was Elizabeth I's Principle Private Secretary - the most powerful man in England.

What is complete revisionism is Mary Stuart having a Scottish accent. She grew up in the French court, married the heir to the French throne and only returned to Scotland aged 19 - with a French accent. In fact, she was so French (and Catholic) the Scottish nobles wouldn't accept her.

Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor also never met.

Ladies in Waiting were chosen for political reasons - it is not outside the realms of possibility that Elizabeth would have had one who looked Asian. Asia being a large continent with diverse countries many of which would have had diplomatic relations with the English court for trading purposes. Having a Lady in Waiting at the court would have been a subtle way of keeping your country in the Queen's mind.

By the way - there was no British monarch - I assume you are referring to Elizabeth. Britain didn't even exist. The was a Scottish Monarch and an English Monarch. Two separate and independent countries.

Homosexuality was not illegal in Scotland. Nor in England. What was illegal in England was 'Buggery' - that law was brought in by Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII - it did not apply in Scotland due to Henry not being king of Scotland.

If people want to complain about revisionism in a film that is not historically accurate at least complain about genuinely incorrect things not things you just don't believe could be true even though you haven't researched the period and appear to know very little about it.

sk8erboii

Francesca Sour Stomach wrote: »

The "You're a racist" crowd tried to shut down the discussion with their usual idiocy devoid of any actual thought (and that sk8r person - I've seen people banned for less) and "if you say so" type comments when they didn't have a comeback, but thankfully sense prevailed and an actual discussion took place, with some great well thought out points from various perspectives. I've certainly rethought some of my views on the matter.

Nah its the context that makes these threads blatantly obvious. They mask it with some pseudo appeal to morality (historical accuracy, revisionism etc) but wouldnt say anything against say a 5’8 aussie playing a 6’3 scottish leader. Or even anglo saxons with british accents playing as Romans. (Anglos and saxons were the people rome killed again and again for a long time)

Its pretty obvious the issue isnt accuracy here, its the fact that theres blacks/asians on screen.

So its an inherently nauseating thread that deserves no less than nauseating replies

DS86DS

Of course she was black....... Cheddar Man was her daddy :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

'Oscars so White' as you say is a part of it alright, But I think some people want to live in a fantasy world and avoid the real world as much as possible, I am sure if they had their way they would re-write history to show the past as a multicultural society were everyone is "inclusive", apparently the BBC started this with an animated series on the roman Britain and changed many of the Romans into African centurions.

The Romans drew their legions from among the people they conquered and had a policy of posting them in another part of the Empire. Legions raised in North Africa were posted to Britannia.

The Emperor Septimus Severus was born in Africa to a Roman father and a North African mother. It is unknown how dark his skin was but he wasn't 'white'. His first wife is believed to have been from what is now Libya. His second wife was Syrian. Their son Caracalla was also a Roman Emperor. He was also not 'white'.

The fact is the Roman empire included north Africa and everyone born in the Roman empire was a Roman citizen regardless of colour or race.

DS86DS

Francesca Sour Stomach wrote: »

The "You're a racist" crowd tried to shut down the discussion with their usual idiocy devoid of any actual thought (and that sk8r person - I've seen people banned for less) and "if you say so" type comments when they didn't have a comeback, but thankfully sense prevailed and an actual discussion took place, with some great well thought out points from various perspectives. I've certainly rethought some of my views on the matter.

This crowd were whinging and begging mods to ban a perfectly civilised thread discussion about a boy from a Catholic school smirking at a Native American.

As usual their petulant temper tantrum got them what they wanted.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Romans drew their legions from among the people they conquered and had a policy of posting them in another part of the Empire. Legions raised in North Africa were posted to Britannia.

The Emperor Septimus Severus was born in Africa to a Roman father and a North African mother. It is unknown how dark his skin was but he wasn't 'white'. His first wife is believed to have been from what is now Libya. His second wife was Syrian. Their son Caracalla was also a Roman Emperor. He was also not 'white'.

The fact is the Roman empire included north Africa and everyone born in the Roman empire was a Roman citizen regardless of colour or race.

Just to add to what Bannasidhe says, Roman society was (by our standards) remarkably colour-blind. We do find Roman writers describing the physical characteristics of the inhabitants of new or exotic provinces of the empire, or of bordering kingdoms, but within the empire practically nothing is said about this. We know that great trading, cosmopolitan cities like Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome itself were linguisting and ethnic kaleidoscopes, but contemporary writing of the time pays basically no attention to race, and never comments on it. Huge numbers of people are documented and written about without anything at all being said about their race. It simply wasn't considered interesting or important enough. .

