MovieChat Forums > Enola Holmes (2020) Discussion > let's take it further

let's take it further

posted 4 years ago by exatera (3944)
25 replies | jump to latest

What if, let's say, people in those stories lived together before marriage (or could date the way we can now), women had high-powered careers, or what if people back then could be openly gay, with no consequences to their social standing - no, still nothing? Still wouldn't take you out of the story because these are all good things and the way society should be anyway?

See, it's really not about race at all.

But this is essentially what you are saying - that they should have license to cast whoever simply because it's a good thing according to modern values. That is not the point, however.

[–] chilone (17311) 4 years ago

Stop making sense!

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

IKR?

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

What is the point?

It's a work of fiction. I didn't watch it and go "wow, this was so historically correct". It was a fictitious adventure story. Who cares if there were gay people, or black people, or women fighting for a vote and it's not what the time was really like??? No where was it implied that it was based on a true story. The books this movie is based on aren't written by Doyle. They're young adult books for crying out loud.

To see a bunch of supposed adults in a tizzy on the internet about someone's imagined world and some changes a movie makes is really something.

[–] sokar (2098) 4 years ago

Would you say the same thing if a black fictional character was changed to white? Remember it is still only a fictional character.

The above movie maybe a work of fiction but that world is set within a real world setting and so must follow some real world truths.

Change or break those truths and it spoils the narrative. For example would you mind seeing a bunch of western white europeans living and working within Wakanda. That again is a completely fictional world but set within a real world of Africa and so follows the most likely real world narrative showing that its residents are black. London in the 1900 would have been 99.999999999999% white.

How come black to white or woman to man race and gender swaps are met with swift condemnation or called a bunch of isms but when a character is changed from white to black or man to woman you get replies like yours saying whats the issue or stop crying or the miriad of common replies.

Can't have it both ways you either say that all characters can be changed from men to woman and white to black and vice versa or none at all.

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

Unless it affects the essence of a character then I don't care who plays them. There was no character in this movie that took me out of the world that it was set in.

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

That's a yes then lol.

[–] moviechatterer (13544) 3 years ago

no , its a no.
sslssg even added a second sentence to clarify that for the determined-to-twist-everthing types.

Shelock holems having a younger sister doing some investigating is not ans issue.
All of the above and below ranting about "on ho , its in a real city , a real change bill etc" sfw?
is just mysogonistic nitpicking.

see also , all the usal asshats dragging out the imaginary "what if a black character was turned white " crap .

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

No no I get they were trying to qualify their statement as blanket but then tried to relate it to something other than what was in the post they were responding to.

If movies with classical black skinned historical figures such as MLK, telling the story of the real MLK, were reappropriated to be fair and reasonably skinned with British accents under the guise of 'it's a fictional work' then they would have a problem with it as it breaks the essence of the character.

[–] moviechatterer (13544) 3 years ago

hmm , i guess it depends if sslssg was responding to the example case in point of holmes' Sister ,
or to Sokars extreme example of turning MLK white.
(the example the bigots *always* drag up)

turning mlk white , or maybe the africans he referred to, might "take you out of the movie" , and therefore PC will have ruined it. note: that hasnt actually happened.

But also , in this actual xase we're discussing , A teenage white girl doing a bit of detectoring in old London does not take anyone "out of the movie" surely?

Turning James bond black is another "borderline" example.
Wouldnt bother me, becasue they've switched white actors so much , and he's fictional , and he's not set in any given time period , MI6 presumably does actually hire black spies these days.

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

I don't really see a problem with Holmes having a sister either.

Nor would I have an issue with a black Bond, so long as it followed the same formula.

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

Well, then it doesn't have to take place in 19th century England.

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

Why not?

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

Because it's a real place with a real history, and taking these liberties prevents an immersive experience.

As I said in some other thread, I personally don't care about black and Asian characters in something like Thor (although let's face it - it's not like they could have ever existed in the original mythology), because those events don't even take place in our world.

This is different, however, and the story even refers to real events.

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

So, Interview with a Vampire was set in real cities, that included some history but we don't freak out with fictional vampires being added to the mix. Did you have an issue with Pride Prejudice and Zombies? Or Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter?

What about movies about actual history that are supposed to be biopics that are factually incorrect like Braveheart, or 300? Did you have a problem with the changes the Captain America made to WWII? What about JFK?

I guess it just seems to me that it's only when these changes are made that involve women and people of colour do people seem to get upset.

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

Almost all the movies you are citing are in the fantasy genre - that has nothing to do with what I am saying. I mean, if anything, you are invalidating your whole argument with these examples.

And what about Braveheart? Was there anyone black or Asian in it? Or any other inconsistencies for the period and the location?

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

You argued that the casting in Enola Holmes matters because even though it's fiction the story refers to real events. So I was pointing out other fictitious movies that refer to real people and real events but still made up or changed history and that seems to be okay.

Like did you have a problem with the men wearing kilts in Braveheart? I mean they didn't start wearing them until hundreds of years after the movie was set. Why is that less of a problem than having a person of colour in Enola Holmes?

Why does it not matter that Salieri didn't hate Mozart, they worked together but Amadeus spent it's runtime convincing us something different? That's okay because they are white?

JFK was more fiction than reality. For instance, one witness in the movie is murdered after confessing he worked with the CIA, had a close relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, and knew the identities of the real killers. In real life, that same man was never found guilty and died of natural causes. So how is that less of a sin than having a woman fighting for a vote that doesn't help her get the vote, but might make the world into something more that she would like to see?

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

You are extremely pedantic and that's exhausting.

Don't mistake an absence of reply for agreement.

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

People usually don't like being called out on hypocrisy, so don't worry I wasn't expecting you to agree with me.

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

It's simply not caring. I am not familiar with those historical details, and I imagine many (most?) people aren't either, and so that's why people wouldn't care about the kilts in Braveheart, etc.

That doesn't mean we are not familiar with the broad strokes, though, or how long it took non-whites to achieve any kind of integration and equality in Western society.

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

It's still hypocrisy, and it's exhausting.

[–] exatera (3944) 4 years ago

Actually, you are the hypocrite here. This is intellectual dishonesty, what you are doing.

And I won't respond anymore.

[–] sslssg (28481) 4 years ago

That's fine.

You say you are okay with other historical inaccuracies, even in biopics, but you are not okay with historical race inaccuracies in complete works of fiction. How is that not hypocritical?

[–] triplea (3577) 3 years ago

Just because they didn't know that historical inaccuracies doesn't mean they were being hypocritical, you know that.

Now they know, they aren't ok with it.

[–] FootOfDavros (6880) 4 years ago

LOL. Very good!

Braveheart is a great example. Not just kilts, the film is littered with historical inaccuracies but yeah the kilts are funny as a similar yet constant visual example.

Only I guess in the case of Braveheart we're dealing with something which is a fairly open stab at making an historical biopic rather than the humorous case of Enola Holmes - a modern fantasy bastardisation of the Conan Doyle's tales of the World's most famous Detective. i.e. Very clearly not real!

But I see from the reply you received the logical riposte that historical inaccuracies that someone is aware of in works of very obvious light fiction outweigh any historical inaccuracies someone isn't aware of in actual biopics!

😂

[–] liscarkat (16718) 4 years ago

"because these are all good things and the way society should be anyway"

Perfect postmodern leftist Theory--the way things are, according to reason (a white, male, cisgender, heteronormative construct) doesn't matter. All that matters is the way things should be, as defined by emotions.