I was going to watch this but for that reason NO!
My wife and I went to the UK and even saw Shakespeare's home, Bosworth and Towton battlefields that took place during the war of the roses. But when I see a black actress playing a white French queen. That ruins it!
What's next a black Julius ceasar. a black Josephine?
Total stupidity!
[deleted]
It's called colour-blind casting; here in the UK it's done all the time. Why shouldn't good actors of whatever ethnic origin have the chance to play in Shakespeare and other great drama?
What's your problem with that?
Colorblind casting is done all the time in theatre, even in the US. People unfamiliar with theatrical performances won't get it, maybe. I think it's especially used when casting musicals. I've seen a black Fantine in Les Miserables, who strangely enough gave birth to an Eponine played by a white actress. Fiyero in Wicked has been played by multiple races.
And let's not forget Denzel Washington in Much Ado about Nothing playing brother to Keanu Reeves.
Sophie Okonedo played Nancy in a version of Oliver Twist a few years ago and I seem to recall a black actor playing the Duke of York in the first trilogy.
I wonder if Benedict Cumberbatch would like to play Othello
He would make a better Iago - he suits odd parts, peculiar, flawed people - Sherlock Holmes, of course, and Alan Turing, as well as Richard of Gloucester. Othello is too straightforward, trusting and innocent.
He certainly would but I was thinking more in the context of the thread, casting black actors in white roles. What would be the reaction if you casted a white actor in a black role? Would you get the same reaction of "if they're good actors, why not"
shareActually, Patrick Stewart played Othello on stage as a white man. The rest of the cast were black. Here's a review: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-11-19/features/1997323051_1_othello-iago-patrick-stewart
To answer your question, I don't have any issue with colour-blind casting in Shakespeare. Sophie's performance was sublime and I can't imagine anyone improving on it.
Is mise le meas
Thanks for that GJSchear. I hadn't heard of that. Interesting.
I also thought Sophie was excellent but then I think she is one of the best actresses of her generation.
I was deliberately ignoring any implications relating to the colour of his skin, as being totally irrelevant. As I said earlier, casting in theatre is done on merit, not ethnicity.
It's an interesting thought, however. Have you seen the new Ghostbusters? Not as OT as it sounds - the all-female team appoint a dappy, useless young man as their receptionist because he's pretty and they fancy him - is this sexist? If it were the other way round it would be. This wants some thought.
I think your double standards point is a good one. Take James Bond being played by a black actor but what would the reation be if you casted a white actor to play John Shaft? Personally I'm not in favour of either .
shareBut plenty of white actors HAVE played Othello....and they've "blacked-up" for the role. No outburst of protest back then in the days before political correctness.
http://www.ranker.com/list/actors-who-have-played-othello/celebrity-lists
Edited to say that I missed the two replies while looking up the above article.
If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.
you should read comments on IMDB about actors and actresses in other productions. I have seen some apparently american commenters dissing actresses because of their hair style or color did not match what they thought the role should have. Or their age or just the features on their face!!! I am not sure that those people are ready for black actors in roles that are not specifically black roles. My fellow americans can be really dumb at times, all times.
shareI seem to recall a black actor playing the Duke of York in the first trilogy.
I enjoyed her performance very much and have no quarrel with it, but I just want to point out that no one is mentioning that appearance is part of acting a role convincingly. That's why actors use makeup, wigs, costumes, etc, and why actors are chosen partly on how well they fit the part, not just on acting ability. That goes without saying. So there are arguments to be made on both sides , and it's not just being closed-minded to be less than comfortable with it. In this case, color-blind casting works, but it might not always.
shareIf we are going to have color-blind casting then I expect the next series about Martin Luther King Jr. to be played by Tom Hanks. He's a good actor isn't he, so why not?
shareWell, I take your points, both jjk and Alice. But a drama about Martin Luther King would probably be realistically presented, wouldn't it? Realistic locations, costumes, dialogue. For the duration of the film we agree to take it that this actor is him.
Watching Shakespeare we are constantly aware that we are watching an artefact - in fact that's rather the point. We enjoy the verse, the characterisation, the plot - but we never suppose that this is a realistic representation of life in fifteenth century England, or in Renaissance Venice, or A Remote Isle. So the casting need not be realistic either.
There's a King Lear war going on in London at the moment, Anthony Sher versus Glenda Jackson. Nobody actually thinks Jackson has turned into a man; but nobody objects.
It's called colour-blind casting; here in the UK it's done all the time. Why shouldn't good actors of whatever ethnic origin have the chance to play in Shakespeare and other great drama?
What's your problem with that?
But, masters, remember that I am an
ass; though it be not written down, yet forget not
that I am an ass.
It's a good way to portray her as a foreigner. An outsider that usurp the power from her hapless husband and slay Plantagenet, Duke of York.
shareThere are practical reasons, as well as ethical reasons for blind casting.
There are still plenty of repertory companies in the UK with the same group of actors playing lots of different productions. If you have 4 black actors adn 8 white ones, you are obliged to cast them blind into productions of Shakespeare and the audience will have to live with it. Which British theatre audiences do without difficulty these days.
So there's no excuse for a priori objections to a black Margaret. There have been quite a few already.
There is more strength in the case that where some kind of period cinematic realism is being attempted, black bishops and nobles can be distracting but I think that since it's Shakespeare, we just have to look past it. These are filmed theatrical performances, not docu-dramas and the difference is important. The acting company is the community in theatre. In film is the crew.
Even I have difficulty imagining a cinematic remake of The Downfall with a black actor playing Hitler but I don't have any trouble with a black actor playing the lead in The Resistible Rise of Artuo Ui.
Sensible and reasonable reply, alfa.
