Disgust - The Reform party Racist Sarah Pochlin

Fiction is not accurate at all, and much of history is fiction based around actual events.

It wasn’t about race Doodledg, but her physical appearance was very much part of her story and the reason she was both desired and castigated as a witch.

I guess you could argue that it would then be appropriate to cast someone who may have experienced both of those.

But I think historical people, who were real people with their own stories, should be respected and should be portrayed as closely as possible to who they were.

I suppose the further they are from the present the less important it seems and yet it still concerns some of us. Hence the Richard III Society and it’s fight to eradicate his inaccurate image.

It’s a matter of authenticity and respect.

so there was not, IMO, a problem with anyone in the cast being black.
No problem, though spurious, in that respect at all IMO, but what I'm trying to say is that forced diversity is not a good thing. That it is contrived.

Many of the black actresses we see on the London stage are brought in from abroad. Some are home grown and educated, but on the whole, these are fewer because the cost of achieving the necessary qualifications here is prohibitive. Most drama schools charge around £20k a year to do a BA (Hons).
I have been told that several of the black wives in Six had successful careers like doctors or lawyers before they were casted, so they are hardly representative of the UK black community who can't afford a place at Drama School. I think we have to be careful what direction this is going in, especially in the theatre. It's searching out talent from elsewhere in order to meet the black quota (though of course no producer is going to admit to that).

Why people have to see racism in every comment they disagree with, beats me.

As someone with a History degree, I can assure you that any piece of "History" has many versions claimed as "true" by the person writing them, beyond the record of established dates and so on.

Depending on the views and research of the person writing the history. Constant new research still uncovers new aspects, and some historians only write from a selective point of view.

Its one of the first things we learnt while studying it.

(Sorry that was to Aveline
"Apart from glaring unaccuracy"

I think we can agree tho that Anne Boleyn wasn’t black!
Real historical figures should be authentically presented otherwise it makes a nonsense of their stories.

Oreo

I think we can agree tho that Anne Boleyn wasn’t black!
Real historical figures should be authentically presented otherwise it makes a nonsense of their stories.

👍🏻

Wyllow3

As someone with a History degree, I can assure you that any piece of "History" has many versions claimed as "true" by the person writing them, beyond the record of established dates and so on.

Depending on the views and research of the person writing the history. Constant new research still uncovers new aspects, and some historians only write from a selective point of view.

Its one of the first things we learnt while studying it.

Oh yes, of course history is written by the winners.

But sometimes, with care and persuasion, the losers find a voice.

Doodledog

Lathyrus3

A drama about Nelson Mandela would be about “universal themes” of injustice, oppression, triumph over adversity.

All universal themes.

So your argument that this is what makes it acceptable for any actor to take on a role also applies here.

No, it would be about Apartheid, which was a system based entirely on race. It would be entirely pointless to ignore that in a portrayal of Nelson Mandela.

The story of Henry VIII and his wives was not about race, so there was not, IMO, a problem with anyone in the cast being black.

The cast of Six? If so then I agree as it’s set in modern times.
If it was a tv drama on the same subject and set in the real time which was Tudor then it does matter.Which is why the actor cast as Boleyn was all wrong.Why not go the whole hog and cast Henry in the same way?
Some things do matter.Historical accuracy as far as is possible for a start.

Oreo

I think we can agree tho that Anne Boleyn wasn’t black!
Real historical figures should be authentically presented otherwise it makes a nonsense of their stories.

This!!

People who only learn their history from TV dramas (and there will be more in the future as History is not a compulsory subject at GCSE level) will have a skewed idea of history.

Why people have to see racism in every comment they disagree with, beats me.
I don't know if that was directed at me, but as you quoted from my post in yours I will respond - I don't.

I don't think it would be racist to cast Anne as black, white or anything else. I think her skin colour is irrelevant to the story, which is my point. As I said upthread, Six is hardly a documentary about the wives - it is a musical which updates the story and sets it in a singing competition. Nothing about it pretends to be 'authentic', so why the fixation on skin colour?

The only comment I have made about racism on this thread was about Sarah Pochlin saying that seeing people of colour in adverts drives her mad. My other comments (on representation in drama) all say that skin colour is sometimes relevant and sometimes not, but when race is incidental to a story it is no more important than hair or eye colour.

Lathyrus, Anne's appearance is largely unknown, as Henry had all likenesses of her destroyed. She was reputedly a beauty, but not in the conventional sense of the day, but we don't know much more than that. I'm not suggesting she was black, but saying that her appearance is important to how she is portrayed doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

None of this is what SP was getting at, though, which was that she is driven mad by seeing people of colour in adverts, and I can't see any other way of looking at that than that it is racist.

Allira

Wyllow3

As someone with a History degree, I can assure you that any piece of "History" has many versions claimed as "true" by the person writing them, beyond the record of established dates and so on.

Depending on the views and research of the person writing the history. Constant new research still uncovers new aspects, and some historians only write from a selective point of view.

Its one of the first things we learnt while studying it.

Oh yes, of course history is written by the winners.

But sometimes, with care and persuasion, the losers find a voice.

