Ethnic Revisionism - Mary: Queen of the Multicultural Scots

27-01-2019 12:37am

Undividual wrote: »

"Looks like we got oursel's 'nuther one dem there racists! Alright boys, put on the rainbow hoods!"

.. But I've got a black asian gender-fluid friend! I can't be racist!

Undividual · 27-01-2019 12:39am

Deleted User wrote: »

.. But I've got a black asian gender-fluid friend! I can't be racist!

Whoa, are they black or are they Asian!?!? If you say both, we'll (I'll) know you're lying!

27-01-2019 12:43am

Undividual wrote: »

Whoa, are they black or are they Asian!?!? If you say both, we'll (I'll) know you're lying!

Whoa yourself.. why can't they be both.. did you just assume their race?! :mad:

Undividual · 27-01-2019 12:48am

Deleted User wrote: »

Whoa yourself.. why can't they be both.. did you just assume their race?! :mad:

There are only two black-asian people in the world. Which one are they!?!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jul/20/the-wire-cast-reunites-stories-baltimore-riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Beckford

27-01-2019 1:37am

This inclusion of black people in historic roles in European history is not entirely mad, although obviously it's driven by contemporary considerations.

For instance, in the infamous witch trial of Alice Kyteler of Kilkenny in 1423, she was 'accused of having intercourse with an 'Ethiop' who could also turn into a black cat or black shaggy dog.' In Elizabethan England, there were enough Africans living there for it to become an issue: 'In 1596 Queen Elizabeth wrote to the mayors of various cities that 'these kind of people should be sent forth from the land. The Queen issued licences to deport Africans mainly on two grounds: because of economic pressures 'in these hard times of dearth', and because 'most of them are infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel'.' (Source)

Some of the most prominent figures in European history have actually been outsiders of the respective society, but known as 'Russian', French or whatever.

For instance, this is the real Aleksándr Sergéyevich Púshkin, who was of African heritage:

This is the real Alexandre Dumas, who was of Afro-Caribbean slave ancestry:

The famous British writer Joseph Conrad was actually born in Poland as Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski:

Likewise numerous, if not countless, national leaders (particularly royal families) across Europe were in reality foreigners in the country they led. Whether it's an Irishman becoming a famous 18th-century Russian general or the fact that in 1764, some 20,000 "negro servants" are recorded as being in London there is an argument that it does no harm to acknowledge these historic precedents of the much more extensive multiculturalism of today.

FunLover18 · 27-01-2019 2:32am

I really wish I'd seen Mary Queen of Scots before this thread because I'll never know what my reaction would have been had I not known that a black actor would be playing a historical figure who was white. I did look at the imdb page and the name of the character meant nothing to me, so I wouldn't have known if he was supposed to black or white. I'll see it at some stage because I think the tone and context of the film are crucial factors.

Undividual · 27-01-2019 2:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

This inclusion of black people in historic roles in European history is not entirely mad, although obviously it's driven by contemporary considerations.

...

Likewise numerous, if not countless, national leaders (particularly royal families) across Europe were in reality foreigners in the country they led. Whether it's an Irishman becoming a famous 18th-century Russian general or the fact that in 1764, some 20,000 "negro servants" are recorded as being in London there is an argument that it does no harm to acknowledge these historic precedents of the much more extensive multiculturalism of today.

Yes and no. If the characters ethnicities were replaced for some reason relevant to the plot or to make some kind of point, I would be ok with that. There was a film called "White Man's Burden" where in an alternative America white and black people effectively switched status etc. I think that is an interesting take on race relations (though not a direct example).

However, to insert different ethnicities for no reason relevant to the plot is suspect. It seems that this is done for the sake of (as a previous poster commented) BAFTA consideration or government funding (which would be bordering on propaganda). It brings up the ghost of positive discrimination. Was the black actor who played the queen's envoy really the best actor for that role, or was he cast to fill a quota? If no incentive existed, that question could not be posed.

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2019 12:55pm

Undividual wrote: »

I completely defer to your knowledge on the accents that the characters would have had. My point is that the viewer does not need to suspend belief when listening to one or another accent in the same way as viewing an ethnic substitution. It seems roughly the equivalent of all Romans in cinema using English accents.