I think we just have to get used to being as completely colour-blind in the way we view the actors as the directors are in casting them. It HAS to become an irrelevance, because it's not going to go away. Once we get that mind-set, we can relax and enjoy the wonderful performances.
Shakespeare wasn't opposed to re-writing history himself. So we can hardly call Shakespeare's Margaret of Anjou a historical character, if you see what I mean. If we can accept these changes in character, we can go the extra mile.
If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.
I heard that in the remake of "Glory" the 54th Massachusetts will be played by white actors with black officers. Can't wait for the casting of the remake of "12 Years A Slave".
shareNot familiar with those Shakespearian works, conchoreb. Two of his lost plays, perhaps?
If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.
Didn't know the discussion was just about Shakespearian works. Thought it dealt with the general ridiculousness of casting actors of the wrong ethnicity for certain roles and then calling it colorblind casting (with the role going to the most talented). It is affirmative action/PC casting.
BTW did those black actors with nonspeaking parts (now THAT'S talent!)really blend in to the Merry Old England setting?
Helps if you look around and check where you are or even go mad and read the posts you're replying to.
shareHey Alfa - Just bought my ticket to this. Looks wonderful!
https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/amadeus
Which British theatre audiences do without difficulty these days.
I don't think having a black actor or a person of color is the issue. People are too focused on race (either downright not giving the show a chance because of it, or doing the exact opposite in getting overly defensive over the actor simply because they want a race blind casting); IMHO the real issue is that Okonedo is bad in this role.
She overreacted in her scenes and did this high pitched baby voice ("If he be old enough, what need is there for a lord protector"?) and she pouted, pursed her lips and rolled her eyes. There were several scenes where she exaggerated her voice and mannerisms, which would have had better impact if done in a subtler way. She was better in her scenes were she was angry. If this had been The Tudors, then she would have fit right in.
She was too old for the part, but that wasn't the issue either- I'd seen several Shakespearean productions were a certain actor/actress was too old for his/her role also. But Sophie has the added disadvantage of being bad in the role :/ You don't have to be a good Shakespearean actor either (again, I'd seen several actors/actresses who were just 'ok' in their parts) but Sophie just wasn't good and went overboard.
Denzel Washington was good as the prince in the Much Ado About Nothing movie. He wasn't the best Shakespearean actor, but he was convincing as a prince. I'd seen Adrien Lester do a voice monologue of Hamlet and he was good in it, too.
Sophie is a great actress, but I agree with alon-luna that she is too old for the role as Margaret. Regarding colorblind casting, it is a flawed result of political correctness run amok. Despite Sophie's great performance, her ethnicity was distracting. I mean, really, when she was in the scene with her father, whose ethnicity was white, I wondered how can this be? Cinema is visual, first of all, and a Shakespeare production, even if it is "artifact" as someone called it here, should be historically correct.
sharea Shakespeare production, even if it is "artifact" as someone called it here, should be historically correct.Shakespeare himself isn't historically correct. There are any number of inaccuracies in his history plays, not least Richard III. Then there's the famous clock scene in Julius Caesar. Shakespeare's priority was the story, not the history.
Shakespeare himself isn't historically correct.
The plays were pure entertainment and not documentaries.With perhaps a soupçon of Tudor propaganda.
Will doesn't genuflect to the Crown but he's quite successful at conveying the impression that he probably would, if asked.
share"I don't think having a black actor or a person of color is the issue. People are too focused on race (either downright not giving the show a chance because of it, or doing the exact opposite in getting overly defensive over the actor simply because they want a race blind casting); IMHO the real issue is that Okonedo is bad in this role. "
Agree wholeheartedly--though it's all the more glaring because she's the only black in a major role. She's not good enough to justify the color-blind casting was my gut reaction.
Guess you would have walked out during Shakespeare's time too, since all parts were played by men, including female characters.
shareThere's also the promo for Hamlet where different actors that have portrayed the character discuss how the infamous "To be or not to be" sololiloquoy and what word should be stressed and Dame Judi Dench is one of the actors that steps out. This is the promo that also has Benedict Cumberbatch, David Tenant, Sir Ian McKellan, and Prince Charles, to name a few.
shareGet over it. It wouldn't really work to have a white boy in the role in 2016.
shareGet over it. It wouldn't really work to have a white boy in the role in 2016.
A hit. A very palpable hit.
Now that I've watched all of it, I think that Sophie Okonedo is the best performance in the movie.
Cumberbatch's performance seems overblown to me. Sure, R3 had physical limitations, but lighten up a little! The convention in film is to emphasize things like accents and "disabilities" in the first five or ten minutes and then lighten up. Film shows everything. You don't beat a viewer head with a stick to get the viewer to realize what's going on. Not to mention that directors nowadays are addicted to extreme closeups. Less is more.
I had seen R3 at a friends house a few weeks ago, but I'm watching it again after having viewed the first two disks. It's a bit of a drag to watch Cumberbatch. He's trying to hard. It might work on stage where the actor is at a distance from an audience, but not on film.
Oh, dear. I've still to watch Richard III. I think he did great in episode two. The reveal of his silhouette in episode one was brilliant. I am most likely biased toward giving him a good review due to his excellent work in Sherlock. I can't wait for January.
Now that I remember me, this is pretty hilarious. A lot of people were complaining about the fact that Benedict Cumberbatch got cast to play the Central Asian character Khan Noonian Sighn, in Star Trek: Into Darkness, over on the Star Trek boards back then.
I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song
The convention in film is to emphasize things like accents and "disabilities" in the first five or ten minutes and then lighten up.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I mean the movie Fargo has Minnesota accents throughout, but that's an exception. They are "making fun" of Minnesota, which is obviously offensive, but at least they are from Minnesota.
As far as disabilities are concerned, the character's disability won't change, it just won't be shown as much on screen.