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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP here. There is a long history of Hollywood using historically or canonically inaccurate casting of white actors in roles of color. Apparently, to OP, it's only a problem when actors of color are cast in Caucasian roles, even if it is historically accurate, so it's not just a race-based issue. As has been pointed out, there were solicitors and barristers of color at that period. Not many, but enough that it is not historically inaccurate. But it bothers OP because OP is only comfortable with white people in such roles.

If you wonder why people are talking about white-washing, it's because it occurs so much more frequently than this reverse issue that it's laughable that OP is only bothered by this case.

In Dr. Strange (2016), Tilda Swinton is cast as the Asian "Ancient One" even though the character is the head of a Himalayan monestary. Talk about historically inaccurate.
Lone Ranger (2013), Johnny Depp plays Tonto
The Last Airbender (2010), the East Asian and Inuit characters are cast with Caucasian actors
The Passion of Christ (2004), talk about historically inaccurate, Middle Eastern characters from the period of Christ are cast with Caucasian actors
The House of Spirits (1993), characters from the military dictatoship in Chile are played by Caucasian actors rather than Latino actors. Also historically inaccurate.
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), also historically inaccurate film with Caucasians playing Middle Eastern roles, most noticably William Defoe as Christ.
King David (1985), more historical inaccuracy with white actors portraying Middle Eastern characters including Richard Gere as the titular character
A Passage to India (1984), a historical drama with Alec Guinness portraying an Indian man.

There are many more cases, but none of them bother OP as much as Mary Poppins which is clearly fictional fantasy and not historical.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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!

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It's fascinating how quickly people accuse others with differing views as bigoted and close-minded. Especially as to do so says far more about you than the other poster. How old are you? I find it's kids who have these very black and white views of how the world should be and scream bigotry and racism when someone else takes a more nuanced perspective. It's a bit of a shame as we could have a great discussion on how the past should be portrayed and the inappropriateness of casting different types of people in different historical roles but no, we must resort to childish name callings and typical adolescence style belittlement.

So you would be totally fine and non-judgmental if Disney made a movie with white actors playing Zulu warriors? I suppose to make it even more Hallmark-worthy we could come up with a story of a Boer baby being adopted by a Zulu tribe

look I'm 45. I'm not a kid. And we have been around and around on this thread about history, documentaries, and historically accurate films. We've discussed it. We've done it.

None of that changes the fact that at least in purely fictional fantasy films like Mary Poppins, racel blind asting is fine...

We've also discussed Hamilton as a historical artifact and that was dismissed by someone as well it doesn't count because it's theater. It's not as real as film.

people don't want to actually have a discussion about this topic. They want to make some kind of so-called gotcha point about casting white people as Zulu warriors which is a strawman representation of what the other side is saying.

In an industry that has largely ignored people of color and used History and accuracy as an excuse to exclude them, I don't think that the accuracy side has a good point.

Especially not when we are talking about art instead of a history book.

and people have ignored or dismissed the point about whether or not Emma Stone was distracting in aloha, or Tom Cruise in The last samurai, or Jared Leto in the Dallas buyers club. Why? Because apparently sexual orientation and gender identification and close enough ethnic casting can be ignored.

And you know what? Maybe if we ever get to a point in which we see a proportionate number of people of color in film and television, then maybe we'll be okay to play to have white people play those historical figures. But we are not there yet

You have merit in your argument but I think you are also ignoring much of what the other poster has said so there's hypocrisy in accusing people of not wanting to have a discussion, especially as there's a lot of good comments that have been raised and discussed about accuracy of historical portrayals. You're looking specifically for what you want to see and ignoring the rest of the posts. I also think it's ignorant to pretend there's no difference among different types of artistic performances. Different acting mediums and types of productions and films send out very strong messages for different reasons. They are, each in their own ways, powerful instruments. One never goes to the opera for the plot (god forbid!) but for the music. One goes to ballets for the dancing. One certainly watches movies for different reasons depending on the movies. Some movies are meant to be taken seriously, others are not. The power of films and the lasting impression they give can be stronger than you acknowledge, and which is why in totalitarian states they were often used as effective tools of propaganda. We should absolutely show movies to reflect the diverse world we live in today but, in the case of more serious films, not to pretend that the past, in which racial attitudes and racial beliefs and racial divides were severe and substantial, was different.

The difference in views on this thread may be in that some people are more concerned with portraying the past accurately because history should be venerated as a sacred subject, while others are much more casual and don't really care.

Anonymous wrote:And yes. If you are going to be so dogmatic about a black barrister in a fantasy film, then yeah, that comes off as more bigoted than anything.or at least it shows the privilege of your very white world in which you're so used to seeing only representations that you approve of and relate to

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It's fascinating how quickly people accuse others with differing views as bigoted and close-minded. Especially as to do so says far more about you than the other poster. How old are you? I find it's kids who have these very black and white views of how the world should be and scream bigotry and racism when someone else takes a more nuanced perspective. It's a bit of a shame as we could have a great discussion on how the past should be portrayed and the inappropriateness of casting different types of people in different historical roles but no, we must resort to childish name callings and typical adolescence style belittlement.

So you would be totally fine and non-judgmental if Disney made a movie with white actors playing Zulu warriors? I suppose to make it even more Hallmark-worthy we could come up with a story of a Boer baby being adopted by a Zulu tribe

look I'm 45. I'm not a kid. And we have been around and around on this thread about history, documentaries, and historically accurate films. We've discussed it. We've done it.

None of that changes the fact that at least in purely fictional fantasy films like Mary Poppins, racel blind asting is fine...

We've also discussed Hamilton as a historical artifact and that was dismissed by someone as well it doesn't count because it's theater. It's not as real as film.

people don't want to actually have a discussion about this topic. They want to make some kind of so-called gotcha point about casting white people as Zulu warriors which is a strawman representation of what the other side is saying.

In an industry that has largely ignored people of color and used History and accuracy as an excuse to exclude them, I don't think that the accuracy side has a good point.

Especially not when we are talking about art instead of a history book.

and people have ignored or dismissed the point about whether or not Emma Stone was distracting in aloha, or Tom Cruise in The last samurai, or Jared Leto in the Dallas buyers club. Why? Because apparently sexual orientation and gender identification and close enough ethnic casting can be ignored.

And you know what? Maybe if we ever get to a point in which we see a proportionate number of people of color in film and television, then maybe we'll be okay to play to have white people play those historical figures. But we are not there yet

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It's fascinating how quickly people accuse others with differing views as bigoted and close-minded. Especially as to do so says far more about you than the other poster. How old are you? I find it's kids who have these very black and white views of how the world should be and scream bigotry and racism when someone else takes a more nuanced perspective. It's a bit of a shame as we could have a great discussion on how the past should be portrayed and the inappropriateness of casting different types of people in different historical roles but no, we must resort to childish name callings and typical adolescence style belittlement.

So you would be totally fine and non-judgmental if Disney made a movie with white actors playing Zulu warriors? I suppose to make it even more Hallmark-worthy we could come up with a story of a Boer baby being adopted by a Zulu tribe

Anonymous wrote: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:

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.