^ no reading comprehension? The OP made this specically about black people and the PP said "black.people and other minorities."

So your point that this is all about black people is both wrong on the facts and shows your bias.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So, basically black people and other minorities should forever be shut out of any movie unless it's a civil rights movie?

Why is it all about black people all the time? They are a small percentage of the US population and they are probably over represented in the entertainment industry. What about Asians and Hispanics?

NP and I am black so that is where my interests lie. Other groups are more than welcome to do the work for their people of they so chose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Gandhi was a barrister in England in those times, early 1900s.

Gandhi left India to train as a barrister and was called to the bar (meaning he passed his qualifications) but didn't practice or build up a legal career in England, but returned to India and then went to South Africa. He was 22 when he finished his education left England. He was inspired to become who he was in part because of the discrimination he faced from white British, particularly in South Africa and India.

It's like saying there were black lawyers in America in the 1930s. They did exist, but they were not partners in white shoe firms and hobnobbing with the social elites and living in rich neighborhoods, which is what Disney is showing in the revised Mary Poppins. That's fine for the sake of a Disneyfied movie but let's not pretend it's historically accurate.

You don’t know history. Hush please.

Sorry. But I think the remake of the magnificent seven worked just fine with Denzel and lee byung+hun. I think the new Mary Poppins is fine. Hamilton is great. Drunk History"s diverse casting works for me

Is it really worth your time and energy to rail on about artistic choices?

you don't sound thoughtful or interesting. Even if it is not your intention, it just comes of bigoted and closed-minded

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when it comes to acting and fiction, I don't think you can use history as a way to shut people of color out of roles.

I'm curious how many of these people who just can't get past the historical "inaccuracy" balked at a straight cisgender man playing a trans person on transparent. Or Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. Or Emma Stone playing that Hawaiian character in that movie. Or Tom Cruise as the last samurai. Or Mackenzie Davis playing a Korean character in The Martian.

But all of these are fine right because not history? Whatever.

We get history from documentaries and textbooks and lots of other places. It is absolutely racist to say that a film can't take creative license to cast a black or another person of color because it takes you out of the moment. It is art. Get comfortable with their own discomfort because yea

The alternative perspective is that cinema is a powerful tool that allows people to too easily believe it speaks a truth. No one sees opera or Shakespearean plays as historically accurate or "truth" because they are different forms of art. We understand they're not meant to be substitutes for real life. But movies can be different. I don't categorize all movies in the same way, some are clearly just fantasy, some are clearly just fun, but others do attempt to be more realistic and I don't agree that it's fair or just to distort history to portray a certain message or to be "woke". In fact, one can argue it's a form of cultural appropriation by inventing a fictionalized past that never existed. There's a big difference between a straight actor playing a gay man and, say, having a black Mr. Darcy in a Pride and Prejudice production. The past was, like it or not, a severely racist time in just about all cultures and societies.

Would you accept a white actor playing a warrior in a movie about the Zulus? Or an Asian man as an Ottoman sultan? Or a black emperor in the imperial Chinese court?

why is it different? Why wouldn't it not take you out of the moment to see someone you know is straight playing a gay man?or does it only work the other way when someone who is gay is playing a straight person?
and for what it's worth, pride and prejudice is not history. It is fiction. So they wanted to make an all black version of it or a mixed-race version of it I would not care.
It worked for Hamilton and it can work elsewhere to.

we just need to get the mouth-breathers to stop talking about history when what they're really talking about is not understanding how whitewashed history was before

Because a straight man can easily play the role of a gay man on the screen and vice versa, without changing the visual meaning of the story, but having a black man play the role of a white man or vice versa is different due to the racial factor. It's intriguing because this forum is filled with threads and posts screaming at how important race is and how we can't ignore racism in just about everything and how much it guides our lives and biases and experiences. I imagine you'd be furious if Disney tried to make a movie about the Zulus and included white actors in the roles of African warriors, would you?

