Minority inclusion in TV and movies

[RedRose]

My country is now fighting with titles, some want Ten Little N** renamed. It started when the show came out. I say, isn't this revisionism? Shouldn't people see how casual racism was? This holds for uncountable books and movies from the 20s to... recently. The word N** in a title has other occurrences and some much more modern. I'd rather educate. Same for other descriptions, Asians, Jews...

[RedRose]

Can't correct it but surely books pre-1920's also are guilty of this, I guess I was thinking movies

[Hrairoo]

This all seems really subjective at this point.

1. The intent of the director/studio/producer matters. If they're not making a strict representation, I can't fathom why you would hold them to that standard. Intended audience matters. If you're not the target audience, I don't think it's fair to try to assert control over it, as if you should be the one it is made for. Movie directors change things and portray things a certain way all the time, in order to make a point, in order to highlight a particular aesthetic they want to capture, or to appeal to a certain audience. This show isn't for you. No surprise if you "don't like it."

2. It's art, not history. If people watch this show about Ann Boleyn and get the wrong idea, is that the fault of the movie, which is a fictional portrayal? Or is that the fault of education and schooling, where they're actually supposed to be learning their history from? Just because this show is made right now also doesn't erase the several other films that have already told this story with white actresses. This seems a flimsy fear to have and misguided. Our movies shouldn't be spoon feeding our public their ideas about history and reality. To encourage them to do so, in my mind, is actually more harmful. We never want someone to watch a movie and take for granted that the portrayal they have seen is 100% accurate. Because it will always be clouded by what the director believes and wants to say and how much money the studio wants to make.

[Blythe]

But if we assume that most of the viewers are so unaware of historical details, then don't these details become even more important? Seriously, do you honestly believe that a TV series about black Ann Boleyn won't make some people believe that Ann Boleyn really *was* black? I fear that would the case. And then, when another Ann Boleyn movie comes out, with a white actress this time, these people will start raging and cancelling due to Ann Boleyn being white-washed...

As I said: there's enough of ignorance in the world, we shouldn't add it, even for the best of intentions.

This honestly reads like some manner of conservative satire, Beorning. It is also not particularly a good talking point for the thread you started. :/

[Fox Lokison]

With due respect, I honestly feel you're reaching here. Yes, English nobility might've been ethnically distinct from the rest of English population, but they were all still white-skinned Europeans. It's not about the line being drawn at "white vs black", it's about "white vs non-white". Because the differences in appearance between most brands of European whites, when compared to non-white ethnicities, are really miniscule.

Those differences have caused thousands of years of war, and those tensions exist to this day, so it seems really, really disingenuous to lump all white people together as one group, then also decry a lack of historical accuracy in films that are ABOUT the ethnic, national, and religious conflicts in Europe.

Yes, we get cases of female actors playing male roles, but it's not a common practice. And, when it happens in the movies or TV, it usually involves a serious effort to *conceal* the actresses' actual gender. For example, the Suspiria remake *had* Tilda Swinton play an elderly man... but she was made to look like a man. They didn't just put her into a suit and asked the viewers to suspend the disbelief.

Counterexample - trans people are routinely played by cis people, including crossdressing and taking on stereotypical mannerisms that don't at all reflect the genuine trans experience. It's a common practice for trans characters, but that is also an issue that is really only ever raised by the minority and not the majority, because it's good enough for the majority, despite being insulting, dismissive, and not accurate.

But if we assume that most of the viewers are so unaware of historical details, then don't these details become even more important? Seriously, do you honestly believe that a TV series about black Ann Boleyn won't make some people believe that Ann Boleyn really *was* black? I fear that would the case. And then, when another Ann Boleyn movie comes out, with a white actress this time, these people will start raging and cancelling due to Ann Boleyn being white-washed...

If you have people getting their historical fact from media, then that is a reason to fix your education in your country, not deny actors roles in films that are already ahistorical, because audiences are more comfortable seeing the wrong ethnicity play Anne, so long as their skin is white.

Or, maybe, because the differences in appearance between Romans / Italians and Frenchmen are so miniscule that they don't matter?

A man of African descent growing up in Rome would have had more in common with the Romans than he did with a Frenchman, and in addition, the Romans would have more in common with him than they did with the French as well. It's ahistorical to suggest that the differences are miniscule, unless your only parameter is the color of their skin. Which is a bad parameter.

Okay, this I don't understand. Why isn't showing the history as it was a solution?

Because it's not. It's showing the history as people want it to be seen, and it doesn't matter who plays Anne, there's still a myriad of other issues in the media that are going unaddressed while we harp on about skin tone.

As I mentioned, I really suspect that we're going to get complaints about future Ann Boleyn's being casted as white. As the Amelie Wen Zhao's case shows, there's ignorance on the POC side of things, too.

I would love to know what you mean by this.

Look, Beorning, these issues that you have with a black Anne Boleyn strike me as nothing more than an issue of race, rather than accuracy, and it's getting harder and harder to believe I'm wrong about that perception. These are, as Bly said, conservative talking points, and honestly, they're also alt-right talking points that we used to recruit members. They are used to convince white people that there is a homogenous white culture, that white people are being erased, and the white race is under attack. It's one of the founding arguments used in white replacement or white genocide arguments, and it comes LOADED with so much bad faith, I'm surprised people can't see it. You are directly parroting the language of people who have a dog in this race, and their dog is "We are being replaced." I'm not going to presume it's intentional, but I am going to be honest - it's worrisome that you're so casually parroting these arguments, especially while dodging the underlying issue that keeps being brought up. That's all an alt right strategy, and I can say with confidence, it's a one deliberately designed to evoke the very kind of reaction you're having now, to a black actor.

I'm sorry, but I think we should shatter the idea that it's perfectly fine to conflate dozens of nations, hundreds of cultures, and hundreds of ethnicities into one blob of "white", and slot them into ANY light-skinned role, but a dark-skinned actor is just a step too far and historically inaccurate. That's a dangerous myth and it's used by dangerous people to spread a message of hate.

