TV/Movies Megathread

[Sheilbh]

sex is there sex

Almost certainly. When Channel 5 launched I think it was basically just soft-core porn. I think it maybe does more "normal" TV now.

[Josephus]

So...I was flipping channels and came across the first episode of a new series called Anne Boleyn.
I guess they are going for shock value, or it's the in thing now, but the actress playing Anne is, how to put it, of African descent.
I don't know, I just found this odd. A sort of reverse cultural appropriation.  I can handle black people in out of place historical contexts (Amazon's The Great, set in Catharine's Russia, does this), but not in the leading role.
Got me thinking: What if a biopic on Whitney Huston featured Taylor Swift in the lead role? Or Samuel L. Jackson as Stalin? , "Die Trotsky, you mother fucker."

If these biopics were made in 500 years time the comparison would become valid....and I wouldn't see much of a problem then.
I fail to be worked up by race-blind casting when you're not trying to be historically accurate and just making a stupid drama (and chasing controversy).
What bothers me more is when one character is meant to be the biological child of two others but obviously they're completely different races.
And when you get random black extras on supposedly long isolated planets with a population of only 500.

hmmm...so maybe Anne wasn't the daughter of the first earl of Wiltshire. Maybe her mother made a trip to Africa and met someone. All the while the first earl was unaware that his daughter didn't look like him much. Sort of like that TV animated show from a few years back and the dad not realizing that his native american-looking son looked a lot like his neighbour.

To be serious, I get your 500 year old argument. But Anne Boleyn is such a popular character it just seems weird. Would a Black Genghis Khan work? I don't know.
If it's not a major character, like for instance, if Khan's top advisors were white, I'd be fine with the race-blind casting, otherwise.
There's a show I watched recently, the White Princess or something, in which several people in Catharine of Aragon's  retinue, where black...and that's fine.
And I know it's been done before with Shakesperean casting as well...but that's more of an interpretation than a biopic.

I guess I'm getting worked up over a pretty silly show to begin with.

[The Brain]

Black Genghis!

[garbon]

[Sheilbh]

So I'm entirely open to race blind casting and - as I've mentioned before - I think it is essential in the UK because we have a pretty strong period drama-industrial complex. I think it's an issue for the industry if there's basically an entire huge chunk of their productions that non-white talent cannot get involved with - and I think it limits the roles for those actors.

I've mentioned before that Thandie Newton, Idris Elba, Riz Ahmed and others have all commented on the lack of interesting roles for minority actors in the UK compared to the US and I think part of that is because they're just ruled out of the 20 period dramas under production at any single time. It should be a huge issue for TV/films that some of the most talented actors in the UK are leaving work here because of the lack of good roles.

I think the lack of controversy around this one is because I think it is far enough in the past that in most people's minds it's basically fantasy. Tudors + ruffs etc = Shakespeare so is treated the same (and it is standard to see neutral casting of all Shakespeare plays, except for Othello). I think there'd be far more controversy around, say, a black Mr Darcy because that era is seen as more historical even when it's fiction I think - but even this is shifting (I feel like especially with Dickens - the recent Great Expectations film is superb at this, though an issue for Tyr on families).

The other thing is Anne Boleyn is not some big national figure - I imagine there'd have been more controversy with, say, a non-white Queen Elizabeth.

[Valmy]

How I feel about color-blind casting is very contextual. If we are going to do something representational of the historical events, like the Musical Hamilton or whatever, then go ahead. If we are supposed to suspend our disbelief and pretend we are seeing the actual events re-enacted then looking like the actual people becomes important.

But this is the UK, which had a gargantuan globe spawning empire for the previous 300 years. Surely there are lots of ways to put non-white characters into period dramas. Granted it is harder for the Tudor era but even there there are a few actual non-white people in England and we even know some of their names. Maybe just make them a bit more important than we strictly speaking have evidence to support, but those British period dramas do shit like that all the time anyway.

I am definitely ready for the Bollywood-style Henry VIII movie.

[grumbler]

Black Genghis!

Genghis the Black sounds like the name of a dragon that sacked some Dwarf city.

[Valmy]

Black Genghis!

He could team up with White Genghis and show how the black and white man can work together to conquer Asia. It would be kind of inspiring.

[The Brain]

Ennui and irony.

[Jacob]

Ennui and irony.

... live together in perfect harmony.

[grumbler]

Ennui and irony.

