Turning white characters black

theworriedwell
Thanks for your answer.
Best in terms of acting skills or best in terms of the real people they are supposed to represent?

No thoughts on awful fake accents then.

theworriedwell

No thoughts on awful fake accents then.

What’s that about?

Mollygo

theworriedwell
Thanks for your answer.
Best in terms of acting skills or best in terms of the real people they are supposed to represent?

Best in the opinion of whoever is casting. Do you mean should they be exactly the right shade of brown? No I don't think that's the most important thing, no reason why someone mixed race couldn't play those parts. Rosa Parks would have been treated the same if she'd been mixed race, sometimes it's worse.

Mollygo it's a post I made about awful fake unnecessary accents as Helen Mirren is spoiling 1923 with hers, not just my opinion it's widely criticised and adds nothing to the story.

Rosa Parks was mixed race.
That’s a fact, therefore being played by a mixed race actress should be acceptable, though I’m not sure it would be.

I wonder how the black actresses in the two films I mentioned (both based on true stories) would feel if their parts were given to white actresses, because their acting skill were considered better.
Would they be justified in objecting and calling it racist?

Mollygo

Rosa Parks was mixed race.
That’s a fact, therefore being played by a mixed race actress should be acceptable, though I’m not sure it would be.

I wonder how the black actresses in the two films I mentioned (both based on true stories) would feel if their parts were given to white actresses, because their acting skill were considered better.
Would they be justified in objecting and calling it racist?

Well I wonder how Irish actresses feel about Helen Mirren playing Cara when they'd at least get the accent right.

theworriedwell
I have no idea either about the film or about the accent. I’ve only heard you mention it. Were there a lot of complaints? If there were, then the matter should certainly be addressed.

Based on how offensive you appear to find that, presumably you’d back the objections by the black actresses in the two films I mentioned (both based on true stories) if their parts were given to white actresses, because their acting skill were considered better.
Would they be justified in objecting and calling it racist

Mollygo

theworriedwell
I have no idea either about the film or about the accent. I’ve only heard you mention it. Were there a lot of complaints? If there were, then the matter should certainly be addressed.

Based on how offensive you appear to find that, presumably you’d back the objections by the black actresses in the two films I mentioned (both based on true stories) if their parts were given to white actresses, because their acting skill were considered better.
Would they be justified in objecting and calling it racist

It isn't a film.

I don't find it offensive but it is irritating particularly when it's done badly. Think of Dick Van Dyke as a cockney is the issue that he isn't a cockney or that the accent is so horrifically bad?

I think it is more like black face than it is to casting a black actor in a "white" role. Some of these "white" roles are people deciding characters are white like the 1962 book in the OP, I seriously doubt that the author has said they are all white but the fake bad accents are much more like someone thinking they can portray someone by putting on dark makeup or doing a silly voice.

I bet PD James would have said if one of her characters was black.

Again, accuracy. If Cover her Face was set in 1962 and the adaptation is set in the same period then it would be inaccurate to cast it with black characters. If the story adaptation has been updated to the present time then black and Asian characters would not be inappropriate.
But making Jane Seymour's sister Indian would never be accurate and spoils a production where so much attention has been paid to setting, costume and how the people deport themselves.

There were black and Indian people here in the 60s. What a bizarre idea that everyone was white.
My late fil came here in the 40s like many other black men kn the 40s.
We actually had some riots in areas with high immigrant populations in the 50s.
I had a black teacher in primary school in the 50s, do you think she should have been referred to as teacher or black teacher? To us she was just our teacher.
My husband was a black police officer in the 60s, the year he joined an Indian man also joined his force.

However you choose to view the 60s the fact is there were many nationalities and ethnicities living here, just living normal lives like the characters in the 1962 book. Unless there colour was relevant to the story why would it be mentioned?

The first black NHS matron was appointed in 1964, not long after that book.

