|
Post by tdk on May 12, 2022 18:34:33 GMT 1
To answer your question about minority lead roles, almost certainly these groups are vastly over-represented on television. Should people feel threatened by that? Probably not. There are enough areas in our society where minority groups are significantly under-represented; Parliament, in boardrooms, sport management roles - but I think it's a fair and legitimate observation that rather than trying to reverse historical imbalances where they've existed, there is an endless pursuit of 'over-correction' in an age where most of the inequalities and barriers that were previously in place have long been dismantled. No problem at all with that. What I dislike is when it is applied to historical drama.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 12, 2022 21:26:45 GMT 1
To answer your question about minority lead roles, almost certainly these groups are vastly over-represented on television. Should people feel threatened by that? Probably not. There are enough areas in our society where minority groups are significantly under-represented; Parliament, in boardrooms, sport management roles - but I think it's a fair and legitimate observation that rather than trying to reverse historical imbalances where they've existed, there is an endless pursuit of 'over-correction' in an age where most of the inequalities and barriers that were previously in place have long been dismantled. No problem at all with that. What I dislike is when it is applied to historical drama. That's interesting, why's that? There have been black people in Britain and Europe for centuries, so there's no reason why black actors shouldn't be cast. But I thought we didn't notice colour in our non-racial society? Are we really incapable of seeing beyond an actor's colour? They're pretending to be someone else, regardless of whether it's historical or contemporary drama, so what's the problem? Would you object if they were the wrong height, had the wrong hair or eye colour, were too fat or too thin? They don't speak like the historical character would have spoken either - is that a problem? I just don't see how someone can say "skin colour doesn't bother me, except when ......." and think that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 12, 2022 21:57:23 GMT 1
Loved Minder, TV highlight of the week when I was about 14. if I'm invited on desert island discs , I think a box collection of minder dvds in the Dennis waterman era would be my choice, hopefully I could take something to watch them on too etc ;-) having posted this, I'm off to itv hub to watch an episode
|
|
|
Post by tdk on May 12, 2022 22:05:37 GMT 1
I agree that black people have been around in Europe for ever, but I am also aware that the numbers in the UK were limited. Just that as an historian it spoils the film for me, in the same way that Robin Hood used landing craft. Or Braveheart's Scots learnt to use pikes in an afternoon.
Not a question of racism, I like my historical film's to have some accuracy. It would spoil it for me if a white person played e.g. Martin Luther King or were the slaves on Roots.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 12, 2022 22:21:37 GMT 1
I agree that black people have been around in Europe for ever, but I am also aware that the numbers in the UK were limited. Just that as an historian it spoils the film for me, in the same way that Robin Hood used landing craft. Or Braveheart's Scots learnt to use pikes in an afternoon. Not a question of racism, I like my historical film's to have some accuracy. It would spoil it for me if a white person played e.g. Martin Luther King or were the slaves on Roots. I hate anything that is far fetched ( like a car rolling off a cliff exploding ) unless its meant to be far fetched ( green mile for example ), something like kill bill does my head in, she would have been cored beef in real life , not actually watched Braveheart and I dont know why, you put it on the back burners back burner now ;-)
|
|
|
Post by tdk on May 12, 2022 22:33:49 GMT 1
I agree that black people have been around in Europe for ever, but I am also aware that the numbers in the UK were limited. Just that as an historian it spoils the film for me, in the same way that Robin Hood used landing craft. Or Braveheart's Scots learnt to use pikes in an afternoon. Not a question of racism, I like my historical film's to have some accuracy. It would spoil it for me if a white person played e.g. Martin Luther King or were the slaves on Roots. I hate anything that is far fetched ( like a car rolling off a cliff exploding ) unless its meant to be far fetched ( green mile for example ), something like kill bill does my head in, she would have been cored beef in real life , not actually watched Braveheart and I dont know why, you put it on the back burners back burner now ;-) In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times. In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit". PS gone off topic a bit, fan of Denis Waterman but thought he was outshone by George Cole in Minder and John Shaw in The Sweeney
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 12, 2022 22:46:01 GMT 1
I hate anything that is far fetched ( like a car rolling off a cliff exploding ) unless its meant to be far fetched ( green mile for example ), something like kill bill does my head in, she would have been cored beef in real life , not actually watched Braveheart and I dont know why, you put it on the back burners back burner now ;-) In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times. In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted in the film and the title changed to "William Wallace and Gromit". PS gone off topic a bit, fan of Denis Waterman but thought he was outshone by George Cole in Minder and John Shaw in The Sweeney im not so sure, was minder ever the same after he left ?, I say no way, and I have never really considered who was better in the Sweeney
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on May 13, 2022 9:25:27 GMT 1
