Color blind casting or color quota casting

[Anonymous]

For some historical context: the first lawyer of African descent in Britain was admitted to the Bar in 1854.

http://societyofblacklawyers.co.uk/history/

[Anonymous]

It's a friggin Disney movie for crying out loud not a History Channel documentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize there were in fact black barristers in the UK in the 30s and 40s right

And Ghandi was a lawyer in apartheid South Africa, but the legal profession was hardly a typical or common profession for people of color in that era in any country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize there were in fact black barristers in the UK in the 30s and 40s right

And Ghandi was a lawyer in apartheid South Africa, but the legal profession was hardly a typical or common profession for people of color in that era in any country.

So does the actor at some point stroll onscreen and say “here I am, the most typical lawyer, in terms of skin pigmentation, in all England!”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize there were in fact black barristers in the UK in the 30s and 40s right

And Ghandi was a lawyer in apartheid South Africa, but the legal profession was hardly a typical or common profession for people of color in that era in any country.

So does the actor at some point stroll onscreen and say “here I am, the most typical lawyer, in terms of skin pigmentation, in all England!”?

In 2019 America it’s not “typical or common” for high profile lawyers or, say, surgeons to be black women, would you also cry “quota casting” for those roles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize there were in fact black barristers in the UK in the 30s and 40s right

This. They worked in those jobs in spite of the colour bar.

[Anonymous]

Actually OP, this could be an interesting discussion framed differently, given that Hollywood and the theatre are the only places left where you can legally hire and advertise jobs specifically by race, the discussion of how to move away from that vs when to maintain historical accuracy is an interesting one. However, you are not framing the discussion that way.

I often peruse casting calls and audition notices due to having a family member involved in acting. I regularly see notices detailing specific ages and races, such as "caucasian male, blonde hair or willing to dye, age 10 to 13" or "middle aged black woman, 5'6" to 5'8", 160 to 190 lbs" or "body builder types, all ethnicities, male".

Depending on the show and role, that does not bother me. However, I often see ethnicity required when the roll could be anyone, or a trait required that really has nothing to do with the roll, such as "gay actors for show about growing up in the country". Now the plot might be about gay people, but that should not factor in with casting.

The casting call I saw which most crossed a line was for a play, and it literally said "Casting for new play. Seeking male and female actors ages 20 to 30, black, hispanic, native American, asian, people of color, mixed ethnicities, gay, lesbian, transgenered or queer, only" The play was for some run of the mill topic where ethnic casting was irrelevant (like young professionals dealng with love or whatever) and the casting call listed everything but white and straight, where they were basically saying straight whites need not apply. That should not be allowed for any casting notice for any race in this century, unless the show has a specific historical reason to cast that way or if they are trying to match a family already cast, or if they have a specific type they are trying to cast in a specific role that is integral to the plot. The entertainment industry should not be able to block actors of any color in the way they are still allowed to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For some historical context: the first lawyer of African descent in Britain was admitted to the Bar in 1854.

http://societyofblacklawyers.co.uk/history/

That is interesting.

My understanding was that England was much more forward on race than the US at that point in history that the movie was set in.

Plus, as the earlier poster said, coral reefs and all that.

[Anonymous]

1. Since it is not a documentary, and you know, fantasy movie, that is totally fine.

2. For the most part, an actor's race is irrelevant. Alson actor's job is to act, and it doesn't matter what color they are.

3. there are caveats to that. Historical figures like Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln probably should be played by black and white actors respectively, because so much of the history is tied into race.

3. however, it would be totally badass to cast a black Abraham Lincoln in a Bill & Ted's excellent adventure movie or something like that where historical accuracy isn't really the point.

4. which brings us back to Mary Poppins in which historical accuracy is not at all the point of the movie, so anything goes.

5. maybe you don't intend to be this op, but you sound like one of the people complaining that Star wars cast black, Asian, and Hispanic actors as a diversity stunt, because these races at ethnicities werenot present in the original Star wars. GMAB

6. Finally, I forget which director said it, but he made a point that choosing to cast all white actors to be historically accurate is kind of racist. I go back to an actor's job is to act, and if race is not a significant part of a character, then it doesn't really matter who is playing what.

7. Tl;Dr Stop being pedantic and just enjoy the movie

[Anonymous]

^lol to Star Wars because I am CONSTANTLY way offended by:
-the accents!!! Diversity of accents of absolutely ridiculous I do not want to hear one “British” sounding accent in that movie. It should either all be British-sounding (and of the same accent), or else all American sounding (and of the same accent). Since it takes place in a a galaxy far, far away, it should be evident that the history of the English language would not have proceeded as it did on earth circa 1066-2018! Rant!
-also on Star Wars, when it comes to race, it should perhaps be the most diverse of all. However......it should maybe look like Brazil where races are so mixed together—you could be .125 Asian, .25 African .25european and .25 South American indigenous. The people there mostly just look like tan with either dark hair. Some with much darker skin, some with a few natural blonde streaks.

If you have a bunch of humans raised on all different planets for centuries, they’re either going to be blonde like Swedes, dark like black Africans, or ... tan/brown. Depends on the human history and environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's a friggin Disney movie for crying out loud not a History Channel documentary.

If your fictional movie is set in a certain time and place, and it portrays people and things that are anachronistic, then it is simply badly done.

If a movie set in 1930s London had flying cars and cell phones, would you say "this is a fictional movie not a documentary fer chrissake"? No, you would say "this is stupid and distracting".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's a friggin Disney movie for crying out loud not a History Channel documentary.

If your fictional movie is set in a certain time and place, and it portrays people and things that are anachronistic, then it is simply badly done.

If a movie set in 1930s London had flying cars and cell phones, would you say "this is a fictional movie not a documentary fer chrissake"? No, you would say "this is stupid and distracting".

But this movie has a woman who travels by flying umbrella amd who does not age, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's a friggin Disney movie for crying out loud not a History Channel documentary.

If your fictional movie is set in a certain time and place, and it portrays people and things that are anachronistic, then it is simply badly done.

If a movie set in 1930s London had flying cars and cell phones, would you say "this is a fictional movie not a documentary fer chrissake"? No, you would say "this is stupid and distracting".

Ahhhh...so it's your assertion that prior to 1960 every single person of color on the planet was nothing more than a subservient pauper and the very sight of one of them being anything but a servant or a fieldhand automatically makes a film "stupid and distracting" for you.
Well...

[Anonymous]

I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”