Turning white characters black

You’ve hit the nail on the head when you say ‘it was written in 1962’.

Precisely.

Over 60 years later, the addition of black and gay characters is deemed advisable to make it more relevant to today’s viewing public, I suppose.

For those of us who have read the books and formed our own vision of the ‘cast’, it can jar a bit.

I don't mind more fictional characters being played by black actors . But I do object when it happens to real people who we know were white. For example Anne Boleyn. And we recently watched a film in which Agatha Christie's husband was black (he wasn't!)
As you say, there would be uproar if someone like Nelson Mandela was played by a white actor

It's confusing for me. When a white person is
made black in literature say, you have to re examine all the themes of the original novel. It often doesn't work due to society at that time. The context is completely different.

Do you care if an actor has different coloured hair from your idea of the hair colour of the character s/he is playing? I don’t think it matters at all. As often as not we have portraits, not photos to go on (and those of Anne Boleyn were destroyed on her death) so only a rough idea of their appearance, anyway.

I don’t think skin colour is the most important thing about a person unless the story revolves around it. So a film about Nelson Mandela would need a black man in the role, but one about Anne Boleyn could cast colour blind.

Sorry Doodledog I completely disagree. I'm with the OP on this. It's irritating to say the least and deeply patronising.

Agree with eddiecat but I also think it's just another example of pandering to the p.c. brigade.

Actually it does jar a bit when a character’s hair colour is changed for no good reason. For example we have a blond Cathy in the new film of Wuthering Heights when Bronte’s Cathy had brown hair. Why?

Because the colour of Cathy’s hair is not important?

I don’t understand why it’s patronising. Eric Bana, Ray Winstone and others have played Henry V111 with brown hair (Bana’s was dark) when H8’s was red, but nobody cried ‘woke’. Is it just skin tone that bothers people, and if so, why?

It's changing the ethnicity of a character that jars. It's beyond hairy colour.

Hair

If there is a specific description or lifetime situation in the book, or if it’s about a real person then I think it should be adhered to in the film.
So no white Nelson Mandela, No white reproduction of Roots.
No black actor portraying a pasty faced, lank haired character.
The main character in 12 Years a Slave, was a mixed race American. Should he be portrayed by someone predominantly the white part of his mixed race?
History is how it was.

I think it’s an ‘agree to differ’ thing. I’m never going to agree that it’s important and you won’t agree that it’s not .

To me it’s similar to (but different from) when you see a stage performance of (eg) Romeo and Juliet, and it’s set in NI during the troubles. I enjoy that sort of thing, but others don’t. Just preference, really.

I agree with Doodlebug, it was ridiculous Anne Boleyn was played by a black actress when she was a white person. There would be total uproar if a black historical figure was played by a white actor or actress. As Spinnaker says it's pandering to the PC brigade.

I suppose the counter argument would be how many times has Othello been played by a white actor, or indeed to see a film such as Lawrence of Arabia, where some of the Arabic warlords, Omar Sharif aside, were played by white men.I think casting for such roles is more authentic now, except there has been a reverse situation, where I think it can give a distorted version of the racial make up of Britain back in times when it was overwhelmingly white. I remember having a conversation with a black friend something along the lines of "there would have been a small black presence in Britain throughout history", her reply was "a lot were transitory and their numbers were miniscule in relation to the general population" Possibly more concentrated around dock areas, where Somali seamen for example settled, before the arrival of the Windrush generation.

I think you are disagreeing with me actually . Which is fine, but just to put the record straight I don’t care if a black actress plays Anne Boleyn.

dismissing this as pandering to the pc brigade ignores the way in which people of colour were often invisible in popular culture
Their genuine involvement often not reflected in film. Look at the idiot Laurence Fox who was outraged at the presence of an Indian soldier in 1918. Fox seemed ignorant of the involvement of soldiers from what were then British colonies in fighting for the allies, for Britain.

It matters that Othello is black though. That’s the point - he is different and insecure because of that difference. He is also resented because of his race.

It’s when race doesn’t come into it that I think colour-blind casting is fine. Which is most of the time, really.

To me the danger is that young people or those who don’t know much about history will take these depictions at face value, and assume that a black person was treated equally in, say, Tudor times, or that Agatha Christie’s black husband fitted seamlessly into 1920s Devon society. This wouldn’t have been the case, so we’re giving completely the wrong impression about black history. I’d rather see more true to life mainstream productions about people such as Mary Seacole or Viv Anderson.

Yes absolutely Indian and soldiers of other ethnic make up were a presence in both world wars. Clearly Lawrence Fox didn't learn enough at his public school.

Maggiemaybe

To me the danger is that young people or those who don’t know much about history will take these depictions at face value, and assume that a black person was treated equally in, say, Tudor times, or that Agatha Christie’s black husband fitted seamlessly into 1920s Devon society. This wouldn’t have been the case, so we’re giving completely the wrong impression about black history. I’d rather see more true to life mainstream productions about people such as Mary Seacole or Viv Anderson.

Exactly my earlier thoughts. Historically.

But I'm happy if others want to fiddle a bit with the truth for the sake of experimenting with the Arts.

I don’t care for historical characters who were known to be white, portrayed as black or brown.
Not long ago we saw a production of Shakespeare’s Richard III, where Richard was not only played by a black actor, but also a female one.
Just for the sake of it, it would seem - though IMO it was a pretty dismal production anyway.

I don’t mind admitting that I almost immediately ordered a classic DVD version, starring Laurence Olivier.

I long for the day when this sort of conversation never happens, because we no longer see colour, but just the person.

How good would that be?

At one time a character’s colour or sexuality defined their story, so when there was a black or gay character in a story it was about racism or HIV/homophobia. That has changed now, so they are people first and race, sexuality or disability etc are one facet of them, not the defining one.

I would like to see that becoming more widespread. Obviously a role such as The Elephant Man can’t be played by a handsome actor without prosthetics, as that is the point of the story, but there is no reason why all characters in drama have to be good looking.

I agree that there should be more stories about black history (although they are more common now) but when a story is just about people I don’t see skin tone as important.

The one that sat really at odds with me was David Gyasi playing Achilles in Troy. No-one actually knows what colour hair or skin Achilles is supposed to have had, but Homer described him as “golden” and that has been the generally accepted view of his appearance but it could have meant something else entirely. I like David Gyasi - he’s a wonderful actor - but, though he played the part very well, he will never be Achilles for me.