No problem at all with that. What I dislike is when it is applied to historical drama. That's interesting, why's that? There have been black people in Britain and Europe for centuries, so there's no reason why black actors shouldn't be cast. But I thought we didn't notice colour in our non-racial society? Are we really incapable of seeing beyond an actor's colour? They're pretending to be someone else, regardless of whether it's historical or contemporary drama, so what's the problem? Would you object if they were the wrong height, had the wrong hair or eye colour, were too fat or too thin? They don't speak like the historical character would have spoken either - is that a problem?I just don't see how someone can say "skin colour doesn't bother me, except when ......." and think that's fine. The whole idea of the arts is that it implores you to lose your sense of reality. We're simultaneously being conditioned to accept that a black person can play the role of Queen Victoria in a TV drama, because of 'artistic licence' but we've made it increasingly uncomfortable for an actor or actress to play a minority rights role - for example Eddie Redmayne after his performance in 'Danish Girl' felt the need to come out and apologise for being casted in the role of a trans character. I'd expect that if the Stephen Hawking biopic was to be released today that Redmayne as an able-bodied man would probably have to forfeit the role. If we get this world that people seemingly want - a black person has to play a black character, a Jewish character can only be played by a Jew etc then I think the game has probably gone hasn't it? And I'd argue it probably has already with all the endless reboots and zero creativity in cinematography these days. And in answer to your question in the passage I've highlighted; having read the Jack Reacher books several years ago, the Alan Ritchson depiction of Reacher in the recent Netflix series - albeit a very wooden and clumsy one - was far more accurate than when 5"7 Tom Cruise was cast in the role for the big screen adaption. Do you think it's fine to make that observation and if so then can the same observation not be made about a character who is depicted as being completely different to the historical/literary figure on the basis of being the wrong race. gender or sexuality?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 13, 2022 13:32:57 GMT 1
That's interesting, why's that? There have been black people in Britain and Europe for centuries, so there's no reason why black actors shouldn't be cast. But I thought we didn't notice colour in our non-racial society? Are we really incapable of seeing beyond an actor's colour? They're pretending to be someone else, regardless of whether it's historical or contemporary drama, so what's the problem? Would you object if they were the wrong height, had the wrong hair or eye colour, were too fat or too thin? They don't speak like the historical character would have spoken either - is that a problem?I just don't see how someone can say "skin colour doesn't bother me, except when ......." and think that's fine. The whole idea of the arts is that it implores you to lose your sense of reality. We're simultaneously being conditioned to accept that a black person can play the role of Queen Victoria in a TV drama, because of 'artistic licence' but we've made it increasingly uncomfortable for an actor or actress to play a minority rights role - for example Eddie Redmayne after his performance in 'Danish Girl' felt the need to come out and apologise for being casted in the role of a trans character. I'd expect that if the Stephen Hawking biopic was to be released today that Redmayne as an able-bodied man would probably have to forfeit the role. If we get this world that people seemingly want - a black person has to play a black character, a Jewish character can only be played by a Jew etc then I think the game has probably gone hasn't it? And I'd argue it probably has already with all the endless reboots and zero creativity in cinematography these days. And in answer to your question in the passage I've highlighted; having read the Jack Reacher books several years ago, the Alan Ritchson depiction of Reacher in the recent Netflix series - albeit a very wooden and clumsy one - was far more accurate than when 5"7 Tom Cruise was cast in the role for the big screen adaption. Do you think it's fine to make that observation and if so then can the same observation not be made about a character who is depicted as being completely different to the historical/literary figure on the basis of being the wrong race. gender or sexuality? You seem to contradict your opening statement in the rest of your post. If you accept an artistic interpretation doesn't have to be grounded in reality, why would you take issue with an actor having any particular skin colour? In western societies, the acting profession has been dominated by a white, able bodied, heterosexual, "Christian" majority. I think the argument about actors from that background not taking on minority roles, such as Redmayne's transgender character, is that it perpetuates that dominance and denies an opportunity for a transgender actor to take on the role. Where there's an absence of equal opportunities it surely can't be wrong to ask that actors from a minority background at least get to play those parts representing their own minority. Adaptations of books often disappoint the fans of those books. Sometimes it's just that the film's visualisation doesn't match their own, sometimes it's that parts of the book necessarily have to be cut, sometimes that the film reinterprets details in a different way. The point is that a film or TV adaptation is a separate artistic endeavour and most viewers won't have read the book anyway. They need to be judged as separate pieces of work. By the way, I'd argue there's at least as much creativity as there has ever been, if you spend time away from the mainstream for your cultural fixes.
