Turning white characters black

Oreo

As long as it’s not ridiculous.

Difficult that.
Where would we draw the “ridiculous” line.

After all, we only have artists and historical records to show that Henry VIII was obese and not particularly good looking.

Think how many people would uncritically watch historical dramas about him if he was played by Idris Elba or Colin Firth or David Tennant or even Eddie Izzard.

Not at all ridiculous?
Or which of those would suit do you think?

Well I know where I’d draw the line.We know that Henry was six feet tall and ginger haired with light coloured eyes.He wasn’t always obese either and cut quite an attractive figure when younger.We know he was intelligent, spoke several languages well , danced and sang well, loved to be out hunting.
It wouldn’t be hard to find an actor who fitted the part today, and in the past the drama with Keith Michell ( think that was the name) did a good job.

Doodledog

Oreo can you let us know why you think it is 'fanciful', 'ridiculous' or 'nonsense' not to match every feature of an historical character to what we think they might have looked like, or is it a case of 'because you say so'?

Sigh

Where there is plenty of evidence as to what the person looked like what’s had about matching it.

Hard, as in difficult.

Oreo

Doodledog

Oreo can you let us know why you think it is 'fanciful', 'ridiculous' or 'nonsense' not to match every feature of an historical character to what we think they might have looked like, or is it a case of 'because you say so'?

Sigh

Helpful.

I was just asking. Most people have explained why they feel as they do, and not written the ideas of others off so dismissively.

Or at least a semblance so that people who may not have learnt any history at school (and it's not compulsory now) might not have the totally wrong impression of our past.

In other words, is it a good idea to re-write history?

For instance, landowner, officer in the Army, Sheriff and magistrate Nathaniel Wells was of Afro-Caribbean descent, the son of a slave. Would it be right to portray him as a white man in any film of his life or would that miss the whole point?

Likewise, many younger people might totally believe that Henry VIII was black if portrayed by Idris Elba, as some already believe that of Anne Boleyn.

However, portraying a fictional character such as James Bond is quite different. James Bond is not a real person, he's a generic person working for MI6. As he's portrayed as a womaniser too, it might be a stretch of the imagination if a woman played the part.

Doodledog

Oreo

Doodledog

Oreo can you let us know why you think it is 'fanciful', 'ridiculous' or 'nonsense' not to match every feature of an historical character to what we think they might have looked like, or is it a case of 'because you say so'?

Sigh

Helpful.

I was just asking. Most people have explained why they feel as they do, and not written the ideas of others off so dismissively.

If you hadn’t added the last snippy sentence I may have answered differently .

If we genuinely don’t have a scooby what the historical character looked like, then common sense will dictate a few clues.
Which country were they from? Ghengis Kahn wouldn’t have been a blonde six footer and so on.
As Allira says a semblance of reality.

Oreo

Where there is plenty of evidence as to what the person looked like what’s had about matching it.

There is nothing hard, just in today’s world it’s no longer seen as necessary or even desirable to be accurate if you can get more publicity by not doing so.

Very true Mollygo it’s become a topsy turvy world.

I'm not bothered either way - just interested in being told why people feel as they do, rather than seeing posters dismissed as fanciful and ridiculous with no explanation.

Doodledog

I'm not bothered either way - just interested in being told why people feel as they do, rather than seeing posters dismissed as fanciful and ridiculous with no explanation.

That is an untrue and unfair attack on Oreo.

Oreo has not told posters that they are fanciful and ridiculous.
She (or he) has said that the notions of those deciding it's a good idea to do so is fanciful and ridiculous.

Is that not the same thing? It wasn't an 'attack' - I just asked for clarification, which is (IMO) necessary for a discussion. How is anyone supposed to answer a point when a point is just that something is fanciful nonsense? It kills discussion.

Well, if you cannot tell the difference between calling something fanciful nonsense and calling posters fanciful and ridiculous then there's no point in me trying to explain it better.

History would not be dry as dust if Anne Boleyn was portrayed as she was.

Geneviève Bujold? Claire Foy? Both superb as Anne and certainly not dry as dust.

Historically accurate or hysterically wrong?

Allira

Or at least a semblance so that people who may not have learnt any history at school (and it's not compulsory now) might not have the totally wrong impression of our past.

In other words, is it a good idea to re-write history?

For instance, landowner, officer in the Army, Sheriff and magistrate Nathaniel Wells was of Afro-Caribbean descent, the son of a slave. Would it be right to portray him as a white man in any film of his life or would that miss the whole point?

Likewise, many younger people might totally believe that Henry VIII was black if portrayed by Idris Elba, as some already believe that of Anne Boleyn.

However, portraying a fictional character such as James Bond is quite different. James Bond is not a real person, he's a generic person working for MI6. As he's portrayed as a womaniser too, it might be a stretch of the imagination if a woman played the part.

Pupils study compulsory history until aged 14 (end of Y9)

Allira

Well, if you cannot tell the difference between calling something fanciful nonsense and calling posters fanciful and ridiculous then there's no point in me trying to explain it better.

History would not be dry as dust if Anne Boleyn was portrayed as she was.

Geneviève Bujold? Claire Foy? Both superb as Anne and certainly not dry as dust.

So Canadians are OK?

Why wouldn’t they be? Playing Anne Boleyn with a slight French accent would have been near the truth as she spent so long at the French Court.

Oreo

Why wouldn’t they be? Playing Anne Boleyn with a slight French accent would have been near the truth as she spent so long at the French Court.

Yes, she did have a slight French accent.

Oreo

Why wouldn’t they be? Playing Anne Boleyn with a slight French accent would have been near the truth as she spent so long at the French Court.

Not very authentic is it. Of course if the only thing that matters is skin colour.....

Oreo

Why wouldn’t they be? Playing Anne Boleyn with a slight French accent would have been near the truth as she spent so long at the French Court.

She has a Canadian accent.

In "Anne of the Thousand Days," Geneviève Bujold's portrayal of Anne Boleyn includes a subtle French accent, reflecting Anne's time spent in France and adding to the realism of her character

Allira

^In "Anne of the Thousand Days," Geneviève Bujold's portrayal of Anne Boleyn includes a subtle French accent, reflecting Anne's time spent in France and adding to the realism of her character^

French Canadians speak French but with a Canadian accent. Just like English speaking Canadians speak English with a Canadian accent. The vast majority of people can't tell the difference like American audiences probably thought Dick Van Dyke did a perfect cockney accent.

Let's be honest as the title says this is all about colour.