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.
Personally, I am looking forward very much to seeing this movie ("Harriet", about the life of Harriet Tubman in the years just before the Civil War) because judging from the trailer and what else I have read about it, I think it will be an excellent movie.
Personally, I am looking forward very much to seeing this movie ("Harriet", about the life of Harriet Tubman in the years just before the Civil War) because judging from the trailer and what else I have read about it, I think it will be an excellent movie.
Hamilton is a deliberate alternative take on history. It's not the same thing as casting a British actor in the role of an iconic African-American hero.
It's the producers' rights to cast whomever they choose, but this is a kind of bone-headed move, IMO. They have alienated much of the AA community right out of the gate.
Hamilton is a deliberate alternative take on history. It's not the same thing as casting a British actor in the role of an iconic African-American hero.
It's the producers' rights to cast whomever they choose, but this is a kind of bone-headed move, IMO. They have alienated much of the AA community right out of the gate.
People who are butt hurt over this casting decision need to get over themselves.
I mean, how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?
Maybe you should only cast someone in the role who was born an actual slave.
Hamilton is a deliberate alternative take on history. It's not the same thing as casting a British actor in the role of an iconic African-American hero.
It's the producers' rights to cast whomever they choose, but this is a kind of bone-headed move, IMO. They have alienated much of the AA community right out of the gate.
But "Hamilton" was nevertheless based on REAL people. Yes, it was an alternative take, but it doesn't change the fact that some black actors portrayed actual white people. I think that is much more of a stretch than having a black Brit play a black American. British whites have played American whites hundreds -- and probably thousands -- of times. I doubt if any black person would not object if there was a musical version based on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dr. King and Marian Anderson were played by whites.
P.S. Many people consider Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc. to be iconic American heroes, too -- although I don't think many people think of them as Anglo-American heroes.
Last edited by katharsis; 07-25-2019 at 02:53 PM..
In a way, I kind of see the point of some of those complaining.
But to me it touches upon something I've been mentioning for a while. American film makers seem to cast a lot of foreign actors in many leading roles on TV and movies, but foreign studios don't seem to do the same.
This is why Hollywood casts actors like Jackie Chan instead of homegrown Asian American actors.
But "Hamilton" was nevertheless based on REAL people. Yes, it was an alternative take, but it doesn't change the fact that some black actors portrayed actual white people. I think that is much more of a stretch than having a black Brit play a black American. British whites have played American whites hundreds -- and probably thousands -- of times. I doubt if any black person would not object if there was musical version based on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dr. King and Marian Anderson were played by whites.
P.S. Many people consider Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, etc. to be iconic American heroes, too -- although I don't think many people think of them as Anglo-American heroes.
Have you seen Hamilton? Having black/ethinic actors play the Founding Fathers was an intregal part of LMM's storytelling.
I'm also pretty sure the real Hamilton and Jefferson didn't rap either.
But "Hamilton" was nevertheless based on REAL people. Yes, it was an alternative take, but it doesn't change the fact that some black actors portrayed actual white people.
Yeah. So? That's kind of the definition of an alternative take on an historical event. Which has nothing to do with what your thread is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis
I think that is much more of a stretch than having a black Brit play a black American. British whites have played American whites hundreds -- and probably thousands -- of times.
Again, the producers have a right to cast whomever they choose. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that they have probably alienated a large segment of their target audience by not choosing an African-American actor to play the role of a woman who is important to the AA community in this country. It will be interesting to see what happens at the box office in the U.S.
What is it with these Loons ? What is the problem what is the real outrage? When I clicked on the link I thought I was going to see a British actress wearing black face or something that would cause a real outrage but no they are splitting hairs as usual and somehow making black not black enough.
I think it sounds like it will be an interesting movie about a pivotal woman in a pivotal time in our History.
I will watch the movie unlike the upcoming James Bond installment where 007 is being replaced with a woman that happens to be black. I'd say the producers of that one are trying to create a stir and check the Loony Liberal agenda boxes.
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.