To be fair, I think you're approaching my comment from a historical focus, whereas I'm more concerned with the art form and the writer's motivations. To substitute a French accent for a Scottish one will not offend many people in the way that substituting ethnicities (certainly in recent cinematic history) has.

The part highlighted in bold is my problem in a nutshell. If it is not revisionism (which I am open to changing my mind on), can you tell me the appropriate term for changing the ethnicity of historical characters in films?

Also, out of curiosity, why do you think were the two queens ethnicities left as white while only supporting characters were replaced?

It a nutshell you object to a having to suspend belief while watching piece of drama because you have an objection to largely fictional characters (albeit loosely based on real people) not being of the ethnicity you think they should be but you have no issue with suspending belief about all the other tweaks.

No - the appropriate term most definitely is not revisionism - because it's not history. If you are going to use a term which is a technical term used in the discipline of history then I will demonstrate why it is not the appropriate term to use from a historical point of view.

The appropriate term in this case is dramatic licence - because it's drama.

The director and writers are absolutely free to use any device they wish while telling their version of the story. Because that is what it is. Their version of a story about things that happened long long ago.
You would have a leg to stand on if they claimed it was historically accurate - but they didn't.
If directors and writers had to limit themselves to some arbitrary 'suspension of belief ends here' point then the art of filmmaking would be a very dull affair.
They might as well all make documentaries (which are not always historically accurate either by the way)

Mrs Shuttleworth · 27-01-2019 2:46pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It a nutshell you object to a having to suspend belief while watching piece of drama because you have an objection to largely fictional characters (albeit loosely based on real people) not being of the ethnicity you think they should be but you have no issue with suspending belief about all the other tweaks.

No - the appropriate term most definitely is not revisionism - because it's not history. If you are going to use a term which is a technical term used in the discipline of history then I will demonstrate why it is not the appropriate term to use from a historical point of view.

The appropriate term in this case is dramatic licence - because it's drama.

The director and writers are absolutely free to use any device they wish while telling their version of the story. Because that is what it is. Their version of a story about things that happened long long ago.
You would have a leg to stand on if they claimed it was historically accurate - but they didn't.
If directors and writers had to limit themselves to some arbitrary 'suspension of belief ends here' point then the art of filmmaking would be a very dull affair.
They might as well all make documentaries (which are not always historically accurate either by the way)

That's all fine and good in theory but I don't think audiences would view it that way.

The ethnic minority casting I have no problem with at all, in the same way that Tom Hulce played Mozart with a thick American accent in "Amadeus".

But having read this thread I wouldn't bother going to see "Mary". It's not fair of filmmakers to market a film as being a historically accurate representation of events, for a new audience, when the historical facts (such as the two women meeting which they never did) are changed.

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2019 3:10pm

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It's not fair of filmmakers to market a film as being a historically accurate representation of events

They didn't.

Peregrinus · 27-01-2019 4:39pm

Undividual wrote: »

However, to insert different ethnicities for no reason relevant to the plot is suspect. It seems that this is done for the sake of (as a previous poster commented) BAFTA consideration or government funding (which would be bordering on propaganda). It brings up the ghost of positive discrimination. Was the black actor who played the queen's envoy really the best actor for that role, or was he cast to fill a quota? If no incentive existed, that question could not be posed.

Of course it could. You haven't shown that such an incentive exists and in fact it may not exist, and yet you yourself have posed the question. The issue here is not that so-called "political correctness" led to the casting of this actor - nobody has shown that it did - but that people's hyper-sensitivity to supposed political correctness leads them to assume that this is the reason, even in the complete absence of any evidence.

Undividual · 27-01-2019 11:31pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course it could. You haven't shown that such an incentive exists and in fact it may not exist, and yet you yourself have posed the question. The issue here is not that so-called "political correctness" led to the casting of this actor - nobody has shown that it did - but that people's hyper-sensitivity to supposed political correctness leads them to assume that this is the reason, even in the complete absence of any evidence.

Obviously you attribute a level of good faith to the writer/director that I don't. The film struck me as full of leftist victim narratives: The oppressed homosexual accepted only by progressive women, the often violent domination of men as a group over women, the additional difficulties faced by female leaders, slander of a woman's sexual reputation, a father who holds his homosexual son in contempt (or simply hates him) and societal pressure to procreate.

