Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I appreciate that Hollywood is being inclusive with others too: I've been seeing very short people, and disabled people lately, in "average" roles having nothing to do with their uniqueness. The other day, I saw a minor character with an amputated arm and I thought that was good.
The original Star Trek was so ahead of its time being so racially diverse in the main characters. And in the 60s, no less! And good that all the further iterations maintained that.
I will admit that the "they/them" pronoun in "Billions" does bug me. A little TOO "woke" even for this liberal, lol.
I appreciate that Hollywood is being inclusive with others too: I've been seeing very short people, and disabled people lately, in "average" roles having nothing to do with their uniqueness. The other day, I saw a minor character with an amputated arm and I thought that was good.
The original Star Trek was so ahead of its time being so racially diverse in the main characters. And in the 60s, no less! And good that all the further iterations maintained that.
I will admit that the "they/them" pronoun in "Billions" does bug me. A little TOO "woke" even for this liberal, lol.
You haven’t worked in high tech or finance in a while I’m gathering. You might be surprised as how many theys there are in nyc, sf, and philly. I admit, most are not client facing- but who faces clients anymore these days anyway.
I just don't understand why non-whites but get upset when whites portray non-white persons, but they think that the reverse is just fine (for non-whites to portray whites), Imo, that is one more double standard that I don't like, although one or the other would be just fine with me (although I confess that I would prefer Japanese actors to portray Japanese characters, for example, and for Euro-whites to portray English kings and queens).
One reason might be because there are so few roles for people of color that to give one away to someone who is white is really a slap in the face. It's not that there are no skilled actors of color, after all, and to give that as a reason to hire someone white would be disingenuous.
And, if race is NOT central to the character and would not be completely distracting, then why not have a person of color in the role to bring them up to parity. Must every role be ASSUMED white unless there is something that rings the "minority bell" about the part? And when it does "ring the minority bell", it's something completely stereotypical and insulting.
One reason might be because there are so few roles for people of color that to give one away to someone who is white is really a slap in the face. It's not that there are no skilled actors of color, after all, and to give that as a reason to hire someone white would be disingenuous.
And, if race is NOT central to the character and would not be completely distracting, then why not have a person of color in the role to bring them up to parity. Must every role be ASSUMED white unless there is something that rings the "minority bell" about the part? And when it does "ring the minority bell", it's something completely stereotypical and insulting.
Good first paragraph, but I take issue with the points you made in the second. If there is documented evidence that a historical person IS white, then why shouldn't they be portrayed as such. It is not ASSUMING someone to be white if history shows that this was the case.
Its funny how its fine for historical dramas to be racially diverse in ways that were often not the case at that time but a new sit-com called the United States of Al got blasted for creating a fictional character that is suppose to be from Afghanistan but is really of heritage from India. Growing up I remember westerns who cast white people in brown face to play the parts of native americans. Which even then I thought was way out of line. But racial diversity is a one way street. White people now are never going to be cast today in historical dramas where the characters were at that time and place non white.
Regarding Taylor and Billions. Well you are calling Taylor "her" which you accurately stated would not be done by any cast member of Billions who always get it right. But you do prove your own point that saying "they" correctly every time is not likely to happen.
Keep telling yourself that.
Ridley Scott's Exodus came out in 2012. Christian Bale was Moses. Sigourney Weaver is an Egyptian. Son of God in 2014 had a white Jesus and a white Mary. Mary Magdalene (2018) stars Rooney Mara. These films were set in Northern Africa in the second millennia BC (the first one) and 2000 years ago (the latter two). Those places in those times were not populated by white people.
Last week, I watched part of "Dragon Seed" (1944) about Japanese invasion of China - all majors parts for Asians were played by white actors - Katharine Hepburn ( New England Wasp) playing Asian wife?
the actors trying to sound "Asian" - what a white person thinks Asian should sound like.
The movie was horrible.
Alexandre Dumas was bi-racial, not black. He should be portrayed by someone who is bi-racial, ideally.
It's the same with persons of color who are mixtures of races. If there is a future film about Meghan Markle's life, Lupita Nyong'o (lovely as she is) would not be be a suitable woman to be cast in the role. Meghan Markle is very much a historical figure.
Alexandre Dumas was bi-racial, not black. He should be portrayed by someone who is bi-racial, ideally. won't change an
It's the same with persons of color who are mixtures of races. If there is a future film about Meghan Markle's life, Lupita Nyong'o (lovely as she is) would not be be a suitable woman to be cast in the role. Meghan Markle is very much a historical figure.
Dumas was mostly white.. his paternal grandmother was black.
Obviously I don't ascribe to the outdated and racist 'one drop rule'.
That said, I also do not favor miscasting historical roles, in racially, sexually, or any historically non-conforming way.
And I sure as hell refuse to alter my third person pronouns to suit the whim of others, as I reserve the right to use MY language as I see fit.
Bridgerton isn't set in real history, so really, anything goes in terms of race. The costuming and several other elements of the production were also fanciful.
IMO it's almost always preferable for the casting of real historical figures to reflect the historical figure demographically, especially if the character's identity is relevant to the story. There are reasonable exceptions, such as deliberate subversions like Hamilton, and deliberately "blind" casting of theater productions. When it comes to background players and invented characters in historical shows, though, there's a lot more leeway...in many times and places the world was more diverse than many people imagine it was, especially in ports and major cities. Adventurous people of all colors did get around, for reasons of commerce, religion, education, politics, etc. And of course many navies and fleets had sailors of quite varied backgrounds. Even in very ethnically homogeneous regions you'd get your occasional emissaries, scholars, traders, performers, etc. from faraway lands, and some of them settled rather than going back home, and/or left offspring behind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