[Oniya]

Yes, but Shakespeare is so important for theatre and global culture in general, that this kind of exception is justified. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it happens in case of stage plays - I cannot think of a Shakespearian movie that would do this kind of thing.

Does Great Performances count?  There was an all-black production of 'Much Ado About Nothing' broadcast as part of GP's 'Shakespeare in the Park' series.

The movie Ran, by Akira Kurosawa is King Lear, and is considered a master-work.  His early film 'The Bad Sleep Well', while less well-known, is a Japanese treatment of Hamlet.

There was a movie production of A Midsummer Night's Dream that cast Saul Williams as Oberon.  Saul is also known for his performance in the Broadway musical 'Holla if Ya Hear Me'

[Lilias]

Does Great Performances count?  There was an all-black production of 'Much Ado About Nothing' broadcast as part of GP's 'Shakespeare in the Park' series.

Kenneth Branagh's film is a prime example of bending the rules almost to the breaking point. From some deliberately anachronistic sets and costumes, to the casting of the legitimate prince (Denzel Washington) and his half-brother (Keanu Reeves).

[Sabre]

Yes, but Shakespeare is so important for theatre and global culture in general, that this kind of exception is justified. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it happens in case of stage plays - I cannot think of a Shakespearian movie that would do this kind of thing.

So if something was low culture like a scintillating romance TV serial that's not important at all for culture, why would there need to be any justification for color-blind casting? Why must it take the most important thing ever to finally loosen some strict requirement? Why is race that important?

With due respect, I honestly feel you're reaching here. Yes, English nobility might've been ethnically distinct from the rest of English population, but they were all still white-skinned Europeans. It's not about the line being drawn at "white vs black", it's about "white vs non-white". Because the differences in appearance between most brands of European whites, when compared to non-white ethnicities, are really miniscule.

We can have an entire thread about this, but I assure you I'm not. What you're describing is our modern opinion that there's no difference between these groups. Benjamin Franklin used to write about how visually different German immigrants were, that he was 'white' while they were 'swarthy'. The same was thought of Catholic immigrants for much of American history, too. 'White' is a changing perspective in our history, and it would be cruel to decide 'no, this time we finally got it right, the line is drawn here and no more.' If you were born a century ago, seeing a Sicilian man on screen would have similarly annoyed you, because of how 'obvious' the visual difference was to the 'white' actors around him.

It matters, because when you see the actress, you can immediately see that she belongs to the ethnicity completely different than real Ann Boleyn's. Differences between European ethnicities aren't pronounced enough that you, say, cannot find an Italian actress that would look convincingly as a Tudor-era English noblewoman. Meanwhile, when it comes to a black actress, not only wasn't Ann Boleyn black, there were no English noblewomen in that era that were black. Using such an actress completely destroys the suspension of disbelief for the whole story.

Note the word convincingly, because this is still about the audience. If a non-white actress can play a convincing Anne Boleyn on radio, then the only issue on TV is that the audience is not color-blind, that they can't ignore such a thing like the actors can. As I've said, those differences you don't consider as pronounced now between Europeans were actually major issues for prior generations, and only through normalization have we gotten over them.

Okay, so... let's say we're making a biopic about Nixon. Would you have a Japanese actor play Nixon?

Why not? Factual realism is a fairly modern thing in cinema and art, driven by modern advancements in costuming, makeup, and effects. There's no reason to think it'll continue this way forever, and someday we may live in a world where a Japanese actor plays the best Nixon ever and no one cares all that much that he looks a little different (because those differences are no longer vast in the eyes of a future viewer).

Okay, wait a minute. When women were allowed into acting, they weren't cast in all roles. They played female roles that were, until that point, played by men for wider societal reasons. Yes, we get cases of female actors playing male roles, but it's not a common practice. And, when it happens in the movies or TV, it usually involves a serious effort to *conceal* the actresses' actual gender. For example, the Suspiria remake *had* Tilda Swinton play an elderly man... but she was made to look like a man. They didn't just put her into a suit and asked the viewers to suspend the disbelief.

A black actress playing a white role is similarly not a common practice, and they did take the effort to help suspend one's disbelief by putting her in period clothing and acting like a historical aristocrat. She presumably looks like royalty. But just like they can't give Tilda Swinton a man's bone structure, they didn't make their black actress white. They could have, mind you, but they decided that wasn't the right thing to do, either for the art or for respecting social mores.

But if we assume that most of the viewers are so unaware of historical details, then don't these details become even more important? Seriously, do you honestly believe that a TV series about black Ann Boleyn won't make some people believe that Ann Boleyn really *was* black? I fear that would the case. And then, when another Ann Boleyn movie comes out, with a white actress this time, these people will start raging and cancelling due to Ann Boleyn being white-washed...

This happens all the time with Cleopatra roles, and it turns out the world doesn't end, the study of history goes on quietly as it always has, and nothing much comes of it except a few weird articles in the leadup to the next inevitable Cleopatra role. I think the anxiety of historical ignorance through mass media is less important than issues of integration and normalization for historically segregated and discriminated people, because the former happens all the time to no one's detriment (only when ideology comes into play is it ever a problem) while the latter is driving innumerable social problems to this day.

Sure, some folks will walk away misinformed, but they were going to do so anyway. They'd have learned that Anne had a dozen affairs with random courtiers, or that Henry had six-pack abs and looked like a GAP model, or that soldiers all dressed like London Tower guards all the time, or that they sounded just like modern day Londoners, and on and on it goes. Seeing a black Anne doesn't actually do anything in the end outside of creating some new, short-lived and fringe idea that'll die out and get replaced by something else ridiculous years later. All we've done is make history teachers work a little harder, yet again.

When compared to the sin of marginalizing the already marginalized, and continuing to other a whole minority as outsiders to our national myths and stories, it seems almost frivolous. Because in the end, you can always do both: have a hyper accurate historical drama and a more loose interpretation, and they don't replace each other. HBO's Rome aired alongside Starz's Spartacus, and everything was okay. It's fine to enjoy both.

