@bradstevens The way I see it (and everyone else should, too) is this: When it comes to the race of an actor, it shouldn't matter whatsoever, unless the race of the character is important to the narrative. When it comes to characters which already have an assumed race - either because the story has been told before, or because it is set in a particular historical context - then the simplest excuse for changing the race of that character is the colorblind one: the guy was simply the best actor for that role. It sounds like that's what happened here. They didn't set out to have that soldier be a black guy, but for whatever reason, he impressed in his audition, and got the part. Good for him.
But that's not the only valid reason. I do think there is a non-colorblind reason to change the race of a character, too, and that's because you're trying to explore a different version of the narrative in which the new race plays an important part. If, for example, you wanted to retell Romeo & Juliet set in modern South Central LA, it would make sense to purposefully cast black actors, because their race is an important part of the version of the story you want to tell.
Then there is the third reason: artistic affirmative action. Purposefully casting a black guy in a traditionally white role simply because you want to make Hollywood a little more diverse. I don't think that's a very good reason, but I also don't think it's the reason these kinds of things usually happen. It is, however, the reason folks like JDB jump to when something gets their knickers in a bind.
Finally, in this particular case, none of these need apply at all, because as we've already covered, England at the time of the Norman invasion almost certainly had some dark-skinned African residents, and we don't know for sure if any of them actually fought at Hastings. It's within the realm of possibility. We have no records suggesting it happened, but we also have no records claiming Harold's entire army was made up of 100% pure-blooded lily white Anglo-Saxons, either. It's a blank. People can fill it in however they want, so long as it's plausible. And the idea that one or even a handful of Africans who had made their way to England found themselves fighting for Harold is entirely plausible.
No one has even said anything about the fact they cast a Danish actor as William! That should be the true source of outrage - they couldn't find a qualified Frenchie?
not sure I can buy the argument for historical accuracy, which here seems more like just an extremely unlikely historical possibility. If it was for that purpose, not sure how it could help the narrative. Just raises a question that apparently is never answered.
@bradstevens The way I see it (and everyone else should, too) is this: When it comes to the race of an actor, it shouldn't matter whatsoever, unless the race of the character is important to the narrative. When it comes to characters which already have an assumed race - either because the story has been told before, or because it is set in a particular historical context - then the simplest excuse for changing the race of that character is the colorblind one: the guy was simply the best actor for that role. It sounds like that's what happened here. They didn't set out to have that soldier be a black guy, but for whatever reason, he impressed in his audition, and got the part. Good for him.
But that's not the only valid reason. I do think there is a non-colorblind reason to change the race of a character, too, and that's because you're trying to explore a different version of the narrative in which the new race plays an important part. If, for example, you wanted to retell Romeo & Juliet set in modern South Central LA, it would make sense to purposefully cast black actors, because their race is an important part of the version of the story you want to tell.
Then there is the third reason: artistic affirmative action. Purposefully casting a black guy in a traditionally white role simply because you want to make Hollywood a little more diverse. I don't think that's a very good reason, but I also don't think it's the reason these kinds of things usually happen. It is, however, the reason folks like JDB jump to when something gets their knickers in a bind.
Finally, in this particular case, none of these need apply at all, because as we've already covered, England at the time of the Norman invasion almost certainly had some dark-skinned African residents, and we don't know for sure if any of them actually fought at Hastings. It's within the realm of possibility. We have no records suggesting it happened, but we also have no records claiming Harold's entire army was made up of 100% pure-blooded lily white Anglo-Saxons, either. It's a blank. People can fill it in however they want, so long as it's plausible. And the idea that one or even a handful of Africans who had made their way to England found themselves fighting for Harold is entirely plausible.
No one has even said anything about the fact they cast a Danish actor as William! That should be the true source of outrage - they couldn't find a qualified Frenchie?
not sure I can buy the argument for historical accuracy, which here seems more like just an extremely unlikely historical possibility. If it was for that purpose, not sure how it could help the narrative. Just raises a question that apparently is never answered.
