Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131429 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 607

Thread: Skin colour controversy and acting

  1. #61
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,363

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    the policies that try to end racism in society in general.
    By being racist? That's a very funny way of ending racism.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  2. #62
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,694
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    I'm not really interested in this discussion again, but racism means marginalizing or underestimating or despising a race. Trying to promote the presence of a historically despised race is not racism, it is fighting against the racism existing nowadays.

  3. #63

    Default Re: TROY - BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    Come on mate your kidding me right? I've stated numerous times in that post that im talking about the British history and traditions of drama and classics and this how the Iliad is perceived here, which was relevent to why this isnt basically just a political thing.
    Just stating the obvious. The BBC is messing with other nations' heritage (again). It's cultural Elginism, so to speak. Might also be constructed as colonialism, if we were to apply SJW thinking.


    Because as I'm sure you know a dramatisation of a work is as much s reflection of the hosts history, values and traditions, biases and conceptions not to mention economics, practical constraints and indeed politics- Both in terms of those directly affecting the production, but also those affecting the actors and team themselves, as it is the original writers- both conciously or unconsciously... Heck the fact the Iliad is being dramatised in a modern TV show, as opposed to its oral recital to accompanying traditional ancient Greek instruments changes the context of its history massively already if you want to be fussy and try and make the pretence that a 'purist' rendition is the only legitimate way.
    It's perfectly legitimate for a a TV show, movie, or computer game to adapt the plot and even the names of the characters and basic elements of the story and dialogue to a different setting, where the ethnic composition is more to your liking, let's say modern Britain, the modern US, or the Caribbean somewhere between 1500 and today. You didn't see me complaining about O Brother, Where Art Thou after all. Or Throne of Blood or other cross-cultural adaptations.
    Where it gets insulting though is if you have the "original" (intended by the author) setting and then fill it with actors and themes according to your own political ideology.

    And again, bear in mind that a TV show, just like a movie, is fundamentally different from a stage play.


    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    I'm not really interested in this discussion again, but racism means marginalizing or underestimating or despising a race.
    Again with the group think. Also, it's funny how you assume the existence of race, and apparently have a clear definition for it. I thought that was considered haram in your circles?


    Trying to promote the presence of a historically despised race is not racism, it is fighting against the racism existing nowadays.
    This is so dumb I don't even know where to begin.

  4. #64
    Mithradates's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    2,192

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    I'm not really interested in this discussion again, but racism means marginalizing or underestimating or despising a race. Trying to promote the presence of a historically despised race is not racism, it is fighting against the racism existing nowadays.
    Wasnt this about being "inclusive" so non-white watchers could connect to these stories more?

  5. #65

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    A quick summary of the OP:

    An actor in a drama portraying a fictional story is notwhite?!?!?

    ZOMFG!!!11one!! Quick someone call the police!!! They’rebeing racist to the whites!!11!!!

  6. #66
    mishkin's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,694
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    Wasnt this about being "inclusive" so non-white watchers could connect to these stories more?
    It is the first time I hear that. Does not sound bad.

    --------------------------

    hey guys, what would you think about a warning at the beginning of each chapter?

    The race of the actors may not be the one in which the authors of the original work were thinking.
    Last edited by mishkin; January 18, 2018 at 07:49 AM.

  7. #67
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: TROY - BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Just stating the obvious. The BBC is messing with other nations' heritage (again). It's cultural Elginism, so to speak. Might also be constructed as colonialism, if we were to apply SJW thinking.
    That's the most illogical and ridiculous thing I've heard. Interpreting a work of literature in a new adaptation is not comparable to physically stealing it, any more than building a model of the parthenon in London is comparable to moving the actual parthenon there brick by brick. That's the good thing about literature, it's not a zero sum game, there can be infinitely more classically inspired artworks, but there will never be any more actual classical art works. The latter are a commodity that can only decrease eternally until the amount reaches zero, they can never be added to. (Which incidentally is why it's so important to move them to places where they can be looked after properly).