As I said: there's enough of ignorance in the world, we shouldn't add it, even for the best of intentions.

I say, it's arrogant to think ignorance is added, not that people already are and simply choose the manner of their ignorance according to whim. A less than perfectly accurate adaptation is always a misrepresentation in some way, and the question is which facts are major misrepresentations, which is a very modern and politically charged debate.

Question about that bullet list: let's say we find a male actor who manages to check all of these points. Does this mean that he should be considered for the role of Ann Boleyn, too?

If in the future we reach a better world were gender politics have normalized, why not? If Shakespeare could get into it, why can't we?

Hmm. I disagree that the question of ethnicity is "being made" into a major issue. Getting basic details about characters' ethnicities wrong really *is* a major inaccuracy. I mean, would you treat seriously a Tudor-era TV show that, say, would insist that the capital of England is in Paris? There are inaccuracies and then, there are... BIG inaccuracies.

Why should a Tudor-era TV show be treated seriously at all? Plenty of folks enjoy these kinds of shows in spite of the inaccuracies - and many because of them. If they don't make it a major issue, are they wrong? If someone thinks, "I know Anne wasn't actually black, but that's not really important to my enjoyment of this TV show," are they wrong to think so? Can you objectively prove that this inaccuracy is in fact a 'major' and not a 'minor' one? Who decided such a thing? What if our great grandkids decide differently? Or our great grandparents ghosts sudden come to us and complain about something else that we don't think much of at all? If you can't enjoy something because of some inaccuracy, then why not ignore it and find a show that you do?

I think an inaccuracy is an inaccuracy, and the distinction between major and minor ones are up to personal preference.

Or, maybe, because the differences in appearance between Romans / Italians and Frenchmen are so miniscule that they don't matter?

You'd get into a lot of hot water saying such things during certain time periods, mind you. And that's the point. And who knows, perhaps in the future we'll have a major falling out between the French and Italians, and both sides now insist on their racial distinctiveness and would be offended at any suggestion otherwise. To many Westerners, there's no aesthetic difference between Arabs and Iranians and Latinos, and they get cast into roles playing each other often enough that actual members of those communities will loudly complain about it. Are they wrong?

It's true that the failure of making a POC cast for Gods of Egypt was white-washing. And yes, I know it highlights the problems within the movie industry. But... let's assume that these problems don't exist. Would you be okay with Nikolai playing Horus, then? Because I wouldn't. Even without the white-washing concept, it would just be absurd.

I wouldn't mind, because I don't let this sort of thing keep me from having a good time, and I'm the sort of person who complains about the lack of peasants and properly populated hinterlands in Medieval/fantasy films that show off big cities surrounded by empty grassland. Race can be a major issue for you and not for me, like any inaccuracy, and that's perfectly okay. But it doesn't feel like a coincidence that a mere annoyance/major misrepresentation happens to be a topic that is highly sensitive with enormous partisan divide in modern politics. I'm sure you have other pet peeves about common mistakes or decisions made in historical films, but chose to make a thread about this instead.

Okay, this I don't understand. Why isn't showing the history as it was a solution?

Because it's not solving an actual problem. Making Anne white doesn't fix the myriad other inaccuracies always getting made but never getting the attention from historians who point it out. It doesn't help the many POC actors in the industry who are always short on work. It sacrifices the artistic freedom of creators for something that most neither care about nor makes any sort of statement or reflection of modern society as art is want to do.

As I mentioned, I really suspect that we're going to get complaints about future Ann Boleyn's being casted as white. As the Amelie Wen Zhao's case shows, there's ignorance on the POC side of things, too.

And that's worth the marginalization of POC minorities? A bit more spilled ink that goes no where? Because I would say, media doesn't make one ignorant, but refusal to engage with it does. Someone isn't made ignorant because of an inaccuracy in a TV show, they choose to be because it doesn't affect them one way or another if some dead person centuries ago was dark-skinned or light-skinned.

[Beorning]

Telling Black actors they can't do Shakespeare seems to be the worst possible take imaginable.

As an interesting aside, I learned about a version of Othello staring Patrick Stewart as the lead. Yes, Patrick Stewart played Othello. The entire production was race-flipped so that Othello was the only white guy, with every other role played by an actor of color.

That's... genius, actually. I love the idea.

Jeffrey Wright played the Gravedigger in the 2000 film adaptation of Hamlet.

Hm. Okay, noted.

This all seems really subjective at this point.

1. The intent of the director/studio/producer matters. If they're not making a strict representation, I can't fathom why you would hold them to that standard. Intended audience matters. If you're not the target audience, I don't think it's fair to try to assert control over it, as if you should be the one it is made for. Movie directors change things and portray things a certain way all the time, in order to make a point, in order to highlight a particular aesthetic they want to capture, or to appeal to a certain audience. This show isn't for you. No surprise if you "don't like it."

2. It's art, not history. If people watch this show about Ann Boleyn and get the wrong idea, is that the fault of the movie, which is a fictional portrayal? Or is that the fault of education and schooling, where they're actually supposed to be learning their history from? Just because this show is made right now also doesn't erase the several other films that have already told this story with white actresses. This seems a flimsy fear to have and misguided. Our movies shouldn't be spoon feeding our public their ideas about history and reality. To encourage them to do so, in my mind, is actually more harmful. We never want someone to watch a movie and take for granted that the portrayal they have seen is 100% accurate. Because it will always be clouded by what the director believes and wants to say and how much money the studio wants to make.

These are some good points. Something to consider for me, then...

This honestly reads like some manner of conservative satire, Beorning. It is also not particularly a good talking point for the thread you started. :/

I would love to know what you mean by this.