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on May 13, 2022 14:59:28 GMT 1
The whole idea of the arts is that it implores you to lose your sense of reality. We're simultaneously being conditioned to accept that a black person can play the role of Queen Victoria in a TV drama, because of 'artistic licence' but we've made it increasingly uncomfortable for an actor or actress to play a minority rights role - for example Eddie Redmayne after his performance in 'Danish Girl' felt the need to come out and apologise for being casted in the role of a trans character. I'd expect that if the Stephen Hawking biopic was to be released today that Redmayne as an able-bodied man would probably have to forfeit the role. If we get this world that people seemingly want - a black person has to play a black character, a Jewish character can only be played by a Jew etc then I think the game has probably gone hasn't it? And I'd argue it probably has already with all the endless reboots and zero creativity in cinematography these days. And in answer to your question in the passage I've highlighted; having read the Jack Reacher books several years ago, the Alan Ritchson depiction of Reacher in the recent Netflix series - albeit a very wooden and clumsy one - was far more accurate than when 5"7 Tom Cruise was cast in the role for the big screen adaption. Do you think it's fine to make that observation and if so then can the same observation not be made about a character who is depicted as being completely different to the historical/literary figure on the basis of being the wrong race. gender or sexuality? You seem to contradict your opening statement in the rest of your post. If you accept an artistic interpretation doesn't have to be grounded in reality, why would you take issue with an actor having any particular skin colour? In western societies, the acting profession has been dominated by a white, able bodied, heterosexual, "Christian" majority. I think the argument about actors from that background not taking on minority roles, such as Redmayne's transgender character, is that it perpetuates that dominance and denies an opportunity for a transgender actor to take on the role. Where there's an absence of equal opportunities it surely can't be wrong to ask that actors from a minority background at least get to play those parts representing their own minority. Adaptations of books often disappoint the fans of those books. Sometimes it's just that the film's visualisation doesn't match their own, sometimes it's that parts of the book necessarily have to be cut, sometimes that the film reinterprets details in a different way. The point is that a film or TV adaptation is a separate artistic endeavour and most viewers won't have read the book anyway. They need to be judged as separate pieces of work. By the way, I'd argue there's at least as much creativity as there has ever been, if you spend time away from the mainstream for your cultural fixes. For one to truly suspend our notion of reality and embrace a fictional story, the casting of actors in a role shouldn't really be influenced by 'real world' political factors - representation, historical discrimination and everything else. It reminds me of the recent 'statue' debate. People decrying that there aren't enough women/ethnic minority statues at the same time as campaigning to bring down the nearest old white dude on a plinth who having been born in 1872 is hideously out of touch with the laissez faire attitudes of 2022. Rather than destroying things that we have and replacing them on ideological grounds, why not just build more of them? If there aren't enough films or tv shows centred on minority groups then just create more of them. It really shouldn't be that difficult. It doesn't need an established TV show or character being ridden of their 'whiteness' or majority status. As I said previously, people are always going to have an image in their mind of how a character should look or behave. It's pretty common knowledge that Sean Connery was the closest actor to have played the role of Bond to the character depicted in Ian Fleming's novels. I also happen to remember it caused quite an uproar when the fair-haired Daniel Craig took the job on. People have the right to believe or disbelieve the sincerity behind any casting decision. It doesn't have to be interpreted by others as prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 13, 2022 17:06:20 GMT 1
You seem to contradict your opening statement in the rest of your post. If you accept an artistic interpretation doesn't have to be grounded in reality, why would you take issue with an actor having any particular skin colour? In western societies, the acting profession has been dominated by a white, able bodied, heterosexual, "Christian" majority. I think the argument about actors from that background not taking on minority roles, such as Redmayne's transgender character, is that it perpetuates that dominance and denies an opportunity for a transgender actor to take on the role. Where there's an absence of equal opportunities it surely can't be wrong to ask that actors from a minority background at least get to play those parts representing their own minority. Adaptations of books often disappoint the fans of those books. Sometimes it's just that the film's visualisation doesn't match their own, sometimes it's that parts of the book necessarily have to be cut, sometimes that the film reinterprets details in a different way. The point is that a film or TV adaptation is a separate artistic endeavour and most viewers won't have read the book anyway. They need to be judged as separate pieces of work. By the way, I'd argue there's at least as much creativity as there has ever been, if you spend time away from the mainstream for your cultural fixes. For one to truly suspend our notion of reality and embrace