The only major leftist issue that was not present was the issue of race (despite the insertion of non-English ethnicities into historically English roles). I assume this would have been a bridge too far. Which begs the question, why was it done at all?

As much as people have objected to my raising this topic, I have yet to hear a convincing reason why this was done, besides the suggestion of BAFTA/funding requirements or my own view that this was likely just due to the writer/director's liberal agenda.

Undividual · 27-01-2019 11:42pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It a nutshell you object to a having to suspend belief while watching piece of drama because you have an objection to largely fictional characters (albeit loosely based on real people) not being of the ethnicity you think they should be but you have no issue with suspending belief about all the other tweaks.

Fair enough, I don't dispute the term dramatic licence and you are right that my use of the term 'revisionism' is inaccurate.

The ethnicity replacement appears to me to be an ideological move, whether on the part of the director/writer, BAFTA or a sponsoring party. I was too ignorant or too indifferent to the other tweaks to be honest.

The Crowman · 27-01-2019 11:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This inclusion of black people in historic roles in European history is not entirely mad, although obviously it's driven by contemporary considerations.

For instance, in the infamous witch trial of Alice Kyteler of Kilkenny in 1423, she was 'accused of having intercourse with an 'Ethiop' who could also turn into a black cat or black shaggy dog.' In Elizabethan England, there were enough Africans living there for it to become an issue: 'In 1596 Queen Elizabeth wrote to the mayors of various cities that 'these kind of people should be sent forth from the land. The Queen issued licences to deport Africans mainly on two grounds: because of economic pressures 'in these hard times of dearth', and because 'most of them are infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel'.' (Source)

Some of the most prominent figures in European history have actually been outsiders of the respective society, but known as 'Russian', French or whatever.

For instance, this is the real Aleksándr Sergéyevich Púshkin, who was of African heritage:

This is the real Alexandre Dumas, who was of Afro-Caribbean slave ancestry:

The famous British writer Joseph Conrad was actually born in Poland as Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski:

Likewise numerous, if not countless, national leaders (particularly royal families) across Europe were in reality foreigners in the country they led. Whether it's an Irishman becoming a famous 18th-century Russian general or the fact that in 1764, some 20,000 "negro servants" are recorded as being in London there is an argument that it does no harm to acknowledge these historic precedents of the much more extensive multiculturalism of today.

Joseph Conrad was a massive racist when it came to Black Africans, I thought your big reveal with him was going to be that he was actually a black man in whiteface leading a double life, its pretty common knowledge that he was Polish.

ohnonotgmail · 28-01-2019 10:38am

FunLover18 wrote: »

I really wish I'd seen Mary Queen of Scots before this thread because I'll never know what my reaction would have been had I not known that a black actor would be playing a historical figure who was white. I did look at the imdb page and the name of the character meant nothing to me, so I wouldn't have known if he was supposed to black or white. I'll see it at some stage because I think the tone and context of the film are crucial factors.

Are they playing an historical character? I didnt think they were.

Hector Savage · 28-01-2019 11:20am

It's the same nonsense that has "Black Panther" nominated for best picture at the Oscars - Give me a f*cking break!
It will most likely win too because it will be "racist" if it doesn't.

Like the reviews on that film were all positive - bar one guy who's career was ruined for not liking the film.
What are they afraid of ?
Irony is it just shows them as the racists, they are the ones OBSESSED with the colour of actors skin to give it such good reviews and nominate it for best film.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2019 3:32am

FunLover18 wrote: »

I really wish I'd seen Mary Queen of Scots before this thread because I'll never know what my reaction would have been had I not known that a black actor would be playing a historical figure who was white . . .

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Are they playing an historical character? I didnt think they were.

The Black actor - Adrian Derrick-Palmer - plays a character called "George Dalgleish".

There is a historical figure of that name; he was a valet of the Earl of Bothwell who was accused of being part of the group that murdered Mary's husband Darnley, and who was hanged for the crime.

I haven't seen the film, but from what I have read the "George Dalgleish" character in the film is an ambassador or envoy, not a manservant. If that's so, he's a fictional character whose name has been borrowed from an entirely different historical character, or who has the same name simply by coincidence.

