Anne Boleyn

When I saw a clip I thought it might be to represent the fact that Anne was seen as foreign and a bit exotic as she had grown up in France and wore French fashion. The black actress is a visual signal of that "otherness" if you see what I mean. Maybe I was thinking too much.

I guess that the casting director chose the actress for her ability rather than bothering about the colour of her skin.
Well I hope it's that, rather than trying to prove a point.

Everything should be left in its place. I love Porgy and Bess, but for God's sake leave things as they are. I wouldn't want to see white actors in their place.

sickening

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the wee donkey....

When I saw that advertised, I KNEW there would be complaints on Gransnet.

It isn't real. It's an adaptation. Give over with the racism.

It's now the way of the world Sarnia and personally I find it quite sickening----all this appeasement, mustn't upset anyone, or else !

Very interesting article Doodledog. ?

That posted too soon, and of course we can't edit ?

This is the relevant paragraph from the article:
"Although the fact that Henry and Katherine of Aragon's firstborn did not survive is somewhat atypical, it is possible that some cases of Kell sensitization affect even the first pregnancy," the report notes. The survival of Mary, the fifth pregnancy for Katherine of Aragon, fits the Kell scenario if Mary inherited the recessive Kell gene from Henry, resulting in a healthy infant."

Thanks ?

There are times and places for "Art" but it seems to me that "Art" is attempting to trump "History". For those watching TV for entertainment and education this is all becoming rather confusing. Are you saying that what we see on the screen needs to be filtered: "Is this art or is it history?" Are you saying that whatever we see on screen is open to interpretation? Is this one of the reasons why society is becoming increasingly divided? Life is surely already puzzling enough!

Peasblossom

But Mary survived and she was a subsequent child.

That is discussed here

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303153114.htm

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.

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.

But Mary survived and she was a subsequent child.

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.

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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

Enjoy your walk

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!

Alegrias1

And we're off......

I loved The Tudors.

Oops. Sorry. My fault

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

And we're off......

I loved The Tudors.

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?