Huge sensititivity to race is a modern phenomenon, largely developed because it was psychologically useful in sustaining colonialism and the slave trade. In fact the whole concept of "race", in the sense of an ethnic group identifiable by common physical characteristics, isn't really invented until about the sixteenth century. Prior to that "race" was a goup of peole sharing common ancestors - a family, a tribe, a nation.

So, racial minorities in Tudor England/Stuart Scotland? This is just about the time that race-sensitivity is developing. Yes, there were Black and Asian people in England and Scotland, at various levels of society. They were rare enough to to be commented on, and they were exotic enough not to be considered English or Scottish. But Tudor England didn't have the same animus against "migrants" that Brexit Britain does, so this didn't mean they were unwelcome or suspect. It's unlikely that a Black man would have acted as an ambassodor for England or Scotland, since ambassadors tended to be drawn from those of very high status, and status in that society was bound up with family, gentry and nobility. A Black ambassador to England or Scotland is more plausible. As for an Asian lady-in-waiting to the Queen, again, unlikely, because such a highly-prized post required extensive connections with well-established powerful families, and there weren't any well-established powerful Asian families in Britain at the time. But an Asian woman in the role, not of a lady-in-waiting, but a maid, housekeeper, etc? Entirely plausible.

So, from the description in the OP (I haven't seen the film) Mary Queen of Scots is not realistic in this regard. But, as others have pointed out, it's not realistic in many other regards either. This is only a problem if you think it ought to be realistic, but that may not be the director's intention. This is a modern take on the story, and perhaps the casting policy reflects and even underlines that.

As for The Favourite, there are black actors in the role of manservants at Queen Anne's court, and this is entirely realistic for the period, even though the film is in many other respects wildly (and intentionally) unrealistic.

Gimme A Pound

sk8erboii wrote: »

Nah its the context that makes these threads blatantly obvious. They mask it with some pseudo appeal to morality (historical accuracy, revisionism etc) but wouldnt say anything against say a 5’8 aussie playing a 6’3 scottish leader. Or even anglo saxons with british accents playing as Romans. (Anglos and saxons were the people rome killed again and again for a long time)

Its pretty obvious the issue isnt accuracy here, its the fact that theres blacks/asians on screen.

You have zero evidence of this - does the poster in question have a history of being racist here? It seems more like you want to believe they're just a bigot so that you can get to enjoy throwing insults at them.

Kivaro

sk8erboii wrote: »

‘I dont hate brown people guys.. i just dont like seeing them in movies (; ‘

sk8erboii wrote: »

Make a movie about race: Its SJW pandering
Make a movie NOT about race: Its SJW pandering

some people should just admit they dont like seeing brown people onscreen

sk8erboii wrote: »

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

sk8erboii wrote: »

Cringe. Your strawman transition is rough man.

Brass tacks: guy gets offended because a movie had brown people

Looks like a bit of fetish going on here.
Good god, why are you not on my ignore list.

Such an obtuse poster. You should understand that in real life e.g. when you eventually get a job, you cannot behave like that.

Odhinn

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like a bit of fetish going on here.
Good god, why are you not on my ignore list.

Such an obtuse poster. You should understand that in real life e.g. when you eventually get a job, you cannot behave like that.

You reckon they'd get browned off with him?

beauf

sk8erboii wrote: »

Nah its the context that makes these threads blatantly obvious. They mask it with some pseudo appeal to morality (historical accuracy, revisionism etc) but wouldnt say anything against say a 5’8 aussie playing a 6’3 scottish leader. Or even anglo saxons with british accents playing as Romans. (Anglos and saxons were the people rome killed again and again for a long time)

Its pretty obvious the issue isnt accuracy here, its the fact that theres blacks/asians on screen.

So its an inherently nauseating thread that deserves no less than nauseating replies

AFAIK Gibson is American.

The issue is if the acting is so good as to make the actor believable in the role.
Or do their mannerism, or bad acting jar so much that you are unable to suspend belief.

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/the-worst-irish-accents-in-hollywood-movies-125286393-237793271

But BH is an interesting example
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1223968/Not-Braveheart-Mel-Gibson-hes-scared-returning-Scotland.html

Wibbs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to add to what Bannasidhe says, Roman society was (by our standards) remarkably colour-blind. We do find Roman writers describing the physical characteristics of the inhabitants of new or exotic provinces of the empire, or of bordering kingdoms, but within the empire practically nothing is said about this.