    It's perfectly legitimate for a a TV show, movie, or computer game to adapt the plot and even the names of the characters and basic elements of the story and dialogue to a different setting, where the ethnic composition is more to your liking, let's say modern Britain, the modern US, or the Caribbean somewhere between 1500 and today. You didn't see me complaining about O Brother, Where Art Thou after all. Or Throne of Blood or other cross-cultural adaptations.
    Where it gets insulting though is if you have the "original" (intended by the author) setting and then fill it with actors and themes according to your own political ideology.
    Nonsense, besides it's our heritage just as much as it is theirs. We cannot insult modern Greeks by representing ancient Greeks, because modern Greeks are not ancient Greeks, any more than modern Mexicans are Aztecs. The Ancient Greek civilization died many millenia ago so it's fair game. Besides, physical settings in TV/film are in themselves fantasical even if they are supposedly faithful to the original in time and space. 99% of representations of classical culture are not actually realistic and they are inherently a representation of modern ideas and ideologies.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  8. #68
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    Just stating the obvious. The BBC is messing with other nations' heritage (again). It's cultural Elginism, so to speak. Might also be constructed as colonialism, if we were to apply SJW thinking.
    Yet you already are applying SJW thinking. Literally any foreign rendition of production, particularly a 'foreign classic' will be both influenced by the countries own history regarding it (In Britain that goes a long way- Byron has a lot to answer for) as well as the vision of those putting it on...who are steeped in said history. Its inescapable both consciously and unconsciously, particularly as we're talking about 'art' here. Subjective interpretation is key. Your saying 'messing with another nations heritage', others are thinking 'an ode to Homer's work in the British context', others more are thinking 'wow...action adventure'. If your offended by something- don't watch it. But literally you cannot escape the influence of its current and historical context- no drama can, and nor should it. Subjective interpretation of work...all works are how art literally works and flourishes- doing a production the same way by rote and painting it as 'proper' is how you kill culture and creativity.

    [Where it gets insulting though is if you have the "original" (intended by the author) setting and then fill it with actors and themes according to your own political ideology.
    Again 'insulting' is subjective. This is a British production in that context with all it entails- all the way from the influence and shadows of the Empire to modern conceptions, the history and contexts of British classical institutions, to the governments drive to be sure that social cohesion in Britain is retained, to the economic issues that I explained facing actors- the response I've seen here is that we could 'get Greek actors'... why? That's not exactly going to go down well when 'British' actors are already struggling as I've explained (Bear I mind the added rise of British nationalism recently). Like literally your not going to get a 'pure' (even if they try to be true to the original) rendition of it in another country- indeed I'd even question of you would in modern Greece considering it too will have like Britain its own subjective baggage to such an production. Particularly as 'modern Greece' is completely different to ancient Greece.

    Also TV shows, Movies and stage plays are not as different as you seem to believe when it comes to the impact of traditions, cultural context and history- particularly as theatre and TV- particularly in terms of BBC actors and producers are very close- lots of cross work and shared funding etc. Even if they weren't you still have all the other influences I mentioned in my previous post.

    EDIT: Copperknickers hit the nail on the head here, far better than I've put it- can't rep though yet, sorry mate!
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; January 18, 2018 at 08:06 AM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  9. #69

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    How about the best actors and actresses get the best roles and we decide not to care about race or put people in corners based upon their race.

  10. #70
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Severus Snape View Post
    How about the best actors and actresses get the best roles and we decide not to care about race or put people in corners based upon their race.
    It is acting we're talking about, appearance isn't just some incidental factor. Next you'll be suggesting that models should be hired based solely on whether they can pass a telephone interview whilst talking intelligently on the subject of art history and the particulars of clothing manufacture.
    Last edited by Copperknickers II; January 18, 2018 at 12:18 PM.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  11. #71
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Hmm, was there not recently an outcry about a fictional character described as east-asian being played by a white actor? Surely the people complaining about that would have to agree with the wrongness of a sub-saharan Achilles? Or have they fallen into the trap of thinking whitewashing needs to be countered by a similar, though oppositely directed, wrong. There's a saying about that....
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  12. #72

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    It is acting we're talking about, appearance isn't just some incidental factor. Next you'll be suggesting that models should be hired based solely on whether they can pass a telephone interview whilst talking intelligently on the subject of art history and the particulars of clothing manufacture.
    That's a false comparison.