I'm not sure why you're talking about whitewashing history. Pointing out the sheer near-absence of people of color in pre WWII Britain is not whitewashing history. Nor is it whitewashing history to acknowledge that due to the severe racial repression and institutionalized racism there were few African American in prominent roles in the American past. I suspect when you talk about whitewashing history you're simply wishing for a different kind of history than actually did exist. There's definitely, and very understandably, a lot of bitterness at how minority races were treated by white Americans and Europeans in the not too distant past. But no amount of fantasizing is going to ever correct this and showing a more "woke" world than ever did exist in historical movies is only distorting the truth. Now, Disney is Disney and no one should ever take their movies seriously and they are allowed their artistic license and creativity, just as we do for musicals and broadway productions and operas, but I do still think in more serious productions there is a responsibility in being more truthful. By all means let's have movies showing the African experience in 19th century Britain or the US and I would gladly watch them as I'm a passionate student of history and it would be a fascinating topic, but if you tried to show these characters independent of the racial context of the time and treated no differently from the white majority, then you're just whitewashing history by ignoring the black experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when it comes to acting and fiction, I don't think you can use history as a way to shut people of color out of roles.

I'm curious how many of these people who just can't get past the historical "inaccuracy" balked at a straight cisgender man playing a trans person on transparent. Or Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. Or Emma Stone playing that Hawaiian character in that movie. Or Tom Cruise as the last samurai. Or Mackenzie Davis playing a Korean character in The Martian.

But all of these are fine right because not history? Whatever.

We get history from documentaries and textbooks and lots of other places. It is absolutely racist to say that a film can't take creative license to cast a black or another person of color because it takes you out of the moment. It is art. Get comfortable with their own discomfort because yea

The alternative perspective is that cinema is a powerful tool that allows people to too easily believe it speaks a truth. No one sees opera or Shakespearean plays as historically accurate or "truth" because they are different forms of art. We understand they're not meant to be substitutes for real life. But movies can be different. I don't categorize all movies in the same way, some are clearly just fantasy, some are clearly just fun, but others do attempt to be more realistic and I don't agree that it's fair or just to distort history to portray a certain message or to be "woke". In fact, one can argue it's a form of cultural appropriation by inventing a fictionalized past that never existed. There's a big difference between a straight actor playing a gay man and, say, having a black Mr. Darcy in a Pride and Prejudice production. The past was, like it or not, a severely racist time in just about all cultures and societies.

Would you accept a white actor playing a warrior in a movie about the Zulus? Or an Asian man as an Ottoman sultan? Or a black emperor in the imperial Chinese court?

why is it different? Why wouldn't it not take you out of the moment to see someone you know is straight playing a gay man?or does it only work the other way when someone who is gay is playing a straight person?
and for what it's worth, pride and prejudice is not history. It is fiction. So they wanted to make an all black version of it or a mixed-race version of it I would not care.
It worked for Hamilton and it can work elsewhere to.

we just need to get the mouth-breathers to stop talking about history when what they're really talking about is not understanding how whitewashed history was before

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?

So, basically black people and other minorities should forever be shut out of any movie unless it's a civil rights movie?

Why is it all about black people all the time? They are a small percentage of the US population and they are probably over represented in the entertainment industry. What about Asians and Hispanics?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Gandhi was a barrister in England in those times, early 1900s.

Gandhi left India to train as a barrister and was called to the bar (meaning he passed his qualifications) but didn't practice or build up a legal career in England, but returned to India and then went to South Africa. He was 22 when he finished his education left England. He was inspired to become who he was in part because of the discrimination he faced from white British, particularly in South Africa and India.

It's like saying there were black lawyers in America in the 1930s. They did exist, but they were not partners in white shoe firms and hobnobbing with the social elites and living in rich neighborhoods, which is what Disney is showing in the revised Mary Poppins. That's fine for the sake of a Disneyfied movie but let's not pretend it's historically accurate.

That character was not a legal partner: he was a solicitor. He wasn’t “hobnobbing with social elites”: he was doing his job, which was checking on a contract. We neither saw him in a social setting, nor at his home, so we have no idea with whom he socialized nor whether he lived in a rich neighborhood. You’re making things up in order to protest the casting of a person who is completely within his rights to have this role.

I have not seen the movie (I have only seen the original Mary Poppins and know Mr. Banks is a wealthy man) so I cannot comment on his role beyond being a solicitor for a bank. But even I can confirm that it would have been extremely unusual for such a person to be African in 1930s Britain. A quick glance at Wiki's page on the black British says there were only around 20,000 people of African heritage in Britain in 1948. I am not making things up to protest the casting of a person - in my post I made clear that in a fun Disney movie it really doesn't matter what the racial skin tones are. But at the same time just be careful in assuming that it was a normal occurrence. At one time we would have said there was a danger in romanticizing the past. Today we may be in danger of diversifying the past.