Look, Beorning, these issues that you have with a black Anne Boleyn strike me as nothing more than an issue of race, rather than accuracy, and it's getting harder and harder to believe I'm wrong about that perception. These are, as Bly said, conservative talking points, and honestly, they're also alt-right talking points that we used to recruit members. They are used to convince white people that there is a homogenous white culture, that white people are being erased, and the white race is under attack. It's one of the founding arguments used in white replacement or white genocide arguments, and it comes LOADED with so much bad faith, I'm surprised people can't see it. You are directly parroting the language of people who have a dog in this race, and their dog is "We are being replaced." I'm not going to presume it's intentional, but I am going to be honest - it's worrisome that you're so casually parroting these arguments, especially while dodging the underlying issue that keeps being brought up. That's all an alt right strategy, and I can say with confidence, it's a one deliberately designed to evoke the very kind of reaction you're having now, to a black actor.

I'm sorry, but I think we should shatter the idea that it's perfectly fine to conflate dozens of nations, hundreds of cultures, and hundreds of ethnicities into one blob of "white", and slot them into ANY light-skinned role, but a dark-skinned actor is just a step too far and historically inaccurate. That's a dangerous myth and it's used by dangerous people to spread a message of hate.

Okay, I think this issue needs to be addressed, because I don't want to give a wrong impression.

What I said was not intended as repeating a conservative or alt-right talking point (not consciously, at least). When I mentioned my prediction that there could be protests against "white-washing" Ann Boleyn in the future comes not from the idea that white people are being replaced, but from various kinds of ignorance I've observed on the Internet over the years. I may be a bit of a misanthrope these days, but I'm starting to thing that it's best not to underestimate the human ability to latch onto most ridiculous ideas.

Over the years, I've heard and seen people talk all kinds of nonsense. And, unfortunately, some of these people belonged to minorities / groups / movement I agree with. As much as it pains me to admit it, the fact that someone is an atheist / feminist / liberal / pro-LGBT doesn't mean that this particular person can't display their own brand of ignorance or bigotry. Note that I'm not saying that *everyone* in these minorities is like that - but I've met people who were.

I suspect the same is the same for non-white minorities. I mean, I was there on the comic book message boards, when Reginald Hudlin started writing Black Panther - and responded to heavy criticism for his series with "You are all racists, you can't handle a strong black character written by a black author" (even though people who voiced that criticism were often fans of Black Panther by Christopher Priest - another black author who written T'Challa as extremely competent character). And there was this situation with Amelie Wen Zhao's Blood Heir, a book that got attacked for the fact that it has shown slavery not involving black people - which some POC thought was apparently disrespectful. I mean, if something like that can happen, then... what else can? That's why I say it's better not add to misconceptions floating around...

I'm not saying I'm right and I will consider your points regarding me being suspectible to alt-right obsessions. But I wanted you to know where I'm coming from...

[Sabre]

Over the years, I've heard and seen people talk all kinds of nonsense. And, unfortunately, some of these people belonged to minorities / groups / movement I agree with. As much as it pains me to admit it, the fact that someone is an atheist / feminist / liberal / pro-LGBT doesn't mean that this particular person can't display their own brand of ignorance or bigotry. Note that I'm not saying that *everyone* in these minorities is like that - but I've met people who were.

I suspect the same is the same for non-white minorities. I mean, I was there on the comic book message boards, when Reginald Hudlin started writing Black Panther - and responded to heavy criticism for his series with "You are all racists, you can't handle a strong black character written by a black author" (even though people who voiced that criticism were often fans of Black Panther by Christopher Priest - another black author who written T'Challa as extremely competent character). And there was this situation with Amelie Wen Zhao's Blood Heir, a book that got attacked for the fact that it has shown slavery not involving black people - which some POC thought was apparently disrespectful. I mean, if something like that can happen, then... what else can? That's why I say it's better not add to misconceptions floating around...

That would be like abandoning fire because arson exists, I fear. No good can come of stifling creativity because someone, somewhere, at some point will twist it for their own selfish ends. We may consider the point that Priest and Zhao are bad actors, and would have been bad actors regardless of the influence of color-blind media. Would they have given more coherent defenses in a different world? Or are they simply the type to fall back on controversy no matter what?

I think 300 is an uncomfortable addition to the movie shelves of many outright fascists, yet I wouldn't want to say it has no right to exist, or that Gerard Butler didn't deserve the chance to ham it up with memeable one-liners.

[Fox Lokison]

We can have an entire thread about this, but I assure you I'm not. What you're describing is our modern opinion that there's no difference between these groups. Benjamin Franklin used to write about how visually different German immigrants were, that he was 'white' while they were 'swarthy'. The same was thought of Catholic immigrants for much of American history, too. 'White' is a changing perspective in our history, and it would be cruel to decide 'no, this time we finally got it right, the line is drawn here and no more.' If you were born a century ago, seeing a Sicilian man on screen would have similarly annoyed you, because of how 'obvious' the visual difference was to the 'white' actors around him.

I can actually speak to this - I'm the adoptive son of an Italian man (who himself is the son and grandson of Italian immigrants) and of German/Dutch descent, with our ancestors migrating during WWII at the most recent. My adoptive grandmother could TELL me, as a primary source, her experience of being an Italian in the States, and the discrimination she faced in her childhood for it. The racism that was hurled at her and her family - and the racism hurled at her half-Irish, half-Italian husband, who got the brunt of two kinds of racism from both long term Americans, AND Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans. To her, up until her last days, there wasn't racial unity, and neither was there racial unity to most of the family of her generation, because they'd always, ALWAYS been singled out for being Italian. My father himself is "swarthy" - darker skin and jet black hair, traits that most of his siblings don't share - and that too, garnered him stigma as a youth. And that's not touching on the issues the family back in Italy faced and continue to face.

In addition, my biological family kept excellent records, both written and oral, and they too, contain tales of racism faced by my ancestors within the last century, and up until about the racism they faced. They had their rights to own property and travel restricted, and it didn't matter if they migrated there generations ago, or were there because of the war. This was daily life for them, and it wasn't that long ago. We're talking the 40s, a time period we still have living people from. These are not ancient lines, they are modern and continue to be modern. I could easily cite my friend in Romania, who had to leave Europe entirely to find decent work and decent treatment, because of stigma against Romanians she faced by other Europeans.