  13. #73
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by mishkin View Post
    A imgur image? Really?
    Still does not mean BBC has right to create false historical impression that mislead young generation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  14. #74
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Severus Snape View Post
    That's a false comparison.
    It's really not. Actors participating in state-funded or state-subsidised cultural products are not just there to play a character, they are there to entertain and represent the viewing audience, many of whom are non-white. And so as, say, a BBC casting agent, your job is not just to find good actors, it's to find actors who are likely to appeal to the audience and represent the values of your employer. If one of those values is diversity then that should be a part of the casting process. You can disagree with the sentiment behind this, but you can hardly disagree that all sponsors of media have an agenda of some kind they wish to push, and in the case of state-funded media, part of that agenda must be efforts to be representative of and morally accountable to taxpayers of all races.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muizer View Post
    Hmm, was there not recently an outcry about a fictional character described as east-asian being played by a white actor? Surely the people complaining about that would have to agree with the wrongness of a sub-saharan Achilles? Or have they fallen into the trap of thinking whitewashing needs to be countered by a similar, though oppositely directed, wrong. There's a saying about that....
    Those people would say that reverse racism is not racism, as oppression cannot take place from low to high status. Non-white people are considered to have a lower level of privelege than white people, within white majority countries.
    Last edited by Copperknickers II; January 18, 2018 at 07:25 PM.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  15. #75

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    It's really not. Actors participating in state-funded or state-subsidised cultural products are not just there to play a character, they are there to entertain and represent the viewing audience, many of whom are non-white. And so as, say, a BBC casting agent, your job is not just to find good actors, it's to find actors who are likely to appeal to the audience and represent the values of your employer. If one of those values is diversity then that should be a part of the casting process. You can disagree with the sentiment behind this, but you can hardly disagree that all sponsors of media have an agenda of some kind they wish to push, and in the case of state-funded media, part of that agenda must be efforts to be representative of and to taxpayers of all races.
    It is. Attractiveness is a pre-requisite for being a model, in 99% of cases. Race, however, is irrelevant in determining who is a better actor. We could cast Morgan Freeman as King Henry VIII and it does't matter. He's a great actor. On the flip side casting diverse but actors helps nobody. You could cast an all Somali cast in a production of Hamlet and it would be a great show of diversity. It would however be completely worthless as a production when none of them know how to speak English. In television and cinema, race is largely irrelevant.
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; January 18, 2018 at 05:16 PM.

  16. #76
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: TROY - BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by Copperknickers II View Post
    Nonsense, besides it's our heritage just as much as it is theirs. We cannot insult modern Greeks by representing ancient Greeks, because modern Greeks are not ancient Greeks, any more than modern Mexicans are Aztecs. The Ancient Greek civilization died many millenia ago so it's fair game. Besides, physical settings in TV/film are in themselves fantasical even if they are supposedly faithful to the original in time and space. 99% of representations of classical culture are not actually realistic and they are inherently a representation of modern ideas and ideologies.
    To say it's our heritage as much as theirs is part of the problem. It defeats the whole concept of a people owning its own culture. If Greek history doesn't belong to the Greeks, who the does it then?

    Mexicans and Aztecs is another false comparison, Mexicans have far more of a Spanish/European heritage than indigenous both culturally and ethnically. Modern Greeks are obviously not ancient Greeks, but what's your point? Do you mean to say that they aren't descended from the heroes of their own lore? Their own ancestry?

    Next it'll be an insult to represent modern Britons as Caratacus in the fight against Rome because 'modern Britons have nothing to do with their ancestry and history'. I am aware of course that modern English people have a large proponent of Germanic blood, but it's still their history, as are the Romans themselves.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  17. #77

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Insisting that we must cast only Greeks to be in a movie about ancient Athens is beyond asinine.