Peregrinus · 29-01-2019 3:41am

Undividual wrote: »

Obviously you attribute a level of good faith to the writer/director that I don't. The film struck me as full of leftist victim narratives: The oppressed homosexual accepted only by progressive women, the often violent domination of men as a group over women, the additional difficulties faced by female leaders, slander of a woman's sexual reputation, a father who holds his homosexual son in contempt (or simply hates him) and societal pressure to procreate.

The only major leftist issue that was not present was the issue of race (despite the insertion of non-English ethnicities into historically English roles). I assume this would have been a bridge too far. Which begs the question, why was it done at all?

As much as people have objected to my raising this topic, I have yet to hear a convincing reason why this was done, besides the suggestion of BAFTA/funding requirements or my own view that this was likely just due to the writer/director's liberal agenda.

Youir "BAFTA/funding requirements" seems to be a complete invention on your part, and - no offence - probably reveals more about you than it does about BAFTA or the film funders.

As for the casting being done in pursuit of the director's agenda, casting is always done in pursuit of the director's agenda. Did you think they drew names out of a hat? From the descriptions this film is an intentionally modern take on the story, not any kind of attempt at documentary-type historical reconstruction. The director is focussing on themes that are of much greater relevance to us than they would hav been to Mary's culture and society (with the exception, perhaps, of "societal pressure to procreate", which was a huge deal for someon in Mary's position - much more so than it would be today).

I just don't see why this would be a problem. It would be one thing if the film pretended to be neutral historiography, but it makes no such pretence. The whole point of making the film is that the director and/or writer has something he wants to say about Mary and the events of her life that he thinks is worth saying. You don't have to agree with what he says and, if you don't, that doesn't in any way invalidate the film.

pleas advice · 29-01-2019 4:15am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Youir "BAFTA/funding requirements" seems to be a complete invention on your part, and - no offence - probably reveals more about you than it does about BAFTA or the film funders.

http://www.bafta.org/media-centre/press-releases/new-diversity-requirement-film-awards

First announced in 2016 following consultation with the BFI and a range of industry professionals, all entries into two British film categories – Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer – will now be required to meet at least two of the four BFI Diversity Standards, as BAFTA continues to take a leading role in increasing diversity in front of and behind the camera.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018)
Director: Josie Rourke [first time director]
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6066050/?ref_=tt_ov_dr

Hector Savage · 29-01-2019 9:25am

pleas advice wrote: »

http://www.bafta.org/media-centre/press-releases/new-diversity-requirement-film-awards
First announced in 2016 following consultation with the BFI and a range of industry professionals, all entries into two British film categories – Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer – will now be required to meet at least two of the four BFI Diversity Standards, as BAFTA continues to take a leading role in increasing diversity in front of and behind the camera.

Mary Queen of Scots (2018)
Director: Josie Rourke [first time director]
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6066050/?ref_=tt_ov_dr

Dangerous.
Again, don't they see that this is not equality ?
It's condescending and racist actually - they see colour all the time.
Original point stands.
How does a black actor feel knowing that he gets the job as the token black guy ?

Soon it will be like a major historical character eg - Winston Churchill will be played by Mahershala Ali and all the liberals will be clapping along saying how wonderful it is.
Anyone pointing out that Churchill was a white guy will just be shut down as a racist.

Speaking of Mahershala Ali - have you seen the new season of True Detective ?
I've seen the first two episodes and really like it - has the feel of the first season .. anyway, was talking to some American wan in work and she said how great it was that the lead character was black. :rolleyes:
I didn't even notice to be honest*, I just saw a good show.

This is my point - these morons are the racist cos they constantly see black people as "the other"

*ok of course I notice he's black, what I mean is I don't start thinking
"Oh yes, nice one main protagonist is black - way to go diversity!!!!"

Peregrinus · 29-01-2019 10:07am

Hector Savage wrote: »

Dangerous.
Again, don't they see that this is not equality ?
It's condescending and racist actually - they see colour all the time.
Original point stands.
How does a black actor feel knowing that he gets the job as the token black guy ?

What makes you assume that he got the job as a "token black guy"?

Was this casting necessary to satisfy two of the four BFI diversity criteria? Or would the film have satisifed them anyway?