... live together in perfect harmony.

Side by side in my mounted Golden Horde, oh Lord, why don't we?

[Sheilbh]

How I feel about color-blind casting is very contextual. If we are going to do something representational of the historical events, like the Musical Hamilton or whatever, then go ahead. If we are supposed to suspend our disbelief and pretend we are seeing the actual events re-enacted then looking like the actual people becomes important.

But this is the UK, which had a gargantuan globe spawning empire for the previous 300 years. Surely there are lots of ways to put non-white characters into period dramas. Granted it is harder for the Tudor era but even there there are a few actual non-white people in England and we even know some of their names. Maybe just make them a bit more important than we strictly speaking have evidence to support, but those British period dramas do shit like that all the time anyway.

I don't think looking like actual people matters at all ever - unless it's possibly a re-enactment in a documentary that is selling it as looking right.

The thing that I find more annoying but is probably unavoidable is the way you get characters in historical dramas who  are basically 21st century secular liberals because I think that goes to their motivations and what the character is about. I always think the best historical fiction tries to create the alien-ness of the past - I think one thing we particularly struggle with now is how important religion is, for example. It's why I really liked Rome - I think it was quite good at showing the past was a different world.

These are books but I always think of the Shardlake novels which are great fun but you do have these central characters in the middle of Tudor England who don't really care about religion at all - there's even a secret Jew - or sexuality as it's implied one character is celibate but "gay". And the main character is basically sceptical believer in the scientific method and would basically be fine liviing in 2021. They're great fun but it can occasionally be jarring

[Valmy]

I don't think looking like actual people matters at all ever - unless it's possibly a re-enactment in a documentary that is selling it as looking right.

I think it matters a ton. People want their period dramas to have horses and top hats and cod pieces of big poofy dresses and everything to make it look like you are there...sometimes. Granted that is not always what they are going for.

The thing that I find more annoying but is probably unavoidable is the way you get characters in historical dramas who  are basically 21st century secular liberals because I think that goes to their motivations and what the character is about. I always think the best historical fiction tries to create the alien-ness of the past - I think one thing we particularly struggle with now is how important religion is, for example. It's why I really liked Rome - I think it was quite good at showing the past was a different world.

These are books but I always think of the Shardlake novels which are great fun but you do have these central characters in the middle of Tudor England who don't really care about religion at all - there's even a secret Jew - or sexuality as it's implied one character is celibate but "gay". And the main character is basically sceptical believer in the scientific method and would basically be fine liviing in 2021. They're great fun but it can occasionally be jarring

But yeah this is generally why I dislike period dramas. Am I really supposed to believe that religious people today and in fact much more conservative than actual members of the clergy 500 years ago?

But not all of them do this poorly.

[Sheilbh]

I think it matters a ton. People want their period dramas to have horses and top hats and cod pieces of big poofy dresses and everything to make it look like you are there...sometimes. Granted that is not always what they are going for.

But I think people want the setting to look like the sort imagined idea we have of that period rather than what we actually know of it - you know they don't often/always paint the statues in Roman dramas, but we know they were painted; same for cathedrals and medieval buildings.

Edit: I think we have a real mental block with accepting how garish and vulgar a lot of the past would appear to us - especially bits of the past that have been idolised for "Traditional beauty" etc.

As for the rest I don't think people watch period dramas expecting reality or historical accuracy - I think they watch for whether it's a fun/enjoyable piece of fiction or not. Whether that's an adaptation of Jane Austen, or a Boleyn film, or the latest Elizabeth/Mary Queen of Scots film, or Gladiator etc - we all know they're historically nonsense

[Valmy]

But I think people want the setting to look like the sort imagined idea we have of that period rather than what we actually know of it - you know they don't often/always paint the statues in Roman dramas, but we know they were painted; same for cathedrals and medieval buildings.

As for the rest I don't think people watch period dramas expecting reality or historical accuracy - I think they watch for whether it's a fun/enjoyable piece of fiction or not. Whether that's an adaptation of Jane Austen, or a Boleyn film, or the latest Elizabeth/Mary Queen of Scots film, or Gladiator etc - we all know they're historically nonsense

Oh absolutely. Though since we have started making a bigger deal about things being painted we have started seeing more painted Roman stuff. I am also happy to see more Roman stuff being in actual Latin and not RP English.

Not sure about the Cathedrals.