Even our modern opinion is RECENT. As in, in a single lifetime. My father went from an outsider on the fringes of his own country, to an accepted member. My grandmother went from a foreigner to a part of white America. It wasn't that THEY individually changed or assimilated, but that society as a whole said "you are white, we accept you as white, and you get to be included in the white identity". Just like my ancestors. It was never about their skin, it was always about their ethnicity, their culture, their religion, and their nationality marking them as different. There's still groups of pale skinned people that are not considered white, despite being lighter than plenty of Europeans, simply because they aren't born in the right part of the world, don't have the right culture, nationality, etc. White Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and such are not considered part of the white race, as an example, yet have the same skin color and similar appearances. Why? Because they're not "white", because "white" as we know it, is a recently made category, with modern implications that only work for a global world, in order to group a massive population together under one label.

I suspect the same is the same for non-white minorities. I mean, I was there on the comic book message boards, when Reginald Hudlin started writing Black Panther - and responded to heavy criticism for his series with "You are all racists, you can't handle a strong black character written by a black author" (even though people who voiced that criticism were often fans of Black Panther by Christopher Priest - another black author who written T'Challa as extremely competent character). And there was this situation with Amelie Wen Zhao's Blood Heir, a book that got attacked for the fact that it has shown slavery not involving black people - which some POC thought was apparently disrespectful. I mean, if something like that can happen, then... what else can? That's why I say it's better not add to misconceptions floating around...

That's a significant misunderstanding of the Blood Heir situation. The reason it was attacked was because it was thought to be color-blind, as well as ignorant of certain Russian cultural hallmarks. It was not "some POC thought it was disrespectful", it was done by people who did not know history, and put their modern ideas of slavery onto this book - which sounds an awful lot like the issue we're having here. The issues with the book stemmed from the idea that the book was trying to represent or was based off American chattel slavery. To frame it as "some POC thought it was disrespectful" isn't really an accurate take on the situation.

As for Reginald Hudlin, I would like you to imagine that your entire existence is politicized. I would like you to imagine having to go through life with people debating your rights, if you deserve safety, if you deserve to be represented in media, etc. You have lived in your country your entire life. Your ancestors have been here their entire lives. You have more than earned your right to be heard, to have your story represented, to be a part of the large collective and the voices heard - yet time and time again, you are not granted that opportunity, because of the color of your skin. You have to work twice as hard, face far more criticism, hate, and violence, and then, when you do succeed, face yet another wave of backlash by people after years and years of it. And your defense of them is "they're fans of a black man", which somehow exempts THEM from racism, despite that being the weaker cousin of "I have a black friend".

Like, that's what stands out there - "they liked another black author". That doesn't make them exempt from racism, that doesn't take away the weight of the backlash, and that doesn't nullify any implications it might have had on Reginald. Whether or not he was a good author, can you honestly say he faced no racist backlash? Can you honestly say that people can't be racist because they're fans of another black man? Because that's just not how racism works.

I mean, in regards to Hudlin, a little poking around reveals a paper written on him and Priest, which states; Priest, a Black liberal comic book writer by trade, made Black Panther a powerful African man, but also made editorial decisions purposely designed to not alienate his White audience, while Hudlin, a neo–Black nationalist Hollywood feature filmmaker, strove to create a blatantly Afrocentric fantasy character unencumbered by the White liberalism of the medium or its fans. Priest, however, has been outspoken about the institutional racism he dealt with at Marvel over the character. This qualitative textual analysis explores in detail how Priest and Hudlin approached the Black Panther character as part of a White-controlled medium (monthly comic book magazines) with a majority White audience.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about - minority writers are still being asked to pander to the sensibilities of the majority, while the reverse is not happening, and outcry occurs when minority groups write and publish media that represents their own experience, and alienates the majority. The majority cries "why is this not for me" and attacks it.

I'm not saying you're an alt-righter, Beorning, I'm saying they dish out some delicious Kool-Aid that's easy to swallow, and full of fallacies like "well they were fans of a black man, so they can't be racist" and "it's just not historically accurate" that take ten seconds to say, and ten minutes to even start debunking. Those fallacies have been littered throughout this conversation, and they're snappy, easy answers that are designed to deflect from the user, so they don't have to reflect on what the other party is saying.

In short? They're made to win, and to be right, not to actually learn or get another perspective. And honestly, it's a method used by religious cults as well, because it works.

[Beorning]

That would be like abandoning fire because arson exists, I fear. No good can come of stifling creativity because someone, somewhere, at some point will twist it for their own selfish ends. We may consider the point that Priest and Zhao are bad actors, and would have been bad actors regardless of the influence of color-blind media. Would they have given more coherent defenses in a different world? Or are they simply the type to fall back on controversy no matter what?

I... honestly think you misread what I said. For once, Priest and Zhao aren't actors...

I think 300 is an uncomfortable addition to the movie shelves of many outright fascists, yet I wouldn't want to say it has no right to exist, or that Gerard Butler didn't deserve the chance to ham it up with memeable one-liners.

I actually like the first 300 movie - it has some artistic merits and it works... as long as you pretend it to be a dark fantasy movie with no connection reality. But the real-world implications of this movie are deeply troubling, the historical misrepresentation of Persians is offensive and the movie's embrace of Fascist aesthetics is unfortunate. I'm not saying that this movie has no right to exist - just like I'm not saying that a movie with black Ann Boleyn has no right no exist - but I do wonder if making it was a good idea. Especially as so many right-wingers embraced it.

I can actually speak to this - I'm the adoptive son of an Italian man (who himself is the son and grandson of Italian immigrants) and of German/Dutch descent, with our ancestors migrating during WWII at the most recent. My adoptive grandmother could TELL me, as a primary source, her experience of being an Italian in the States, and the discrimination she faced in her childhood for it. The racism that was hurled at her and her family - and the racism hurled at her half-Irish, half-Italian husband, who got the brunt of two kinds of racism from both long term Americans, AND Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans. To her, up until her last days, there wasn't racial unity, and neither was there racial unity to most of the family of her generation, because they'd always, ALWAYS been singled out for being Italian. My father himself is "swarthy" - darker skin and jet black hair, traits that most of his siblings don't share - and that too, garnered him stigma as a youth. And that's not touching on the issues the family back in Italy faced and continue to face.