Indeed! I loved studying social and Economic History, because either was just that, in the UK, the History of the Womens vote, the history of railways, the histories of Child Factory, the Luddites, the history of the Married women's property act.... legislation, the history of free education, the history of health and pensions, the History of Banking, the history of the Trade Union and WEA movement, the whole lot - fascinating. Studying original documents from these groups

Although her portraits were destroyed there are a number of written accounts about her appearance, some friendly, some otherwise, by her contemporaries, including overseas ambassadors as well as family and court members.

So although visually we have little to work on, we do have a good idea of her prominent features and the physical impressions that she made on different people.

Which was a very strong one, both for and against.

So although I can accept a sort of artist licence that might say, in that case, casting a black person would be appropriate ( mirroring those reactions) I still maintain that in a historical drama it would be vital to cast her as accurately as possible.

Six is just a silly production 🙄

Why people have to see racism in every comment they disagree with, beats me.
I don't know if that was directed at me, but as you quoted from my post in yours I will respond - I don't.
Not at all. I purposely left a gap before adding my final thoughts. They were unrelated to anything you said.

Lathyrus3

Although her portraits were destroyed there are a number of written accounts about her appearance, some friendly, some otherwise, by her contemporaries, including overseas ambassadors as well as family and court members.

So although visually we have little to work on, we do have a good idea of her prominent features and the physical impressions that she made on different people.

Which was a very strong one, both for and against.

So although I can accept a sort of artist licence that might say, in that case, casting a black person would be appropriate ( mirroring those reactions) I still maintain that in a historical drama it would be vital to cast her as accurately as possible.

Six is just a silly production 🙄

But Lathyrus, this was a Musical, not a historically accurate drama or even novel with accurate notes and references!

Wyllow3

Lathyrus3

Although her portraits were destroyed there are a number of written accounts about her appearance, some friendly, some otherwise, by her contemporaries, including overseas ambassadors as well as family and court members.

So although visually we have little to work on, we do have a good idea of her prominent features and the physical impressions that she made on different people.

Which was a very strong one, both for and against.

So although I can accept a sort of artist licence that might say, in that case, casting a black person would be appropriate ( mirroring those reactions) I still maintain that in a historical drama it would be vital to cast her as accurately as possible.

Six is just a silly production 🙄

But Lathyrus, this was a Musical, not a historically accurate drama or even novel with accurate notes and references!

Yes, just a silly production 🙄

As a musician, DD enjoyed it at face value not as a historical story.
Her father would not! 😲

I want really thinking of Six, Wyllow. Like I said it’s just silly, so they can do whatever they like as far as I’m concerned.

I am bothered by deliberate historical inaccuracies though. Not just in terms of race. I’d be bothered by a Henry who was a very short, thin and physically weak person. It’s no use pretending that a persons physical attributes don’t influence the way they are perceived and treated and that, in turn, provides a motivation for how they act. It’s part of their whole story.

escaped

^Why people have to see racism in every comment they disagree with, beats me.^
I don't know if that was directed at me, but as you quoted from my post in yours I will respond - I don't.
Not at all. I purposely left a gap before adding my final thoughts. They were unrelated to anything you said.

Ah, ok. 😊

Dreadful woman, of course her comments were racist.

At one time, black and brown faces were hardly ever seen on TV (and, even then, often only in stereotypical, negative ways). I don't remember loads of white people rising up and complaining about it.

It makes me mad to see Reform MPs on TV so much when they are less than 1% of MPs…..

To be fair, many years ago there was far less of the type of TV and advertising we have now. It wasn't 24/7, there wasn't reality TV, it was more selective, and those in the business then were all white, middle class.
Thankfully things have evolved, and tv ads and programmes are now more representative of society.
The only drawback I can see is if this representation were to exceed the acceptable limit in order to make a point, and if authenticity became distorted.

I take it none of you have been to and enjoyed SIX?
If you have GCs who are in dance shows, then you'll know how lively the music is.
What about Hamilton?
Very popular with youngsters.
It's about the Founding Fathers.
Very often one of the leads is black.
Does a young audience care?
Nope.

I don't think authenticity has ever been a requirement for successful advertising and surely the employment of actors should be based on talent and ability rather than skin colour unless of course it's key to the plot.
IMO very few people seem to understand what racism is, hence it gets called out when it's clearly not! There's a difference between prejudice and racism, one is linked to power and one is not. In a white hegemony like the UK, white people can suffer all sorts of prejudice and disadvantage but racism isn't one of them. That's not my opinion btw, it's fact.

Maremia

I take it none of you have been to and enjoyed SIX?
If you have GCs who are in dance shows, then you'll know how lively the music is.
What about Hamilton?
Very popular with youngsters.
It's about the Founding Fathers.
Very often one of the leads is black.
Does a young audience care?
Nope.

I go to every show I'm offered tickets for, (family in the business!). I'm off to see the Lion King again with DGC at the end of the week. Seeing as it's set in the African Savannah I'd be very surprised if the cast isn't 90% black! Although of course they are animals! The set, lighting and props cover the authentic side, but when white actors are in the show, they do not sing with African accents, and they do not have their faces painted black. Things have come a long way, and the arts are very sensitive to that too.

IMO very few people seem to understand what racism is, hence it gets called out when it's clearly not!
It would be good to remember this. The word gets wrongly called out more and more often, and thrown around just as an insult. We all need to be more discerning.