Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.
Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.
And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.
And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.
Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.
Anonymous wrote:To think...all these silly ballet directors and producers have been casting PEOPLE all these years, when they should have been casting swans.
I wanted to see a Firebird, I tell you! A FireBIRD!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”
![]()
You know that the comparison is not the same at all. Having actors of a different race to play the founding fathers was done intentionally to make a point.
True. A very misleading point
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”
![]()
You know that the comparison is not the same at all. Having actors of a different race to play the founding fathers was done intentionally to make a point.

Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:OP DCUM is not representative of the real world. Most people feel the same way you do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.
Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.
And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.
And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.
Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.
Anonymous wrote:Incidentally I thought that actor was really good in that role. Sort of funny how everyone is focused on his race but no one can remember if he was a solicitor, a barrister or a teller!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.
Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.
And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.
And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.
Traditionally white actors have been cast to play non white characters because there just weren't very many non-white people in this country to being with. There are now, so yes, it would be distracting to see a white actor cast as Mulan. In Japan I would not find it odd to see an Asian actor play Mary Poppins, because that's the preponderance of the actors they have to chose from. In this country I would find the casting of an Asian Mary Poppins to be very distracting.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Film and television are not history books or documentaries. You suspend disbelief when you sit in a theater and actors get up there and ACT.
Sometimes, straight people play gay, and vice versa. To comply with lawa, oftentimes adults are hired to play teenagers.
And sometimes, directors assume the audience isn't so pedantic and narrow that they allow creative casting in a piece of ART to distract them so immutably.
And while OP is stuck on skin color, the most frequent inaccurate representation is using white actors to play non-white characters. You just dont notice it because it's "normal". After all, Crazy Rich Asians was considered a breakthrough movie because not only was it set mostly in Asia with Asian characters, but it actually cast Asian actors to play the roles.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine what OP must think of the casting for “Hamilton.”
![]()