In addition, my biological family kept excellent records, both written and oral, and they too, contain tales of racism faced by my ancestors within the last century, and up until about the racism they faced. They had their rights to own property and travel restricted, and it didn't matter if they migrated there generations ago, or were there because of the war. This was daily life for them, and it wasn't that long ago. We're talking the 40s, a time period we still have living people from. These are not ancient lines, they are modern and continue to be modern. I could easily cite my friend in Romania, who had to leave Europe entirely to find decent work and decent treatment, because of stigma against Romanians she faced by other Europeans.

Even our modern opinion is RECENT. As in, in a single lifetime. My father went from an outsider on the fringes of his own country, to an accepted member. My grandmother went from a foreigner to a part of white America. It wasn't that THEY individually changed or assimilated, but that society as a whole said "you are white, we accept you as white, and you get to be included in the white identity". Just like my ancestors. It was never about their skin, it was always about their ethnicity, their culture, their religion, and their nationality marking them as different. There's still groups of pale skinned people that are not considered white, despite being lighter than plenty of Europeans, simply because they aren't born in the right part of the world, don't have the right culture, nationality, etc. White Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and such are not considered part of the white race, as an example, yet have the same skin color and similar appearances. Why? Because they're not "white", because "white" as we know it, is a recently made category, with modern implications that only work for a global world, in order to group a massive population together under one label.

Hmmm. Thank you for sharing your family history...Something to think about for me.

That's a significant misunderstanding of the Blood Heir situation. The reason it was attacked was because it was thought to be color-blind, as well as ignorant of certain Russian cultural hallmarks. It was not "some POC thought it was disrespectful", it was done by people who did not know history, and put their modern ideas of slavery onto this book - which sounds an awful lot like the issue we're having here. The issues with the book stemmed from the idea that the book was trying to represent or was based off American chattel slavery. To frame it as "some POC thought it was disrespectful" isn't really an accurate take on the situation.

I'll educate myself on this situation, then.

As for Reginald Hudlin, I would like you to imagine that your entire existence is politicized. I would like you to imagine having to go through life with people debating your rights, if you deserve safety, if you deserve to be represented in media, etc. You have lived in your country your entire life. Your ancestors have been here their entire lives. You have more than earned your right to be heard, to have your story represented, to be a part of the large collective and the voices heard - yet time and time again, you are not granted that opportunity, because of the color of your skin. You have to work twice as hard, face far more criticism, hate, and violence, and then, when you do succeed, face yet another wave of backlash by people after years and years of it. And your defense of them is "they're fans of a black man", which somehow exempts THEM from racism, despite that being the weaker cousin of "I have a black friend".

Like, that's what stands out there - "they liked another black author". That doesn't make them exempt from racism, that doesn't take away the weight of the backlash, and that doesn't nullify any implications it might have had on Reginald. Whether or not he was a good author, can you honestly say he faced no racist backlash? Can you honestly say that people can't be racist because they're fans of another black man? Because that's just not how racism works.

Okay, here I must protest, because I really, really could observe this particular situation unfold in real time. And yes, I can assure you that Hudlin's defense of "My writing on the Black Panther book is criticised by racists" was complete nonsense.

Hudlin wasn't criticised for writing BP as a powerful character. He was criticised for bad plots, portrayals of white people that reeked of reverse-bigotry and, most importantly, because of mangling the existent Marvel continuity. In his opening BP arc (that was supposed to take place early in modern Marvel history and was retelling of BP's origin), he did stuff like portraying Radioactive Man as a Russian, Black Knight as a fanatical agent of Vatican etc. Many readers who were mindful of the wider Marvel universe complained, because these ideas didn't fit with the established continuity *at all*. It would've happened (and did happen) to other writers who did similar things. Hudlin's response to that was, basically, "It doesn't matter". And when people responsed with "No, actually it does matter when you're writing within an established setting", Hudlin went with "You are all racists" defense.

Again, it was not the case of Hudlin being criticised for something that white writers would've been allowed to do. On the contrary, the flack Hudlin was getting wasn't bigger than the criticism against Brian Bendis' handling of the Avengers during that time, or against Chuck Austen's handling of... anything, really.

As for whether the people who voiced these concerns were covert racists - well, I can't speak of all of them, but the group I know of was not racist. These people really had no problem with Black Panther being written as powerful, with the African culture being a part of the book etc. This is what they cheered Christopher Priest's run for. The fact that they criticised Hudlin came not from them being threatened by the idea of a powerful African, as Hudlin claimed, but from the fact that Hudlin's writing *sucked*.

Oh, and Hudlin, at one point, actually created sockpuppet accounts for himself and made posts praising his own writing. Does this sound like a behaviour of a mature man to you?

I mean, in regards to Hudlin, a little poking around reveals a paper written on him and Priest, which states; Priest, a Black liberal comic book writer by trade, made Black Panther a powerful African man, but also made editorial decisions purposely designed to not alienate his White audience, while Hudlin, a neo–Black nationalist Hollywood feature filmmaker, strove to create a blatantly Afrocentric fantasy character unencumbered by the White liberalism of the medium or its fans. Priest, however, has been outspoken about the institutional racism he dealt with at Marvel over the character. This qualitative textual analysis explores in detail how Priest and Hudlin approached the Black Panther character as part of a White-controlled medium (monthly comic book magazines) with a majority White audience.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about - minority writers are still being asked to pander to the sensibilities of the majority, while the reverse is not happening, and outcry occurs when minority groups write and publish media that represents their own experience, and alienates the majority. The majority cries "why is this not for me" and attacks it.

It's interesting to see how you misread the summary of the paper above, Fox. You go from "Priest made choices designed not to alienate the white audience" to "Priest *pandered* to the sensibilities of the majority". These are not the same things! Also, you ignore how the paper states that Hudlin is "neo-nationalist"... since when nationalism of any kind is a good sign of sound judgement and healthy worldview, I ask you?