As an absolute bookworm since a very young age, I see the charactors in my mind from the description in the book given by the author. My first time seeing Little Women by Louisa M Alcott on screen, was a horrible shock. The characters did not look like my imagining of them and I disagreed passionately with the looks of the one who played JO (the character I cared about most) . What upset me most was for a time when I thought of them , the tv characters took the place of my imagining. However I soon got my own people back and reading the book again to check, was positive that the tv had got it wrong!! So it taught me the lesson that I still use. I read the original book, and make up my own mind as to how characters look or behave . It is that direct contact from author to reader. That is the best, but it is fine for people to experiment and try out different things if they wish. Now it is good that disabled actors play disabled parts, and not having able bodied taking these parts. Mind you I still think the very best plays for both characters and scenery are on the radio!! I wish they would put more good plays on the radio. Many a winters horrible day spent the afternoon ironing or baking with the radio to keep me company. TV is brilliant to show wild life and gardens etc but if there is a choice of one it will be the radio for me.

As an absolute bookworm since a very young age, I see the characters in my mind from the description in the book given by the author.
And authors describe their characters to fit the role they play in the story.

Whitewavemark2

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?

This is as it should be in new dramas I think - also "ordinary" characters with disabilities who "just happen to be" disabled.

One of the forensic dramas had a scientist in a wheelchair for example. It wasn't part of the story but was nice to see. It would be better if I hadn't noticed it I suppose, whitewavemark!

One day we won't notice these things. 🤞

I do think that some historical dramas (not the frothy ones) based on truth and historical fact, ought to be accurate though in terms of ethnicity/disability etc.

If they are just made-up then I don't think it's relevant.

Allira

Lathyrus3

The Western world has been very happy for centuries with a fair, blue-eyed, Jesus.🤔

Not that it bothers me much. I was enchanted to see an Inuit Jesus calming the sea full of whales in a stained glass window in the Arctic.

Jesus was not Inuit.

He was Jewish.

Well, who knew.

Flippinheck

Allira

Lathyrus3

The Western world has been very happy for centuries with a fair, blue-eyed, Jesus.🤔

Not that it bothers me much. I was enchanted to see an Inuit Jesus calming the sea full of whales in a stained glass window in the Arctic.

Jesus was not Inuit.

He was Jewish.

Well, who knew.

I'm sorry if you hadn't realised.

Flippinheck

He was Jewish.

Well, who knew?

I did.
We don’t have paintings of Jesus, because all the artwork was produced long after he had died. So people tended to paint him to fit with their society. You only need to go to other countries and look at his portrayal.
On the other hand, historic paintings done while the person was still alive give an accurate representation of what they look like. Making them look different just to introduce diversity is weird, a bit like making Rosa Parks white.

NotSpaghetti

Whitewavemark2

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?

This is as it should be in new dramas I think - also "ordinary" characters with disabilities who "just happen to be" disabled.

One of the forensic dramas had a scientist in a wheelchair for example. It wasn't part of the story but was nice to see. It would be better if I hadn't noticed it I suppose, whitewavemark!

One day we won't notice these things. 🤞

If we start not noticing that a tv character is in a wheelchair then we would have to be blind.
Showing that people come in all shapes and sizes and colouring and with disabilities is one thing and is good, to pretend we don’t notice is just silly.

Oreo

NotSpaghetti

Whitewavemark2

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?

This is as it should be in new dramas I think - also "ordinary" characters with disabilities who "just happen to be" disabled.

One of the forensic dramas had a scientist in a wheelchair for example. It wasn't part of the story but was nice to see. It would be better if I hadn't noticed it I suppose, whitewavemark!

One day we won't notice these things. 🤞

If we start not noticing that a tv character is in a wheelchair then we would have to be blind.
Showing that people come in all shapes and sizes and colouring and with disabilities is one thing and is good, to pretend we don’t notice is just silly.

Silent Witness was far-fetched anyway, so anything was possible in that series.

Liz Carr was good, though.

Oh yes, Allira - that was the one, Silent Witness
I couldn't remember the name.

...but I shouldn't have said not to notice a wheelchair (or that someone is skinny or large or has only one arm), but for it to not be relevant in any way to the story.

Then we would see more people represented.

The reason that Liz Carr was good in that role was that she showed that it’s possible to have a disabled actor playing a disabled character without having to invent a special role for them. The series needed a forensic scientist character to assist in investigations and she could play that role.
It didn’t feel as though she was on a diversity tick list, which appears to happen on some programs and ads. She left the series to broaden her acting career.
What would have been wrong is if they’d simply replaced her with another actor/actress with a disability.

I agree about a 'diversity tick list' Mollygo. It's very obvious especially in quiz shows and panel games.