Anne Boleyn

It's Art. Art doesn't have to be representational.

Have you objected to the hundreds of white actors who've played Othello?

Maybe the casting director saw the actors talent before the colour of her skin? Hardly trying to change history, rather a case of diversity, inclusion and embracing the talents of everyone.

No one is trying to remove anything from British history - it's just artistic/creative license.

Everyone knows that Anne Boleyn was white and it remains to be seen whether this actor can pull it off and bring something new to the role.

You have to suspend belief with any theatrical performance - particularly ballet and opera; even a stage play has to convince you that they really are the characters not just a bunch of people up there on stage, when in reality that's what they are.

I think “colour blind “ casting has to be here to stay. Sometimes it adds an extra dimension to a classic - like the excellent RSC Julius Caesar set in a black African republic a few years ago or the black Hamlet with Paapa Essiedu I saw two years ago at the Hackney Empire, also RSC.
Other times it is just that - “ colour blind” - and we need to look behind the colour of an actors skin. Do we expect a native Dane to play Hamlet? Does Macbeth to be Scottish? Of course not. It’s called acting.
Actually I hate the “blacking up” that has in the past been deemed necessary for Othello and can’t wait to see a white Othello and a black Iago.

If Benedict Cumberbatch announced he was playing Martin Luther-King there would be hell to pay.

From an artistic point of view there would be no reason why he couldn't, if there was fair dibs for black actors in the arts.

But as we know the vast majority of roles go to white actors so if a real life character is black then in the current circumstances it would need to go to a black actor to help even things up a bit.

Sarnia decades ago westerns and biblical productions, to name just two types of films, were full of white American actors . Did you feel the same questions back then?

It is nothing new. Or is this really the first time you have been aware?

Ask not feel!

In Bridgerton the characters were played by actors of many different ethnicities taking absolutely no account of the role they were playing. It didn't make the slightest difference to the enjoyment of the programme. In fact, it made it more interesting.

Its threads like this that restore my faith in GNers

Alegrias1

Its threads like this that restore my faith in GNers

I was going to post something similar myself.
So far it's a unanimous 'yes' to a black Boleyn. Brilliant!
(I hope I haven't spoken to soon.)

But there is surely a difference between playing a fictional character and an actual historical figure? Is she the only black actor in the production? It might not seem so odd if the entire cast comprised different races. There are many, many plays where the ethnicity of the cast makes no difference at all but I think real people are different. Look at The Tudors - "Let's not have an obese, red headed, Henry VIII" That went well didn't it?

And we're off......

I loved The Tudors.

Alegrias1

And we're off......

I loved The Tudors.

Oops. Sorry. My fault

Not as good as the hyper realism of The Windsors though!

It's always good to have threads like this and it's why I always have a quick look at GN before walking the dog. We all need to have our prejudices challenged and be open to different views, it's even better if we are also prepared to change our view if faced with some good reasons! Off to walk the dog and have a think!

You show me a good reason foxie48 and I'll change my mind.

Enjoy your walk

Some really good answers on this thread, made me feel better about Gransnet than I have recently.

Is it on yet!

I’ll be really interested to see how the director works this. Is he going for “colourblind. Is she the only black actor in the cast? Is he going to use that to highlight Anne Boleyn’s ‘different’ look that was so fascinating to some and repellent to others? How she turned her ‘blemishes’ to advantage.
The verbal abuse she had to suffer.

I think there’s some real artistic possibilities there. I just love it when a director takes something so well known and makes you see it through fresh eyes,

Like all 'art' we're entitled to differing opinions or to ignore it completely.
The Henry VIII story with his 6 wives has been done to death already. Surely time to look at other historical figures. This new one with a black Anne Boleyn smacks of sensationalism for the sake of it.
Just not interested.

Until I've seen it I won't know if the casting has been deliberate, and therefore can't know if it works or not. Is all of the Boleyn family black and everyone else white, or is it just Anne who is black? Is their blackness to represent a faction, or is it just random?

Without knowing things like this, how can we know if it is effective or not? In any case it is not 'changing history'?. I assume that the OP isn't suggesting that the dialogue should be in 16th century English with smatterings of French, in order to be 'authentic'?

Nothing we do today will change history. History has happened. What we can do, and have always done, is to reinterpret how history is understood and explained.

The Tudor dynasty is one of the most represented historical periods on TV and in film. Over the years that representation has shifted from 'Bluff King Hal' to Henry as a narcissistic tyrant. Now it is thought that he may have had a blood disorder called Kell positive, which caused the miscarriages of the babies lost by his wives (the syndrome does not affect firstborn children, but will kill subsequent ones if the mother's blood does not 'match' that of the father). Kell positivity can also cause McLeod Syndrome, which can lead to psychotic behaviour, obesity and problems with limbs. Previously it was thought that he may have had syphillis, or that his temper was a result of a fall from a horse.

None of that is 'changing history' - it is adding to our understanding as our knowledge develops.

Totally agree. The best man for the job. - So to speak.?

Doodledog

Until I've seen it I won't know if the casting has been deliberate, and therefore can't know if it works or not. Is all of the Boleyn family black and everyone else white, or is it just Anne who is black? Is their blackness to represent a faction, or is it just random?

Without knowing things like this, how can we know if it is effective or not? In any case it is not 'changing history'?. I assume that the OP isn't suggesting that the dialogue should be in 16th century English with smatterings of French, in order to be 'authentic'?

Nothing we do today will change history. History has happened. What we can do, and have always done, is to reinterpret how history is understood and explained.

The Tudor dynasty is one of the most represented historical periods on TV and in film. Over the years that representation has shifted from 'Bluff King Hal' to Henry as a narcissistic tyrant. Now it is thought that he may have had a blood disorder called Kell positive, which caused the miscarriages of the babies lost by his wives (the syndrome does not affect firstborn children, but will kill subsequent ones if the mother's blood does not 'match' that of the father). Kell positivity can also cause McLeod Syndrome, which can lead to psychotic behaviour, obesity and problems with limbs. Previously it was thought that he may have had syphillis, or that his temper was a result of a fall from a horse.

None of that is 'changing history' - it is adding to our understanding as our knowledge develops.

That's interesting. I didn't know about Kell positive.

But Mary survived and she was a subsequent child.

I think syphilis was ruled out for Henry a long time ago. None of his wives or children showed signs of it and his doctors left no record of treatment for it.

I do love The Windsors! Poor William wanting to be the super hero helicopter pilot, Kate the gypsy princess, Camilla the evil stepmother and of course Princess Anne!!! Not to mention Beatrice and Eugenie. Shame they've all grown up and got married now.

That's interesting. I didn't know about Kell positive.
I agree that it's fascinating, and it gives an entirely different perspective on his relationship with Anne, who has often been seen as scheming and manipulative. If this (the Kell thing) is true, historians will revise their views of her (as many are doing already) and Anne's reputation will change as a result.

In the context of the thread, it shows that 'changing history' is not a negative concept, even though for many it is seen as such.