Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
This is so dumb I don't even know where to begin.Trying to promote the presence of a historically despised race is not racism, it is fighting against the racism existing nowadays.
Last edited by athanaric; January 18, 2018 at 07:29 AM.
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!!!
Last edited by mishkin; January 18, 2018 at 07:49 AM.
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).
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.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.
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."
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.
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.[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.
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.
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."
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 -
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.
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."
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.
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.
Insisting that we must cast only Greeks to be in a movie about ancient Athens is beyond asinine.
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.
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.
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.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?
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'.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.
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."
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.