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

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

Thats a pretty low IQ comparison. Low hanging fruit even. You presupposed media exists in a vacuum, meanwhile not considering the context of its creation.

Inclusion of asian characters in the mary movie might have something to do with its distribution company wanting to pander to asian markets.

Your scenario could actually be plausible in an alternate reality where the target demographic are jews and a critique of their society

Stick that in your PhD.

Are you saying that including Asian actresses for non-Asian roles is fine so long as its aimed at an Asian market?
Do you think that Asian people want to see a movie with effectively an Asian extra, with less than 10 lines throughout the movie?
Do you think that Hollywood today makes movies aimed at one market alone?

It wouldn't be plausible even in that scenario, as I've already said that all the characters act as if the person was not Jewish. My example was specifically not for an alternative reality. I'm not sure you understood my point.

FunLover18

Undividual wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's quite the same, because I don't believe race is as intrinsic to character as gender. For me it would be more like if say in The Favourite they had had a female Tory in the background of some of the government scenes, not playing a man but a woman in a position that would have been a man's in the time of the film. I don't think the black actors in The Favourite were meant to be playing white characters, because it's not that kind of film. And it is kind of for the same reason, it's just that the intentions behind the reason are different. In olden days black people were viewed as inferior by bigots, nowadays you wouldn't cast a black man because you want to be historically accurate (and as I said I'd agree for certain projects), very, very different intentions but the reason is still skin colour.

whisky_galore

Undividual wrote: »

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.

Whatever you think yourself...

sk8erboii

Undividual wrote: »

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.

Thats a pretty low IQ comparison. Low hanging fruit even. You presupposed media exists in a vacuum, meanwhile not considering the context of its creation.

Inclusion of asian characters in the mary movie might have something to do with its distribution company wanting to pander to asian markets.

Your scenario could actually be plausible in an alternate reality where the target demographic are jews and a critique of their society

Undividual

Sonic Youth wrote: »

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

Yeah, that's beside the point.

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

I really dont care

FYP

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Undividual

sk8erboii wrote: »

Dont need to write paragraphs for my Phd thankfully

:pac::pac::pac:

Check mate.

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.

Gimme A Pound

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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