That's hilarious.
A new Macbeth movie is in the works with several black actors - including Denzel Washington as Macbeth.
And the Macduffs are black too. That's more understandable since it's a work of fiction (and Shakespeare's plays are often experimented with).
However, it still takes place in Scotland and not an imaginary place...
I guess I'm just a narrow minded old fart, and people will say "it has witches for Christ's sake. Anything can happen!"
What? They're making a movie adaptation of a play? How dare they?A new Macbeth movie is in the works with several black actors - including Denzel Washington as Macbeth.
And the Macduffs are black too. That's more understandable since it's a work of fiction (and Shakespeare's plays are often experimented with).
However, it still takes place in Scotland and not an imaginary place...
I guess I'm just a narrow minded old fart, and people will say "it has witches for Christ's sake. Anything can happen!"
There is no collective identity built around hair or eye color, pinky length or posture. There is an identity built around ethnicity and while you can plausibly have a Dane acting out an Englishman, you can't have a Black person act out an Englishman or a Scot.I'm also outraged about it. They have furthermore the audacity to cast actors and actresses with incongruous eye and hair colour, height, weight, voice, drawl, language, posture, tooth displacement, acne, length of their pinky, passport and most probably DNA. It's not even close to some imagined or historical original. And that's done in every ****ing movie. What's next - Frederick II. portrayed by an actress without a donger?
At least they were appropriately white because obviously that's what's important.
It's still a free adaptation, besides if you have seen any movie made by the Coen Brothers you would know that this is not some producers pretending to be progressive, this is just the Coen Brothers being the Coen Brothers, and probably the movie will not be anything we think it will be.There is no collective identity built around hair or eye color, pinky length or posture. There is an identity built around ethnicity and while you can plausibly have a Dane acting out an Englishman, you can't have a Black person act out an Englishman or a Scot.
That ethnicity and race are not random incidentals is also obvious from the fact that the same "so what, he's Black" would lose their **** if Shaka Zulu was played by Martin Freeman.
That ethnicity and race are not random incidentals is also obvious from the fact that the same "so what, he's Black" would lose their **** if Shaka Zulu was played by Martin Freeman.
That's only the case if you prioritise skin colour over every other arbitrary factor. Close your eyes or just don't look at the screen and whoosh - you can't distinguish whoever's acting out the Scot or Englishman. Why you think that you can while seeing the actor/actress through human eyes is a matter of unfounded preconception. I'd definitely prefer Idris Elba or Takeshi Kitano over Keanue Reeves as Richard II. Then again I'd also prefer Kevin James over Keanue Reeves as Richard II.There is an identity built around ethnicity and while you can plausibly have a Dane acting out an Englishman, you can't have a Black person act out an Englishman or a Scot.
There is no collective identity built around hair or eye color, pinky length or posture.
It's progress that Martin Freeman as Shaka Zulu is pretty unthinkable but a different point.That ethnicity and race are not random incidentals is also obvious from the fact that the same "so what, he's Black" would lose their **** if Shaka Zulu was played by Martin Freeman.
In 1965's movie version of 'Othello' Othello was played by Laurence Olivier btw. Whitewashing in films started with the movie industry itself and is still a thing nowadays.If people really wanted a Shakespeare adaptation with a black guy why don't they just pick Othello...
Was that wrong?In 1965's movie version of 'Othello' Othello was played by Laurence Olivier btw.
Our perception of race is a social construct and is scientifically ungrounded. Suprising revelation indeed. Concept of a race destroyed with science and logic. What is next? Nation states have no backing in science? Human rights are arbitrary? Identity of an individiual scientifically untenable?That's not true, also: Who cares? That the skin colour (and not the length of the pinky) constitutes something like a "race" is still completely arbitrary and scientifically untenable. I'm not sure why anyone should base anything on such a misconception of identity foundation. It's of course your prerogative to do so, but that doesn't make it a sound or valid base for any argument.
If people really wanted a Shakespeare adaptation with a black guy why don't they just pick Othello...