Not saying it's accurate, just plausible, and no reason for anyone to get their panties in a bunch. Harold's forces would have been made up of a core of professional bodyguards (called housecarls), combined with county levies from all over England. There is no reason a black African couldn't have been part of either contingent (although the latter is probably more likely), and there is also no reason for chroniclers at the time to make a big deal of it. Skin color didn't mean to them what it means to us. It wouldn't have been a thing to record. Another thing not to record? Any record of any of the individuals fighting for Harold. We just don't know who was in his army. Surviving records only describe it in the most basic, vague terms.
So, yes, there were black people in England at the time. Did any of them fight for Harold? Maybe. Who knows. Is showing a black face on TV at the Battle of Hastings rewriting history? No. Is it an affirmation of history? No. It's just a nothing. It might have happened. It might not have. We don't know, and it doesn't matter. The only reason this is even an issue is because a bunch of crybabies got all shitty about it with absolutely no justification.
@oneeyedundertaker So was the play Hamilton bad because historical figures were played by all different people of color?
@oneeyedundertaker So was the play Hamilton bad because historical figures were played by all different people of color?
Didn’t see it. I don’t care for musicals in general, but especially historically inaccurate musicals.
@oneeyedundertaker So was the play Hamilton bad because historical figures were played by all different people of color?
It may have entertainment value, but it was not historically representative. It's creators purposely slandered history because they view modern America not to be inclusive of "old white men".
“Our cast looks like America looks now, and that’s certainly intentional … It’s a way of pulling you into the story … telling the story of old, dead white men but … actors of color … makes the story more immediate and more accessible to a contemporary audience.”
I'd argue the music and delivery are much more impactful for contemporary audience than race, but that doesn't cut it for leftists focused on racial division and individuality.
If, for example, you wanted to retell Romeo & Juliet set in modern South Central LA, it would make sense to purposefully cast black actors, because their race is an important part of the version of the story you want to tell.
Isn't that precisely the point? If this story about the Battle of Hastings was mixed into a modern format and used as a metaphor for a street gang battle on the South Side of Chicago, then there is every reason to change or broaden the set of actors.
In Romeo and Juliet w/Leo and Claire Danes (she always got me going in the 90s), Mercutio and Tybalt were specifically not white actors, but those that fit the part given the scene and setting.
The entire point of this thread is to use logic and reasonableness. If you are creating a recreation of the Battle of Waterloo, get the armies and their make-up right. If you are putting together a story about a Native American hero (e.g., Geronimo), you better give me Wes Studi instead of Denzel Washington or Edward Norton. Not because I think he is a better actor than either, but becuase he is culturally relevant and helps to properly set the scene.
Dances with Wolves was a great movie for many reasons - among them was the nod Costner gave to actors who looked and belonged the part.
@oneeyedundertaker jim caviezel played Jesus, his family heritage is some combo of Swiss/Irish/Croatian. Where were the protests?
@oneeyedundertaker So was the play Hamilton bad because historical figures were played by all different people of color?
Yes, Hamilton was extremely mediocre as far as musicals go. Miranda has no melody, he just crams syllables together.
@oneeyedundertaker jim caviezel played Jesus, his family heritage is some combo of Swiss/Irish/Croatian. Where were the protests?
Moving the goalposts from race to family heritage? What was Jesus’ family heritage? Romans were in the region, Roman soldiers had been into those regions of Caviezel’s heritage? Could there have been intermingling of DNA’s?
Besides, most Christians, for better or worse, have been conditioned to see Jesus as a white man, so it was what they expected to see.
Lot of Hamilton hate here. I liked it. Music was good. It had a couple of original gimmicks that I thought worked—rapping a musical and having POC playing US Founding Fathers. I was put off at first but then really enjoyed it and like the notion of the American founding not being a “white” thing, it had to do with ideas that any person could have championed regardless of the color of their skin. That’s the vision of colorblindness I like, not the dumb “I just can’t even see your skin color, my brain doesn’t work that way” version.