a fictional story, the casting of actors in a role shouldn't really be influenced by 'real world' political factors - representation, historical discrimination and everything else. It reminds me of the recent 'statue' debate. People decrying that there aren't enough women/ethnic minority statues at the same time as campaigning to bring down the nearest old white dude on a plinth who having been born in 1872 is hideously out of touch with the laissez faire attitudes of 2022. Rather than destroying things that we have and replacing them on ideological grounds, why not just build more of them? If there aren't enough films or tv shows centred on minority groups then just create more of them. It really shouldn't be that difficult. It doesn't need an established TV show or character being ridden of their 'whiteness' or majority status. As I said previously, people are always going to have an image in their mind of how a character should look or behave. It's pretty common knowledge that Sean Connery was the closest actor to have played the role of Bond to the character depicted in Ian Fleming's novels. I also happen to remember it caused quite an uproar when the fair-haired Daniel Craig took the job on. People have the right to believe or disbelieve the sincerity behind any casting decision. It doesn't have to be interpreted by others as prejudice. You're belittling the statue issue - it wasn't a question of them being "old white dudes", it was who they were and what they represented. But anyway ... Your suggestion that people just create more "minority group" shows is effectively a call for them to remain of minority interest. Black or disabled or transgender actors should stick to their own and not trouble the mainstream? Besides which there's the question of commissioning and funding. You can't just create a TV series or film. You have to get the money to make it and an outlet for it to be shown. So where does that leave us? We don't see colour on the football pitch but we do on our TV or film screens seems to be the gist of it. Diversity welcome - as long as it's on our terms.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on May 13, 2022 17:42:42 GMT 1
Good luck to him, he was very good in Sex Education but he was in more of a comedy (BAFTA nominated) role so will be interesting to see how he takes on this challenge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2022 19:24:26 GMT 1
Good luck to him, he was very good in Sex Education but he was in more of a comedy (BAFTA nominated) role so will be interesting to see how he takes on this challenge. and hopefully he has a good script to work with and some decent storylines...
|
|
|
Post by block12massive on May 14, 2022 10:22:52 GMT 1
For one to truly suspend our notion of reality and embrace a fictional story, the casting of actors in a role shouldn't really be influenced by 'real world' political factors - representation, historical discrimination and everything else. It reminds me of the recent 'statue' debate. People decrying that there aren't enough women/ethnic minority statues at the same time as campaigning to bring down the nearest old white dude on a plinth who having been born in 1872 is hideously out of touch with the laissez faire attitudes of 2022. Rather than destroying things that we have and replacing them on ideological grounds, why not just build more of them? If there aren't enough films or tv shows centred on minority groups then just create more of them. It really shouldn't be that difficult. It doesn't need an established TV show or character being ridden of their 'whiteness' or majority status. As I said previously, people are always going to have an image in their mind of how a character should look or behave. It's pretty common knowledge that Sean Connery was the closest actor to have played the role of Bond to the character depicted in Ian Fleming's novels. I also happen to remember it caused quite an uproar when the fair-haired Daniel Craig took the job on. People have the right to believe or disbelieve the sincerity behind any casting decision. It doesn't have to be interpreted by others as prejudice. You're belittling the statue issue - it wasn't a question of them being "old white dudes", it was who they were and what they represented. But anyway ... Your suggestion that people just create more "minority group" shows is effectively a call for them to remain of minority interest. Black or disabled or transgender actors should stick to their own and not trouble the mainstream? Besides which there's the question of commissioning and funding. You can't just create a TV series or film. You have to get the money to make it and an outlet for it to be shown. So where does that leave us? We don't see colour on the football pitch but we do on our TV or film screens seems to be the gist of it. Diversity welcome - as long as it's on our terms. Well I think you over simplify the statue debate somewhat. But never mind. My point is there's clearly room for everyone to be represented in the arts. And they are -massively. One glance at the TV on any given day will tell you that. Although there are seemingly some minority groups favoured more than others but that's for another day. The way you're talking about it is as if EastEnders have just decided to cast their first person 'of colour' in the history and people are rebelling against it. Like I've already said, we moved away from colour being the most important innate characteristic of one's existence when civil rights and apartheid ended only for so-called 'progressives' to bring it back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2022 16:26:51 GMT 1
ITV4 showing back to back episodes of Minder and The Sweeney this afternoon.
|
|
Shrewsfan1985
The Loggerheads
Posts: 23,854
My first team is..: Shrewsbury
|
Post by Shrewsfan1985 on May 26, 2022 22:21:46 GMT 1
RIP.
|
|