Anonymous wrote:when it comes to acting and fiction, I don't think you can use history as a way to shut people of color out of roles.

I'm curious how many of these people who just can't get past the historical "inaccuracy" balked at a straight cisgender man playing a trans person on transparent. Or Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. Or Emma Stone playing that Hawaiian character in that movie. Or Tom Cruise as the last samurai. Or Mackenzie Davis playing a Korean character in The Martian.

But all of these are fine right because not history? Whatever.

We get history from documentaries and textbooks and lots of other places. It is absolutely racist to say that a film can't take creative license to cast a black or another person of color because it takes you out of the moment. It is art. Get comfortable with their own discomfort because yea

The alternative perspective is that cinema is a powerful tool that allows people to too easily believe it speaks a truth. No one sees opera or Shakespearean plays as historically accurate or "truth" because they are different forms of art. We understand they're not meant to be substitutes for real life. But movies can be different. I don't categorize all movies in the same way, some are clearly just fantasy, some are clearly just fun, but others do attempt to be more realistic and I don't agree that it's fair or just to distort history to portray a certain message or to be "woke". In fact, one can argue it's a form of cultural appropriation by inventing a fictionalized past that never existed. There's a big difference between a straight actor playing a gay man and, say, having a black Mr. Darcy in a Pride and Prejudice production. The past was, like it or not, a severely racist time in just about all cultures and societies.

Would you accept a white actor playing a warrior in a movie about the Zulus? Or an Asian man as an Ottoman sultan? Or a black emperor in the imperial Chinese court?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Gandhi was a barrister in England in those times, early 1900s.

Gandhi left India to train as a barrister and was called to the bar (meaning he passed his qualifications) but didn't practice or build up a legal career in England, but returned to India and then went to South Africa. He was 22 when he finished his education left England. He was inspired to become who he was in part because of the discrimination he faced from white British, particularly in South Africa and India.

It's like saying there were black lawyers in America in the 1930s. They did exist, but they were not partners in white shoe firms and hobnobbing with the social elites and living in rich neighborhoods, which is what Disney is showing in the revised Mary Poppins. That's fine for the sake of a Disneyfied movie but let's not pretend it's historically accurate.

That character was not a legal partner: he was a solicitor. He wasn’t “hobnobbing with social elites”: he was doing his job, which was checking on a contract. We neither saw him in a social setting, nor at his home, so we have no idea with whom he socialized nor whether he lived in a rich neighborhood. You’re making things up in order to protest the casting of a person who is completely within his rights to have this role.

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?

So, basically black people and other minorities should forever be shut out of any movie unless it's a civil rights movie?

.

Meant historical movie.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Gandhi was a barrister in England in those times, early 1900s.

Gandhi left India to train as a barrister and was called to the bar (meaning he passed his qualifications) but didn't practice or build up a legal career in England, but returned to India and then went to South Africa. He was 22 when he finished his education left England. He was inspired to become who he was in part because of the discrimination he faced from white British, particularly in South Africa and India.

It's like saying there were black lawyers in America in the 1930s. They did exist, but they were not partners in white shoe firms and hobnobbing with the social elites and living in rich neighborhoods, which is what Disney is showing in the revised Mary Poppins. That's fine for the sake of a Disneyfied movie but let's not pretend it's historically accurate.

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".

Episodes of Doctor Who frequently feature things like cell phones and flying cars in 1930s London. I’m not sure Mary Poppins isn’t a Time Lord.

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?

So, basically black people and other minorities should forever be shut out of any movie unless it's a civil rights movie?

when it comes to acting and fiction, I don't think you can use history as a way to shut people of color out of roles.

I'm curious how many of these people who just can't get past the historical "inaccuracy" balked at a straight cisgender man playing a trans person on transparent. Or Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club. Or Emma Stone playing that Hawaiian character in that movie. Or Tom Cruise as the last samurai. Or Mackenzie Davis playing a Korean character in The Martian.

But all of these are fine right because not history? Whatever.

We get history from documentaries and textbooks and lots of other places. It is absolutely racist to say that a film can't take creative license to cast a black or another person of color because it takes you out of the moment. It is art. Get comfortable with their own discomfort because yea