I'm not saying you're an alt-righter, Beorning, I'm saying they dish out some delicious Kool-Aid that's easy to swallow, and full of fallacies like "well they were fans of a black man, so they can't be racist" and "it's just not historically accurate" that take ten seconds to say, and ten minutes to even start debunking. Those fallacies have been littered throughout this conversation, and they're snappy, easy answers that are designed to deflect from the user, so they don't have to reflect on what the other party is saying.

In short? They're made to win, and to be right, not to actually learn or get another perspective. And honestly, it's a method used by religious cults as well, because it works.

I *am* trying to learn another's perspective, I assure you. And I am not repeating what I read on some alt-right forum - I don't even read this stuff. What I say are my own concerns...

BTW. The fact that some point is raised, exaggerated and used to promote hate by some groups doesn't mean that the point itself is just nonsense. The Communists used the poverty of the lower classes to justify their bloody regimes, but it doesn't mean the poverty itself didn't exist. Similarly, the fact that alt-right groups use minority inclusion in the media as a rallying point for racists doesn't mean we cannot discuss whether some particular approach to inclusion makes sense...

[Sabre]

I... honestly think you misread what I said. For once, Priest and Zhao aren't actors...

A "bad actor" doesn't actually mean an actor who is bad at acting, but any individual in a situation who is either dishonest or actively sabotaging a situation for less than honest reasons.

[Oniya]

'Bad actor' in this context is 'someone acting in bad faith'.  Someone who is deliberately stirring things up.  Although I'm not sure I'd class either Priest (an African-American artist depicting T'Challa as a strong character) or Zhao (a Chinese national writing about human trafficking in Asia) as 'bad actors'.

The people accusing critics of Hudlin of racism, when those critics were comparing Hudlin's writing to Priest's, may well have been 'bad actors.'

[Fox Lokison]

Okay, here I must protest, because I really, really could observe this particular situation unfold in real time. And yes, I can assure you that Hudlin's defense of "My writing on the Black Panther book is criticised by racists" was complete nonsense.

Can you genuinely confirm, though, that it was complete nonsense? Can you confirm that there was no racism, there was no hate? I'm not going to go into some defense of Hudlin, I don't actually give a shit about the man, but my point remains, which was, when you are drowned in a deluge of racist hate, constantly, you grow hypersensitive to it, and, in addition, the defense that folks aren't racist because they liked the work of another black man is a poor one.

Neither of these points contradict your statements about Hudlin's conduct, nor how poorly he may have handled Black Panther. They are about his reaction, and the idea that people are not racist in their criticism because they like another black person.

It's interesting to see how you misread the summary of the paper above, Fox. You go from "Priest made choices designed not to alienate the white audience" to "Priest *pandered* to the sensibilities of the majority". These are not the same things! Also, you ignore how the paper states that Hudlin is "neo-nationalist"... since when nationalism of any kind is a good sign of sound judgement and healthy worldview, I ask you?

Those are the same things. The white audience is the majority in this case, and pandering is a distinct way to not alienate someone. I could write a book, right now, about the cis idea of a trans life, and it would sell better than a story about a genuine, authentic trans experience - and I know this because that has been the case and continues to be the case for authors right now. The majority of cis people cannot relate to the experiences I would write about, because they don't have them. That is not a negative thing, that is a neutral thing, but it IS applicable for how media gets made, and what stories get heard.

I did not ignore it, as I purposely left it in. If anything, it exemplifies why he wrote the way he did. I think you're mistaking my comments for endorsement of the man, rather than a perspective on why he wrote the way he did, why he reacted the way he did, and why you and others might not have seen what he saw. Hudlin clearly believed he was writing a black story, for black audiences, and more specifically, not for the sensibilities or praise of white people. Is this a hostile stance he seems to have taken? Yes, of course, and I'm not at all going to jump in and praise him, but I'm also not convinced that supporting Priest while criticizing Hudlin is proof people weren't racist.

As per my original point; Whether or not he was a good author, can you honestly say he faced no racist backlash? Can you honestly say that people can't be racist because they're fans of another black man?

I *am* trying to learn another's perspective, I assure you. And I am not repeating what I read on some alt-right forum - I don't even read this stuff. What I say are my own concerns...

BTW. The fact that some point is raised, exaggerated and used to promote hate by some groups doesn't mean that the point itself is just nonsense. The Communists used the poverty of the lower classes to justify their bloody regimes, but it doesn't mean the poverty itself didn't exist. Similarly, the fact that alt-right groups use minority inclusion in the media as a rallying point for racists doesn't mean we cannot discuss whether some particular approach to inclusion makes sense...

You don't find alt-right ideas on an alt-right forum. They're in the mainstream now. That is what makes them so insidious, and that was a deliberate tactic by the alt right.

Of course we can have a discussion about inclusion, and we are indeed, having one, but that does not change the fact that some talking points, phrases, and sentiments were created and disseminated into the general public by people who have ill intentions, and those who can recognize those dogwhistles for what they are, are obligated to point them out and stop them in their tracks, because they are DESIGNED for the average person to parrot without realizing the full weight. You and I are certainly not going to parrot "whites are the supreme race" or "we are being replaced", so of course the discussions have to be sanitized. And they were.

Picking up a dogwhistle specifically DESIGNED to be easy to disseminate and appeal to the average person is just... exactly the goal. It's the point of those dogwhistles. And those have tainted multiple discussions now. That doesn't mean we drop those discussions, it means we proceed with awareness, and try to have the conversations while also dismantling the bad faith aspects of them.

[Humble Scribe]

A question was raised: where is the harm of casting a black actress as Ann Boleyn? To this, I reply: firstly, it's just blatantly untrue. Call me pedantic, but I do like historical movies to present their featured periods and events as faithfully as possible. I never liked historical movies that make up things that didn't happen, get the costuming wrong etc. Sure, 100% accuracy is usually not possible, but some basic things need to be correct. And the ethnicity of actual historical characters is one of these things.