Pretty much and you can see that in of all things Roman slavery. They'd note the origin of slaves, because that could affect the price. So for example Greek slaves would get more as they were seen as more educated(most slave doctors were Greek) and there was more than an element of snobbery going on. Otherwise they had slaves of all colours and high up folks of all colours too. Where "race" sometimes came into it was in adultery cases. Where an Italian Roman woman hitched to another Italian had a kid that looked African or Middle Eastern. I seem to recall one case where the lass got away it with as her grandfather had been stationed in "Libya" and because he'd seen and told her of tales of Africans this caused her to have a Black kid. Yeah. Though funny enough that kinda notion that the mother could influence her kids looks was a very common idea in the common mind even up to the 19th century. EG when he was exploited as a freak show attraction the Elephant Man's terrible disfigurement was regularly attributed to his mother being being frightened/nearly killed by an elephant when she was pregnant. But I digress...

I've long mused that another big impact on the idea of race and "the other" was when monotheism took over from polytheism in Europe. In the Rome of many gods and faiths, often in the same household, it mattered a lot less if your neighbour was a follower of Isis and you were a follower of Mars or whomever. The background culture a) accepted there were many gods and b) accepted that different people worshipped different gods. In that mindset difference is much less an issue. When monotheism comes in then it starts to really matter if your neighbour believes in a different faith, or even if he worships differently, however slightly. Then The Other becomes a much stronger force in the cultural mindset.

Gimme A Pound

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like a bit of fetish going on here.
Good god, why are you not on my ignore list.

Such an obtuse poster. You should understand that in real life e.g. when you eventually get a job, you cannot behave like that.

"Brown people" is the latest ironic, oh-so-clever phrase. Hopefully a black or dark skinned person will say "Eh, could people stop using the condescending phrase "brown people"?" and the users will fall over themselves apologising.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Huge sensititivity to race is a modern phenomenon, largely developed because it was psychologically useful in sustaining colonialism and the slave trade. In fact the whole concept of "race", in the sense of an ethnic group identifiable by common physical characteristics, isn't really invented until about the sixteenth century. Prior to that "race" was a goup of peole sharing common ancestors - a family, a tribe, a nation.

So, racial minorities in Tudor England/Stuart Scotland? This is just about the time that race-sensitivity is developing.

Yes.
In the 16th century we begin to see the emergence of concepts of 'race' as we know it - particularly among Tudor Adventurers in Ireland, such as Edmund Spenser, who were brim full of theories about why most Gaelic Irish (and some Old English) refused to become 'civilised' - by which they meant Anglo.

In the Gaelic world your 'race' was your clan i.e extended family. Their concept of being 'Irish' would be akin to out concept of being European - we are but we're really Irish.

The Tudors began by thinking, in Mary's reign, that the presence of 'civilised' English planters would teach the Irish by example. That didn't work.

By the end of Elizabeth's reign things were going to a very dark place with theories about 'blood' and how Gaelic blood was essentially uncivilisable so the best thing to do was banish them all to a large reservation west of the Shannon where they would be contained (terms like concentration camp/reservation were used). Those who refused to leave should be destroyed. Tactics Cromwell is blamed for... but they had their origins with the Tudors and were refined by the Stuarts.

There was much discussion about the origins of the 'Irishry' being in Iberia (hence Hibernia) but that this didn't make them 'Spanish' - who were civilised enemies - as they had left the peninsula before Rome brought civilisation there.
One thing they did insist upon was that a drop of 'English' blood was enough to rekindle an inate capacity for civilisation as long as the Gaelic influence was removed. So the Old English who had Gaelicised would see sense once the bad influence was removed.
This one drop theory foreshadowed the later 'one drop rule' where in parts of the U.S one drop of Negro blood made you Black.

Race theory took a pseudo scientific turn with the expansion of the slave trade as supporters of it tried to justify why Sub-Saharan Africans were not fully human and should be considered as 'livestock'.

The Irish were also considered less evolved than the Anglo-Teutonic who was, obvs, the pinnacle of perfection. Both the Irish and Black Africans were portrayed as being 'ape' like.

Undividual

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Black people were not uncommon in Tudor England, and did live at Court so no - it's not revisionism nor are Black actors necessarily playing 'white historical characters' unless you can state the name of the historical figure and we can check if he was white.



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

William Cecil (Lord Burghley) was Elizabeth I's Principle Private Secretary - the most powerful man in England.

What is complete revisionism is Mary Stuart having a Scottish accent. She grew up in the French court, married the heir to the French throne and only returned to Scotland aged 19 - with a French accent. In fact, she was so French (and Catholic) the Scottish nobles wouldn't accept her.

Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor also never met.

Ladies in Waiting were chosen for political reasons - it is not outside the realms of possibility that Elizabeth would have had one who looked Asian. Asia being a large continent with diverse countries many of which would have had diplomatic relations with the English court for trading purposes. Having a Lady in Waiting at the court would have been a subtle way of keeping your country in the Queen's mind.