Our perception of race is a social construct and is scientifically ungrounded. Suprising revelation indeed. Concept of a race destroyed with science and logic. What is next? Nation states have no backing in science? Human rights are arbitrary? Identity of an individiual scientifically untenable?
Suprising revelation indeed.
Skin color is an important part of one's (external) identity because it is so very noticeable*.
Moreso, group identity (national one included) is constituted not only by what the members of the group share, but also by what distinguishes that group from the other ones. And since national identity is, to a degree, construed primarily along the traits (perceived as) most noticeable and most shared (and does not - especially when seen from without - interact much with internal identites of individual members of that nation; and very often not even with internal identity of that nation as a whole), skin color plays a fundamental role in a globalized society, as long as it remains a widely shared trait of that nation (looking at you, medieval Scotland).
Skin color is part of a (group) identity not because of some arbitrariness or some foul plot, but because it is obvious, easy and convenient.
Pretty much the same can be said for the language spoken.
?...yes, exactly. It is acceptable for blackness to be seen as a defining trait and casting against is "whitewashing". But if a non-white actor is cast as a white character, then woah, woah, what do you mean race, we're all colorblind, what are you some sort of nazi?That's because the defining trait of shaka zulu (in their mind) is that he's black. None of the characters in Shakespeare with the possible exception of othello are defined by skin colour.
As exemplified perfectly right here.It's progress that Martin Freeman as Shaka Zulu is pretty unthinkable but a different point.
In 1965's movie version of 'Othello' Othello was played by Laurence Olivier btw. Whitewashing in films started with the movie industry itself and is still a thing nowadays.
Wow, if you close your eyes to a mostly visual medium, your perception changes significantly. That's some deep ****. No idea what the last sentence means.That's only the case if you prioritise skin colour over every other arbitrary factor. Close your eyes or just don't look at the screen and whoosh - you can't distinguish whoever's acting out the Scot or Englishman. Why you think that you can while seeing the actor/actress through human eyes is a matter of unfounded preconception.
Yet, it is progress that Martin Freeman is unthinkable as Shaka ZuluWhy one should refer back to some concept of ethnicity when thinking (about the cast of a movie) seems strange.
Race is not the same as skin color. Stop playing dumb. Unlike you, I have no ambition to "scientifically define" what people should or should not care about, I'm simply rolling my eyes and huffing and puffing at the two-facedness of casting against race or ethnicity, depending on which race of ethnicity is being "washed".That's not true, also: Who cares? That the skin colour (and not the length of the pinky) constitutes something like a "race" is still completely arbitrary and scientifically untenable. I'm not sure why anyone should base anything on such a misconception of identity foundation. It's of course your prerogative to do so, but that doesn't make it a sound or valid base for any argument.
Wow, if you close your eyes to a mostly visual medium, your perception changes significantly. That's some deep **** .
Race is not the same as skin color.
It is acceptable for blackness to be seen as a defining trait and casting against is "whitewashing". But if a non-white actor is cast as a white character, then woah, woah, what do you mean race, we're all colorblind, what are you some sort of nazi?
So if I object to a black actor playing Anne Boleyn in a historical film I should also object to everything else that's ahistorical?... to claim that a movie, be it a historical one or one based on a historical setting, is ahistorical (or "hilarious") because of the skin colour of the cast, while ignoring everything else that differentiates it from its presumed or actual historicity, is either an aspect of complete arbitrariness, ignorance or simple racism.
In other words...........................The ultimate goal shouldn't be to force black people into every possible Western European historical role but to get people interested in the incredibly rich "black history" all around us. From the Mali empire to the revolutions in Haiti, there is so much content out there I'd love to see and that would in my opinion show more respect to the black community than making Julius Caesar sub-saharan just for the sake of it.
I'm pretty certain that all the dozens of African counties don't have any interesting historical or non-historical tale to tell; we need to just watch European history but with black actors and actresses in roles they are most definitely described throughout history.
I would soooo love to watch a series of movie set in Aksum or during the Three Kingdoms period China, but with the cast of Downton Abbey. Man, that would be awesome!