Not all artistic decisions need to be made for reasons of historical accuracy. For example, it might be interesting to cast Boleyn as black to highlight the fact that she was treated differently in Henry's court because she was seen as 'French' (she had spent her youth at the French court and thoroughly absorbed the culture and language), a bit like the way Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' had all of the Macedonians speak with Irish accents to distinguish them.

[Oniya]

Not all artistic decisions need to be made for reasons of historical accuracy. For example, it might be interesting to cast Boleyn as black to highlight the fact that she was treated differently in Henry's court because she was seen as 'French' (she had spent her youth at the French court and thoroughly absorbed the culture and language), a bit like the way Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' had all of the Macedonians speak with Irish accents to distinguish them.

As I recall, that's similar to the rationale Sir Patrick Stewart used for the Othello production.  While 'Moor' is typically interpreted as 'black', the term was originally applied to Mediterranean Muslims (northern Africa, the Iberian peninsula, Sicily and Malta), and has been used for Arabic and/or Muslim people in other areas (including the Philippines!)  'Moor' is an identifier applied from the outside, as opposed to a term people identify themselves as.  (Except the Philippine Muslim community, which now self-identifies as 'the Moro-people'.)

[Tolvo]

Moor can often be a tricky one to discuss due to its prevalence in so many European sources. That's one I often have to navigate by mentioning in a historical context "This group was called Moors often by Europeans but would themselves use the term Ethiopian as Moor is an external simplification" and such cases when talking about and explaining history to people. Especially confusing when people use the term for groups who are North African Christians for example.

[Oniya]

Agreed - it was applied by people from outside the group that they were applying it to (exonym, as opposed to demonym), and ended up being as broad a stroke as the Greek bárbaros - which ultimately meant 'Someone who doesn't speak Greek.'

[Humble Scribe]

Agreed - it was applied by people from outside the group that they were applying it to (exonym, as opposed to demonym), and ended up being as broad a stroke as the Greek bárbaros - which ultimately meant 'Someone who doesn't speak Greek.'

Literally 'someone who sounds like a sheep when they talk' (baaa baaa). As self satsified as we can be today, it's hard to be as self-satisfied as the Ancient Greeks!

[Envious]

Up until today, I didn't think I had a preference as to who played what role. I don't mind people of color play roles that do not match their skin color (Hamilton) or if straight actors play roles which put them in same-sex relationships (Supernova) or if actors who identify as one gender play the role of another (The Umbrella Academy).

But I recently saw a trailer for a show called Chad. Chad is the story of "a 14-year-old boy of Persian descent who's trying to fit in now that he's attending high school." Nasim Pedrad (a 40ish year old woman) is a writer and executive producer of the series, but she's also playing as Chad.

It's not uncommon for adults to play in roles that are much younger than their actual age, and it typically does not bother me. So why does the casting choice of an older woman to play a teenage boy bother me? I guess there is a threshold to what breaks my immersion and enjoyment that I had not come across until now. So in this instance, the casting choice feels absurd, but I'm typically not bothered by roles being open for anyone to audition for.

[Kuroneko]

I mean, let's say we're making a movie about Julius Caesar. Would you suggest to hire ethnicity-blind and cast a Japanese actor as Caesar? Or to hire gender-blind and hire a female actor for that role? Assuming we weren't making a deliberately unusual biopic, we rather wouldn't make a choice like that. And I don't think there's something wrong with - heck, I'd say that typical Caesar biopic wouldn't even be hired appearance-blind... after all, you wouldn't probably hire Jack Black for that role, right?

True, but radio dramas don't include the visual aspect by their very nature. We don't see the actors, so their ethnicity, appearance, costumes (or lack thereof) plays no role. So you can have Jack Black play Julius Caesar while wearing modern clothing... You wouldn't do the same for a movie.

Yes, but - aside from reconstructionist attempts - we don't have men play women on stage these days, do we? Not to mention, theatre is a different medium than cinema and TV. As for white actors playing POC characters, we do scorn it these days (rightly so).

Yes, we do. Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest is traditionally played by a man. That's not the only role that's treated that way. Women are the only ones that can now sing roles written for castrati in opera, and it's completely accepted. They're dressed as men for the roles.

Julie Taymor's Titus Andronicus film has black actors playing Roman characters in modern clothing.

A Japanese actor has played Titus Andronicus. A black female actress was cast as Hamlet on Broadway in 2019 because she was the best actor for the part.

I'm a professional costume designer. Card carrying United Scenic Artists Local 829 and I.A.T.S.E. union member. I've designed the costumes for a production of Julius Caesar where not only Caesar but Brutus and many of the lead male characters were played by women or non-binary actors. Some of the female characters were played by men. And the costumes for the show were a mixture of modern and Roman-inspired modern takes on Roman clothing. And you know what? The show worked just fine. Why? Because the themes are relevant to current events and the genders of the actors are not important to telling the story.

But the solution of casting color-blind leads to instances of history being deeply misrepresented. So, there's no good choice here. Also, modern acting profession involves exclusion almost inherently - when hiring actors for a role, casting directors look for factors like appearance etc. Sometimes, an actor just won't work for a given role due to physical limitations. You won't be hiring Jack Black for Caesar, Ron Perlman for JFK etc...

Casting directors also look for factors like the ability to act. I'd love to see Ron Perlman play Caesar.

I think you might have a slight misconception about theatre and film. Unless it's a documentary, historical accuracy is never really the point. It might be a concern, and something the director wants to highlight and insists the designers attempt to follow closely, but the main goal is telling the story. And if telling the story in the way that follows the director's vision means a deviation from historical accuracy, it's gonna happen. Because it's entertainment, not education. There is no mandate for historical accuracy in entertainment. I can assure you that we designers want it, but it isn't always the goal. Sometimes it isn't the best way to tell the story and engage the audience. Inclusion, however, is incredibly important.

If this new Anne Boleyn movie entertains people enough to get them to go read something historically accurate about her, then it will have done it's job.