By the way - there was no British monarch - I assume you are referring to Elizabeth. Britain didn't even exist. The was a Scottish Monarch and an English Monarch. Two separate and independent countries.

Homosexuality was not illegal in Scotland. Nor in England. What was illegal in England was 'Buggery' - that law was brought in by Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII - it did not apply in Scotland due to Henry not being king of Scotland.

If people want to complain about revisionism in a film that is not historically accurate at least complain about genuinely incorrect things not things you just don't believe could be true even though you haven't researched the period and appear to know very little about it.

To your first point, Lord Thomas Randolph, freshly Googled. The director states that she didn't want to direct an "all-white period drama".

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/movies/news/mary-queen-of-scots-fact-check-was-queen-elizabeths-ambassador-actually-black/ar-BBQMjUh

I take the point that chambermaids etc were of colour. I don't claim to know much about that period of history but I believe the majority of my original points stand. To suggest a devout Catholic would accept a homosexual in that period requires more than a reasonable suspension of doubt.

The unrealistic multiculturalism, acceptance of homosexuality and 'sisterly' feminism of the two main characters seems more like the overlaying of an idealized modern liberalism on historical events.

Bannasidhe

Undividual wrote: »

To your first point, Lord Thomas Randolph, freshly Googled. The director states that she didn't want to direct an "all-white period drama".

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/movies/news/mary-queen-of-scots-fact-check-was-queen-elizabeths-ambassador-actually-black/ar-BBQMjUh

I take the point that chambermaids etc were of colour. I don't claim to know much about that period of history but I believe the majority of my original points stand. To suggest a devout Catholic would accept a homosexual in that period requires more than a reasonable suspension of doubt.

The unrealistic multiculturalism, acceptance of homosexuality and 'sisterly' feminism of the two main characters seems more like the overlaying of an idealized modern liberalism on historical events.

My point also stands - you felt the presence of non-White European faces in a film that never claimed to be historically accurate was going too far but it has been shown that Non-White faces would have been seen in the Court of Elizabeth I so it's not 'revisionism'. They would also,not necessarily, have been 'chambermaids' - or even servants.

Yet you are ok with the demonstrably completely incorrect for the sake of drama parts of the film.

You are projecting back and assuming based not on knowledge of the time period but on what you think should be the case.

Louis XIV of France was a devout Catholic - his brother Phillippe duc d'Orleans was a very out homosexual who conducted many affairs with men while living in Versailles.

Bannasidhe

Undividual wrote: »

To your first point, Lord Thomas Randolph, freshly Googled. The director states that she didn't want to direct an "all-white period drama".

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/movies/news/mary-queen-of-scots-fact-check-was-queen-elizabeths-ambassador-actually-black/ar-BBQMjUh

I take the point that chambermaids etc were of colour. I don't claim to know much about that period of history but I believe the majority of my original points stand. To suggest a devout Catholic would accept a homosexual in that period requires more than a reasonable suspension of doubt.

The unrealistic multiculturalism, acceptance of homosexuality and 'sisterly' feminism of the two main characters seems more like the overlaying of an idealized modern liberalism on historical events.

May I ask if you had an issue with Morgan Freeman being in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves - black faces would have been very very rare back in 12th century England. Not completely unknown but would certainly have stood out like a sore thumb in the general Sherwood/Nottingham region.

sk8erboii

Francesca Sour Stomach wrote: »

You have zero evidence of this - does the poster in question have a history of being racist here? It seems more like you want to believe they're just a bigot so that you can get to enjoy throwing insults at them.

‘Hey guys im not racist. Also im really bothered by brown people on the telly ‘

Cringe

sk8erboii

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like a bit of fetish going on here.
Good god, why are you not on my ignore list.

Such an obtuse poster. You should understand that in real life e.g. when you eventually get a job, you cannot behave like that.

Well its a good thing afterhours is a joke forum then isnt it? Wouldnt it be sad if someone started ranting about brown actors in movies?

Wibbs

Back in the "good old days" of Hollywood it often went the other way with White actors and actresses not only replacing more "ethnic" characters but going full moron and portraying Asian and African characters. EG here's Mickey Rooney doing the full Charlie Chan as late as the early 60's in Breakfast at Tiffany's.



Actually I don't think Charlie Chan was ever played by an Asian bloke. John Wayne, Marlon Brando and Peter Sellars did the whole Chinaman in flics too. As late as the 1970's you had David Carradine playing an Asian guy in the TV series "Kung Fu". It could go even dafter too, years before that the very popular Tarzan flics often had white guys in blackface instead of African Americans. In one their "African" language is Irish. Yep.