Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right.

The casting of white people in virtually every role is not evidence of a quota in favor of white people, right? That’s just “normal,” amirite? It is the few movies in which people of color are allowed to expand their representation that are suggestive of a quota.

Thanks for your “analysis.” You’re not a mean spirited, knuckle dragging, racist numbskull at all.

We're talking about a movie set in 1930/1940s London, not in contemporary times. Black people would not have been in those jobs in that era because of the racism and discrimination of the time. If one of the Banks children had been cast by a Japanese actor, do you think it's racist to find that distracting?

Well there wasn’t adoption of Japanese children by the British in the 1930s but there were black lawyers so...???????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right.

The casting of white people in virtually every role is not evidence of a quota in favor of white people, right? That’s just “normal,” amirite? It is the few movies in which people of color are allowed to expand their representation that are suggestive of a quota.

Thanks for your “analysis.” You’re not a mean spirited, knuckle dragging, racist numbskull at all.

We're talking about a movie set in 1930/1940s London, not in contemporary times. Black people would not have been in those jobs in that era because of the racism and discrimination of the time. If one of the Banks children had been cast by a Japanese actor, do you think it's racist to find that distracting?

I see you have mild learning disabilities. Try reading my post out loud with your finger under each word. You might comprehend it this time.

Is this the same knuckle dragging commenter? If so - can we be friends...Hilarious!

This is a fictional story! Disney, producers, aliens can do whatever they like to convey a story. And perhaps, the basis of London's history was wrong and perhaps Disney is retelling a story of what it should have been

Lol at knuckle dragging --- visually hilarious

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s color-conscious casting.

Honestly, you’re watching a film where characters burst into song, jump into china bowls, and have a coral reef adventure in the bathtub. If the fact that there’s a black lawyer takes you out of the moment, you might want to check your suspension of disbelief.

It's still distracting in a historical setting and whitewashes the very real issues of discrimination and racism that were present in the era. What purpose does it serve in a historical setting other than for the producers to pat themselves on the back for promoting diversity?

I have mixed feelings about this. I see your point, but I also feel that there are benefits to such casting. One, it gave a couple of black actors a job. Secondly, it gives millions of viewers an opportunity to see black people in such jobs, which helps normalize it, especially for kids. On balance, I think I'm good with the casting. I'm black myself, but not sure whether or how that impacts my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:It’s color-conscious casting.

Honestly, you’re watching a film where characters burst into song, jump into china bowls, and have a coral reef adventure in the bathtub. If the fact that there’s a black lawyer takes you out of the moment, you might want to check your suspension of disbelief.

That shows you the power of white entitlement and racial resentment. “Truman, what’s a darkie doing in my movie?!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s color-conscious casting.

Honestly, you’re watching a film where characters burst into song, jump into china bowls, and have a coral reef adventure in the bathtub. If the fact that there’s a black lawyer takes you out of the moment, you might want to check your suspension of disbelief.

It's still distracting in a historical setting and whitewashes the very real issues of discrimination and racism that were present in the era. What purpose does it serve in a historical setting other than for the producers to pat themselves on the back for promoting diversity?

Oh, you’re concerned about “real issues of discrimination,” as opposed to being a resentful white person who thinks anything good people of color get is because of a quota, right? A likely story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right.

The casting of white people in virtually every role is not evidence of a quota in favor of white people, right? That’s just “normal,” amirite? It is the few movies in which people of color are allowed to expand their representation that are suggestive of a quota.

Thanks for your “analysis.” You’re not a mean spirited, knuckle dragging, racist numbskull at all.

We're talking about a movie set in 1930/1940s London, not in contemporary times. Black people would not have been in those jobs in that era because of the racism and discrimination of the time. If one of the Banks children had been cast by a Japanese actor, do you think it's racist to find that distracting?

I see you have mild learning disabilities. Try reading my post out loud with your finger under each word. You might comprehend it this time.

Anonymous wrote:Right.

The casting of white people in virtually every role is not evidence of a quota in favor of white people, right? That’s just “normal,” amirite? It is the few movies in which people of color are allowed to expand their representation that are suggestive of a quota.

Thanks for your “analysis.” You’re not a mean spirited, knuckle dragging, racist numbskull at all.

We're talking about a movie set in 1930/1940s London, not in contemporary times. Black people would not have been in those jobs in that era because of the racism and discrimination of the time. If one of the Banks children had been cast by a Japanese actor, do you think it's racist to find that distracting?

Anonymous wrote:Right.

The casting of white people in virtually every role is not evidence of a quota in favor of white people, right? That’s just “normal,” amirite? It is the few movies in which people of color are allowed to expand their representation that are suggestive of a quota.

Thanks for your “analysis.” You’re not a mean spirited, knuckle dragging, racist numbskull at all.

That’s the way a five year old might view the world but adults should be capable of more nuanced analysis.

Anonymous wrote:It’s color-conscious casting.

Honestly, you’re watching a film where characters burst into song, jump into china bowls, and have a coral reef adventure in the bathtub. If the fact that there’s a black lawyer takes you out of the moment, you might want to check your suspension of disbelief.

This made me laugh.

Anonymous wrote:It’s color-conscious casting.

Honestly, you’re watching a film where characters burst into song, jump into china bowls, and have a coral reef adventure in the bathtub. If the fact that there’s a black lawyer takes you out of the moment, you might want to check your suspension of disbelief.

It's still distracting in a historical setting and whitewashes the very real issues of discrimination and racism that were present in the era. What purpose does it serve in a historical setting other than for the producers to pat themselves on the back for promoting diversity?

Right.

The casting of white people in virtually every role is not evidence of a quota in favor of white people, right? That’s just “normal,” amirite? It is the few movies in which people of color are allowed to expand their representation that are suggestive of a quota.

Thanks for your “analysis.” You’re not a mean spirited, knuckle dragging, racist numbskull at all.

It’s color-conscious casting.

Honestly, you’re watching a film where characters burst into song, jump into china bowls, and have a coral reef adventure in the bathtub. If the fact that there’s a black lawyer takes you out of the moment, you might want to check your suspension of disbelief.

Just saw the new Mary Poppins movie. The issue of casting diversity is hardly new and I thought the color blind casting of Lin-Manuel Miranda in a "white" role was very effective because he was very believable in the role (not to mention he's incredibly talented). Yes, his accent was a little weird but I had no problem believing that he could have been a lamplighter in that era of London. Good casting.

Then there was the casting of black actors as one of the lawyers and the executive secretary to the man at the bank. Let's be real: in 1930s-1940s London (the implied era), there wouldn't have been black people in those jobs. By pretending that they would have, it glosses over the racism and discrimination of that era. Yes, this is a fantasy Disney movie, but it's highly unrealistic casting for a historical setting.

Which leads me to wonder if this was color "blind" casting or color "quota" casting? It felt like Disney was worried this period piece would feel too white so they decided to plop some black faces into roles that were historically inaccurate so they could take some credit for diversity on film. Isn't that tokenism?

Don't get me wrong, I totally support color blind casting when it makes sense, but there are certain times when this casting push gets distracting and frankly feels like pandering when placed into a historical setting.