If the decision had been taken to cast historical characters true to racial type, would you then say that the actor in this role had been cast as the "token white guy"? After all, such a decision would require you to consider only white actors for the part; he was only considered because of his race, which is the very definition of tokenism, surely?

Hector Savage wrote: »

Soon it will be like a major historical character eg - Winston Churchill will be played by Mahershala Ali and all the liberals will be clapping along saying how wonderful it is.
Anyone pointing out that Churchill was a white guy will just be shut down as a racist.

No. Anybody pointing out that Churchill was a white guy would be shut down as an idiot. The whole point of casting an actor of one race to play a historical figure of another race is to make a point about race. The point is only made because Churchill was white.

nice_guy80 · 29-01-2019 9:12pm

It would have been interesting to see Colin Farrell playing Ray Charles in Ray...

branie2 · 29-01-2019 9:13pm

How about a lesbian version of Romeo and Juliet?

FunLover18 · 29-01-2019 9:17pm

branie2 wrote: »

How about a lesbian version of Romeo and Juliet?

I'm sure it's been done, theatre companies love putting new spins on Shakespeare and I don't see why a lesbian version wouldn't work. Sure women weren't allowed to act when Shakespeare was alive, both roles would have been played by men.

Perifect · 29-01-2019 9:21pm

I like black people! And people of every colour actually.

Wibbs · 29-01-2019 9:27pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's the same nonsense that has "Black Panther" nominated for best picture at the Oscars - Give me a f*cking break!

Never mind the colour thing, I found it an OK romp myself, but best picture? Nope.

Perifect wrote: »

I like black people! And people of every colour actually.

Oddly I have found people of every colour to be sound, or OK, or ****, or boring, or interesting or... well... People really.

riffmongous · 29-01-2019 9:58pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm sure it's been done, theatre companies love putting new spins on Shakespeare and I don't see why a lesbian version wouldn't work. Sure women weren't allowed to act when Shakespeare was alive, both roles would have been played by men.

I don't think I've ever even seen a strictly-true-to-the-original version of a Shakespearean play

Mrs Shuttleworth · 30-01-2019 1:55am

Hector Savage wrote: »

Dangerous.
Again, don't they see that this is not equality ?
It's condescending and racist actually - they see colour all the time.
Original point stands.
How does a black actor feel knowing that he gets the job as the token black guy ?

Soon it will be like a major historical character eg - Winston Churchill will be played by Mahershala Ali and all the liberals will be clapping along saying how wonderful it is.
Anyone pointing out that Churchill was a white guy will just be shut down as a racist.

Speaking of Mahershala Ali - have you seen the new season of True Detective ?
I've seen the first two episodes and really like it - has the feel of the first season .. anyway, was talking to some American wan in work and she said how great it was that the lead character was black. :rolleyes:
I didn't even notice to be honest*, I just saw a good show.

This is my point - these morons are the racist cos they constantly see black people as "the other"

*ok of course I notice he's black, what I mean is I don't start thinking
"Oh yes, nice one main protagonist is black - way to go diversity!!!!"

There's definitely a risk of this happening. I saw "Stan and Ollie" on Sunday night, a British film produced by BBC Films definitely touting for gongs and set in rural towns in Britain.

There were a number of ethnic minority actors in the cast, but all in minor roles such as cinema ushers, receptionists, etc. Whilst I know that "historically" of course there were black people in the UK in the 1950s, in the context of the narrative and the script I definitely felt the actors had been "shoehorned" in by the filmmakers.

If this becomes a pattern then filmmakers are not acting in accordance with the spirit of the guidelines. They should be generating more quality output as and of itself that gets the best out of such actors.

kingchess · 30-01-2019 2:03am

Can you think of the uproar if ,for example ,they were to make a film about a famous black Man,like Michael Jackson,and hired a White actor to play him??

Peregrinus · 30-01-2019 2:46am

riffmongous wrote: »

I don't think I've ever even seen a strictly-true-to-the-original version of a Shakespearean play

Which is fine, since Shakespeare's plays are themselves rarely true to the sources (frequently, historical sources) from which they are taken.

Ethnic Revisionism - Mary: Queen of the Multicultural Scots

Comments