What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition

Users who are viewing this thread

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!"

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. :neutral:
 
Trump crying like a baby not wanting to leave

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?

Someone should do this Shakespeare play correctly, just like the old times, NO women too, just men acting as females as it was in those days!!!

On a serious note, it's directed by the Coen Brothers, even if you care about an actor's skin for some reason you will end up loving it.
 
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. :neutral:
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.
 
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.
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.

Besides what are you saying, hey you, you better not use the actors you want in the free adaptation you're making otherwise you're getting canceled, idk, kinda snowflakey to me dude, and honestly, like I've said before, we don't know anything about it yet, so you're judging a movie over it's cast way before its even been made a trailer of, I understand though that if a story about a black person being a black slave, okey, you can't hire a white, chinese, latin, or whatever because it makes no sense to the story, but McBeth's theme is not about a white person, it's about ambition something quite universal, that's why Akira Kurosawa made a film about McBeth set entirely on Feudal Japan (throne of blood) for example.
 
Last edited:
1) I'm not trying to stop the Coen brothers or any other directors or producers from making about anything that isn't CP or snuff. I have an extremely expansive notion of artistic freedom.

2) The story of Macbeth or the story of Anne Boleyn set in feudal Japan or 1940s Brooklyn or a postapo Martian colony is something completely different from making a standard adaptation of Macbeth/Anne Boleyn, ie one happening in historical Tudor Britain, except with Black people.

3) I'm not outraged, I'm annoyed and rolling my eyes. I just don't think "pushing the envelope" is amusing or intetesting and I think that breaking conventions and norms just for the sake of breaking them is at best infantile, at worst demented and even then, if someone wanted to make something that actually épater la bourgeoisie, they would unironically cast Martin Freeman as Shaka Zulu. On the other hand casting Denzel as Macbeth is the safest, most tired, soccer mom, pseudo powerful stunning brave **** imaginable. I spit on their graves.
 
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 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.
 
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'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.

Why one should refer back to some concept of ethnicity when thinking (about the cast of a movie) seems strange.

There is no collective identity built around hair or eye color, pinky length or posture.

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.

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.
It's progress that Martin Freeman as Shaka Zulu is pretty unthinkable but a different point.

If people really wanted a Shakespeare adaptation with a black guy why don't they just pick Othello...
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.
 
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.
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?

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.

*we may of course debate on whether external identity includes only descriptive traits (tall, black, cripple, fat, speaking Italian), only normative ones (kind, greedy), or both of them. But arguing that especially national identity does not include descriptive traits would be almost impossible. Not to mention that the lines between the two groups is sometimes very foggy.
 
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?

This is a stupid equivalence and I think you know it. Dividing people up based on skin colour is something that benefits absolutely nobody and we've been activelt trying to dismantle it for around 100 years because of how much alienation it causes. Nobody is claiming that you shouldn't notice skin colour at all, but that it should be irrelevant. But judging by some people's reactions to this, it clearly isn't.
 
That sentence was aimed at arbitrary and scientifically untenable. Which really seem to me to be the worst direction from which one can attack whether something is or isn't a part of some identity.

And I don't think kurczak, nor I for that matter, were talking about what ought to be.

EDIT: Oh, ****, I dropped a word in my original post. For that I apologise, the original sentence was quite moronic in this sense.

"And since national identity is, to a degree, construed primarily along the traits (perceived as) most noticeable and most shared [...], skin color plays a fundamental role in constituting identity in a globalized society, as long as it remains a widely shared trait of that nation (looking at you, medieval Scotland)."
 
Suprising revelation indeed.

What's surprising is that it seems necessary to reiterate such obvious things in the context of casting people of the supposedly "wrong" skin colour for movie parts. You know, what the whole thing was about before it descended into the spheres of identity-establishing theories.

Skin color is an important part of one's (external) identity because it is so very noticeable*.

Except when you're blind.

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).

To choose basically randomly selected properties of a human being to establish and define some imagined communities with them can be seen as obvious and easy since it is. How it's more convenient than something else, as well as how it isn't fundamentally arbitrary doesn't disclose itself to me. Just because it obviously is the case doesn't make it right or acceptable and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be actively tried to be changed.

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.

Obvious, easy and convenient for what? To ostracize - nothing else.

Pretty much the same can be said for the language spoken.

It most definitely can't. Languages at least change, especially the spoken ones (looking at you, medieval Scotland). :lol:
 
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.
?...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?

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.
As exemplified perfectly right here.

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.
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.
Why one should refer back to some concept of ethnicity when thinking (about the cast of a movie) seems strange.
Yet, it is progress that Martin Freeman is unthinkable as Shaka Zulu:unsure:
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.
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".
 
Wow, if you close your eyes to a mostly visual medium, your perception changes significantly. That's some deep **** .

And yet you use it to justify your conviction that the skin colour is significant in whether someone can play a Scotsman in the 11th century. And not, for example, his accent, pronounciation, intonation, general posture, suitable costume or something else. That's some shallow ****.

Race is not the same as skin color.

What's in your opinion the difference when it's being used in Angloamerican countries nowadays? I'm genuinely interested if I'm missing something obvious that isn't racist.

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?

Do you seriously don't see or just aren't willing to acknowledge the imbalance between more than a hundred years of whitewashing, which has repeately happened, the actual debate about the skin colour of casted actors and actresses, which is happening, and your hypothetical example?

But to pick up your Martin Freeman example: In a counterfactual world where the colour of the skin was never relevant for the cast of a role, there wouldn't be any outcry. In the actual world it is considered relevant therefore the (hypothetical) outcry would be justified and necessary in that case. When set in relation to the other case it can only be seen as either unproportional dishonest or (when combined with playing the Nazi card) plainly idiotic.

That whitewashing in movies isn't necessarily founded in anything else but financial considerations is clear. That a white cast did and may raise the revenue (and that artificially creating controversy by casting a black cast for presumed white roles may be based on the same motivation) because of the comparitevly increased popularity of many white actors and actresses likewise. That this can be and is considered to be an aspect of systemic racism in the movie industry too. Most or all of that has already be mentioned by Jacob (in far less words).

To reiterate my actual point, which didn't seem to come across clearly: 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.

To resort to some identity-establishing aspects of communities is, in my opinion, a completely different discussion. Even if I acknowledged that the colour of the skin is one identity-establishing aspect of imagined communities (which I do because it is), I don't see any reason whatsoever to use such an aspect of societal reality to justify or condemn the cast choices in movies. Especially not when I'm convinced that the basis of such an identity-establishing aspect is not only arbitrary, but untenable, fundamentally false and damaging.
 
... 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.
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?
What are we talking about here, specifically? Because I actually do.
I don't want actors in modern clothing using modern slang, high fiving each other e.g.
You mentioned earlier "height, weight, voice, drawl, language, posture". All of that I would also like as accurate as possible, but some things are of course less relevant.
 
The thing with blackwashing is that it automatically triggers people in ways few other things ever do. Either because the pendulum swung too far after so much whitewashing (making some things feel forced rather than natural) or because people immediately feel like they are being served an agenda and get defensive.

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.
 
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.
In other words...........................

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!

:razz: :shifty:
 
Back
Top Bottom