  18. #78
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Severus Snape View Post
    Insisting that we must cast only Greeks to be in a movie about ancient Athens is beyond asinine.
    Not my point. Point being that Greek history/culture is Greek and belongs to Greeks. Of course we can cast people who aren't Greek as Greeks, to a believable point.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  19. #79
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Severus Snape View Post
    It is. Attractiveness is a pre-requisite for being a model, in 99% of cases. Race, however, is irrelevant in determining who is a better actor. We could cast Morgan Freeman as King Henry VIII and it does't matter. He's a great actor. On the flip side casting diverse but actors helps nobody. You could cast an all Somali cast in a production of Hamlet and it would be a great show of diversity. It would however be completely worthless as a production when none of them know how to speak English. In television and cinema, race is largely irrelevant.
    Being attractive does not make you better at being a model though, i.e. better at posing and pouting and walking up and down. Attractiveness is associated with models because sex sells, i.e. it's a matter of taste and audience demand. The same is true of race in actors. And you seem to be assuming that non-white actors are necessarily all untalented immigrants who can barely speak English, which is bizarre and clearly not true, the chances are in the UK if you want to hire a talented actor you won't need to discriminate based on race, as ethnic minority actors are just as good at acting as white people, after all why wouldn't they be? So all else being equal, it absolutely does help people to have diversity AND great actors, versus JUST great actors and no diversity. It helps people because ethnic minority actors are positive role models and they help ethnic minority audience members to identify more with the characters and get more out of the watching experience, as well as exposing white people to more ethnic minorities thus helping to normalise them in the minds of people who might never have met one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    To say it's our heritage as much as theirs is part of the problem. It defeats the whole concept of a people owning its own culture. If Greek history doesn't belong to the Greeks, who the does it then?
    All of us. We are all Greeks, we are all the children of Greek civilisation. Think of it this way: my great-grandfather was called Bob McMcDonald. He had 4 children, called Mark, Marie, Agnes and Anna. Each of those people had 2 children, and each of the latter had one child. One of that final generation of children was me. I am the oldest child of the oldest child of the oldest child, all men, and so I am the only child to inherit the name McDonald. Does that mean that Bob McDonald is uniquely and singly MY great-grandfather, and not that of the other seven? Of course not. Somebody has to inherit the name, and the plot of land where Bob lived has also been passed down to me (though it might not have been if the subject of this analogy were not the Greeks, look at the English nation who originated in Denmark not England), but we all ultimately have the right to call Bob McDonald our ancestor and none of his 8 great-grand children is 'more' related to him than any of the rest in objective genetic terms.

    Mexicans and Aztecs is another false comparison, Mexicans have far more of a Spanish/European heritage than indigenous both culturally and ethnically. Modern Greeks are obviously not ancient Greeks, but what's your point? Do you mean to say that they aren't descended from the heroes of their own lore? Their own ancestry?
    If you go back 3000 years, all current Europeans have ancestry in Greece. All it took was maybe one Greek guy in the Roman army settling down with a Brittonic maid, and all modern Brits would have ancient Greek descent.

    Next it'll be an insult to represent modern Britons as Caratacus in the fight against Rome because 'modern Britons have nothing to do with their ancestry and history'. I am aware of course that modern English people have a large proponent of Germanic blood, but it's still their history, as are the Romans themselves.
    I've just been watching the new Britannia BBC series, and trust me, I nearly actually set fire to my television set out of sheer rage. If only Zoe Wanamaker, an American of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, being cast as a Britonnic queen were the worst of the historical inaccuracies. The prize I think goes to Roman soldiers in the 1st century AD talking about 'wandering around in the alleys of Cairo'.
    Last edited by Copperknickers II; January 19, 2018 at 05:36 AM.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  20. #80
    Elfdude's Avatar Tribunus
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    7,335

    Default Re: Skin colour controversy and acting

    Quote Originally Posted by Severus Snape View Post
    It is. Attractiveness is a pre-requisite for being a model, in 99% of cases. Race, however, is irrelevant in determining who is a better actor. We could cast Morgan Freeman as King Henry VIII and it does't matter. He's a great actor. On the flip side casting diverse but actors helps nobody. You could cast an all Somali cast in a production of Hamlet and it would be a great show of diversity. It would however be completely worthless as a production when none of them know how to speak English. In television and cinema, race is largely irrelevant.
    You're ignoring selection bias. What we say is the best is inherently caught up with cultural values of what defines the best. Those cultural values may not be shared across demographics. I agree with you it's great to cast Morgan Freeman as King Henry the VIII but I worry that your argument that black folks aren't being cast in traditionally white rolls because they're inferior actors (or rather that's the implication of knowing the data and making your statement) when in reality there's a narrow in-group in hollywood and that in-group has only recently been required to be diverse which means most great black actors aren't even on the list of interviews. When people talk about oscars being so white they're not talking about white actors getting awards when black people should, they're more talking about the fact that black people don't have a legitimate chance to compete.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •