nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ethnic Revisionism - Mary: Queen of the Multicultural Scots

Undividual

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).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate if we’re talking about ‘brainpower’ surely you’d know the distribution of that movie is going to chinese markets?

And? Why do you keep dodging my question. Here I'll simplfy it even more and hopefully you'll get it: let's say there's a movie made about the slave rebellion in Haiti, one of the rebel leaders is portrayed by a white actor for 'diversity'.

Would that be ok?

Undividual

FunLover18 wrote: »

I haven't seen the Mary film but I have seen The Favourite, race is not a theme of the film and the diverse actors aren't playing named characters nor do they have any lines. The film is far from historically accurate in terms of clothing and actual history so I don't see why shouldnt play it loose with the casting.

Sorry, I was just contrasting Mary with the Favourite. For me, the Favourite did it correctly. They didn't use inaccurate ethnicities to play roles yet they took some liberties with the fashion and used relatively edgy camera shots for the genre.

sk8erboii

Sonic Youth wrote: »

And? Why do you keep dodging my question. Here I'll simplfy it even more and hopefully you'll get it: let's say there's a movie made about the slave rebellion in Haiti, one of the rebel leaders is portrayed by a white actor for 'diversity'.

Would that be ok?

Cringe. Your strawman transition is rough man.

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

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

Cringe. Your strawman transition is rough man.

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

Why do you keep dodging the question?

Gimme A Pound

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.

Hardly a racist take - it's a take I'd share.

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.

Well we don't exactly know what Jesus looked like and that depiction of Christ does get questioned. I think he should be depicted as an Arabic looking dude.

sk8erboii

Sonic Youth wrote: »

Why do you keep dodging the question?

‘Let me ask you a particularly tailored question to pigeonhole you into mental gymnastics to deflect the bottom line that some guy was pathetic enough to write an entire paragraph cause a brown guy was in a movie’

Cringe.

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

‘Let me ask you a particularly tailored question to pigeonhole you into mental gymnastics to deflect the bottom line that some guy was pathetic enough to write an entire paragraph cause a brown guy was in a movie’

Cringe.

It was a very simple, fair question. Don't know why you can't just answer it.

Undividual

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's a movie, a piece of fluff/entertainment.

If you want accuracy, go watch a documentary, or better still read a book.

I obviously don't think as little of movies as you. To label the unbelievable achievements of cinema over the past hundred years as fluff is mind boggling.

Have you even seen 2 Fast, 2 Furious?!?!

sk8erboii

Sonic Youth wrote: »

It was a very simple, fair question. Don't know why you can't just answer it.

I already did. Its a pretty low IQ method of deflecting questions.

Its called ‘Leading Questions’ and its banned in court because annoying c*nts (lawyers) use it to derail arguments

http://www.trialtheater.com/articles/leadingquestions.htm

Gimme A Pound

FunLover18 wrote: »

I haven't seen the Mary film but I have seen The Favourite, race is not a theme of the film and the diverse actors aren't playing named characters nor do they have any lines. The film is far from historically accurate in terms of clothing and actual history so I don't see why shouldnt play it loose with the casting.

Well I'd agree there in fairness.

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

‘Let me ask you a particularly tailored question to pigeonhole you into mental gymnastics to deflect the bottom line that some guy was pathetic enough to write an entire paragraph cause a brown guy was in a movie’

Cringe.

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Are you just jealous of people who can write in paragraphs?

sk8erboii

Undividual wrote: »

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Are you just jealous of people who can write in paragraphs?

Dont need to write paragraphs for my Phd thankfully

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

I already did. Its a pretty low IQ method of deflecting questions.

Its called ‘Leading Questions’ and its banned in court because annoying c*nts (lawyers) use it to derail arguments

http://www.trialtheater.com/articles/leadingquestions.htm

I just want to know your take on white actors playing historical people of colour, or appearing in historical settings that they would not have appeared in.

Why not just give your opinion?

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

I already did. Its a pretty low IQ method of deflecting questions.

Its called ‘Leading Questions’ and its banned in court because annoying c*nts (lawyers) use it to derail arguments

http://www.trialtheater.com/articles/leadingquestions.htm

Meta

Gimme A Pound

Undividual wrote: »

I obviously don't think as little of movies as you. To label the unbelievable achievements of cinema over the past hundred years as fluff is mind boggling.

Have you even seen 2 Fast, 2 Furious?!?!

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.

sk8erboii

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I just want to know your take on white actors playing historical people of colour, or appearing in historical settings that they would not have appeared in.

Why not just give your opinion?

My opinion: I really dont care

You: keep pushing the race angle

Me: Keeps pointing out derailment

You: ‘But why wont you get derailed?’ (;

I guess i already have but atleast i pointed it out

Lone Stone

If it's a historical film it should be cast correctly if it's a work of fiction no probs. But if they made a film film say about the rising and some black lads declared the declaration of Independence it's just sjw culture trying to rewrite the past and that's not good for anyone.

whisky_galore

Undividual wrote: »

I obviously don't think as little of movies as you. To label the unbelievable achievements of cinema over the past hundred years as fluff is mind boggling.

Have you even seen 2 Fast, 2 Furious?!?!

It's entertainment, Hollywood, some names, events, etc have been changed, it's not an entirely factual account and people are whinging about accuracy. If you're looking for facts, look elsewhere, it's that simple. Shakespeare's plays are great art, but they're not factual.

Gimme A Pound

It's always the "I don't care" folk who get intensely involved.

FunLover18

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.

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

Dont need to write paragraphs for my Phd thankfully

:pac::pac::pac:

Check mate.

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

My opinion: I really dont care

You: keep pushing the race angle

Me: Keeps pointing out derailment

You: ‘But why wont you get derailed?’ (;

I guess i already have but atleast i pointed it out

If you really don't care then that is fine. There was no need to be so defensive or insecure about it. I do think you're out line of for berating the op for starting a very reasonable thread though.

sk8erboii

Sonic Youth wrote: »

If you really don't care then that is fine. There was no need to be so defensive or insecure about it. I do think you're out line of for berating the op for starting a very reasonable thread though.

Would be boring if everyone held the same views no?

Would be a snowflake echo chamber?

Gimme A Pound

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's entertainment, Hollywood, some names, events, etc have been changed, it's not an entirely factual account and people are whinging about accuracy. If you're looking for facts, look elsewhere, it's that simple. Shakespeare's plays are great art, but they're not factual.

No if a film about Jimi Hendrix has Bradley Cooper cast in the lead role I won't look elsewhere - I'd question it.

Undividual

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.

Its not for the same reason. To take it to the logical extreme of your argument would be if an actress played a man without any character in the piece commenting on it, or vice versa.

Richard Hillman

With the News Media pretty much cannibalizing itself, entertainment will be next. Token diversity, not so subtle political messages and inaccurate story telling doesn't go unnoticed by regular folk.

Sonic Youth

sk8erboii wrote: »

Would be boring if everyone held the same views no?

Would be a snowflake echo chamber?

Agreed but no need to call the op 'pathetic'.

Gimme A Pound

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.

Hamilton is about real events and real people, some who had slaves.

Undividual

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's entertainment, Hollywood, some names, events, etc have been changed, it's not an entirely factual account and people are whinging about accuracy. If you're looking for facts, look elsewhere, it's that simple. Shakespeare's plays are great art, but they're not factual.

To take your example, the equivalent in literary terms would be something like a novel containing a Jewish officer in the SS, where no other character makes mention of his religion/race and he acts as any other officer in the SS would.

Film is uniquely placed for political intervention in this area, unfortunately.

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

I really dont care

FYP