But that was a clear, intentional gimmick. So I’m not sure it applies to the OP.
Edit: this isn’t a traditional song from a musical, but it’s damn powerful and given the complexity of what is going on, I thought it did a good job of communicating while holding interest:
If, for example, you wanted to retell Romeo & Juliet set in modern South Central LA, it would make sense to purposefully cast black actors, because their race is an important part of the version of the story you want to tell.
Been there, done that R&J has been set in the NY barrio and the players we’re Puerto Rican
I’ve also seen The Taming of the Shrew set in Texas. Great comedy.
On to the larger point, color blindness is highly situational and when it is highly relevant in one context, it might be totally irrelevant in another. I dont think. you could ever have a white guy play Othello and have the same play.
@oneeyedundertaker there are a ton of sites you can go see what a person living in the area of present day Israel would look like. They can do various reconstruction on other skelatol remains. Oh, we do know based on The Bible that Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. If we wanted accuracy above all else, why was He not portrayed by a middle eastern Jew?
Speaking of goalposts moving. So we can accept a European Jesus because we Whites are "comfortable" with it. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy but comfort. So some are just not comfortable with the fact Blacks lived in England in 1066? No one knows if there was one Black at Hastings. I cannot prove there was, you cannot say that it was impossible.
We know of a few women that served in combat in the Continental Army. So showing one in a scene wouldn't be unrealistic, showing a company of women would.
People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly's Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes. In Cross of Iron they used T34s with 85mm guns, he was literally close to walking out. I am more concerned with the overall story. I don't care about those specifics. Cross of Iron was an OK movie that did well at capturing the savage easy front.
If a Black had been cast as Harold II, that is very problematic. One nameless Black in an army, not crazy.
I honestly do not care about Passion of Christ's casting. If they cast Hemsworth looking like Thor, very problematic. As it was, who cares. Same reaction about 1 Black cast in Hastings.
It doesn't bother me that Band of Brothers made either mistakes or editorial choices (read Malarkey's book). It isn't a documentary and captured the spirit of what happened beyond compare. So fine by me that at least one major story point never happened (Easy never liberated a concentration camp. That story is taken directly from a unit that did and transposed onto Easy).
@oneeyedundertaker there are a ton of sites you can go see what a person living in the area of present day Israel would look like. They can do various reconstruction on other skelatol remains. Oh, we do know based on The Bible that Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew. If we wanted accuracy above all else, why was He not portrayed by a middle eastern Jew?
Speaking of goalposts moving. So we can accept a European Jesus because we Whites are "comfortable" with it. It has nothing to do with historical accuracy but comfort. So some are just not comfortable with the fact Blacks lived in England in 1066? No one knows if there was one Black at Hastings. I cannot prove there was, you cannot say that it was impossible.
We know of a few women that served in combat in the Continental Army. So showing one in a scene wouldn't be unrealistic, showing a company of women would.
People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly's Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes. In Cross of Iron they used T34s with 85mm guns, he was literally close to walking out. I am more concerned with the overall story. I don't care about those specifics. Cross of Iron was an OK movie that did well at capturing the savage easy front.
If a Black had been cast as Harold II, that is very problematic. One nameless Black in an army, not crazy.
I honestly do not care about Passion of Christ's casting. If they cast Hemsworth looking like Thor, very problematic. As it was, who cares. Same reaction about 1 Black cast in Hastings.
It doesn't bother me that Band of Brothers made either mistakes or editorial choices (read Malarkey's book). It isn't a documentary and captured the spirit of what happened beyond compare. So fine by me that at least one major story point never happened (Easy never liberated a concentration camp. That story is taken directly from a unit that did and transposed onto Easy).
So all middle eastern Jews look the same, got it.😉