One major aspect is the British black and brown actors who have had to go to America to make it. One of Britain's biggest dramatic genres is British period fiction. Excluding black and brown actors from such productions sevrerly limits the productions they can audition for in the UK, and as a result the likes of Idris Elba, David Harewood, or Daniel Kaluuya went to the US. By just casting good actors in period drama irrespective of ethnic background, unless there is a very specific reason and it keeps British talent in Britain and you have seen less of that drain of late. Sometimes you can create an entire alternate history to justify the casting in Bridgerton. Otherwise, you can just accept that actors are actors. No one complains that there are people who are six foot tall or with decent teeth in period dramas after all. And yes, it does many it easier on the audience for storytelling purposes with a large cast to have a non homogenous ensemble.
I don’t mind colour-blind casting generally. The trouble is, with a few exceptions like Graham, the writer of Sherwood, or Mercurio, that of Line of Duty/Cardiac Arrest, writers often feel they have to make the heroes brown or black and the baddies white. As in this, where the two most likeable characters - the strong yet gentle boyfriend of the neighbour and the policewoman - were ethnic minorities.
It’s an attempt to make up for generations of racism, but it’s simplistic. But watch the excellent Sherwood: both black and brown characters who were ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It makes it much more difficult to predict who will be the enemy.
By contrast, many ITV dramas are incredibly predictable because the wicked person is the posh, arrogant man and the decent people brown or black.
In this though it was slightly different because it was a true story. Netflix tends to do true stories well, the cast actually look like the real life characters. See The Menendez Brothers, or The Craigslist Killer.
"But... but... it's only a drama! It's not real life - What is your problem?"
... is what many will utter in response. The problem is that TV and film drama ARE very influential on people's perceptions of historical reality. There are many out there who will simply accept it as historical reality if it presents as such. And it presents as such by being accurate in other ways - costumes, language use, sets, etc. But not this. I think certain organisations - and I must include the BBC in this - are now frightened of showing things - for example the Battle of Hastings and events surrounding it - with an 'all white cast' - the reality of which was, whether people like it or not, generally the case in 1066 in southern England. They simply MUST shoehorn their modern reading of diversity and inclusion into anachronistic situations where it does not belong.
Of course, you may disagree... But, as an avid and long-time reader of English (generally medieval and military) history, I fully object to this sort of casual historical revisionism. It may well be well-intended, but it can work against the very minorites that it purports to centre and lift up, in my view. As well as being innaccurate!
So, if I may, I think your piece is excellent - very reasonable, sensible and well-worded and thoughtful.
Thank you so much. I absolutely agree with you, we need to portray history accurately. This blackwashing is actually unfair to Black and Asian people as it pretends that there was little racism in the 1920s, which is not the case. Showing white judges and police then doesn’t mean that British people were ‘evil’ then, it’s simply an accurate portrayal of the situation as it was. I agree with you about the BBC too.
Race was not mentioned in the film, only gender. They just cast actors and actresses to play roles. One really practical reason to cast diversely is that an audience can often be lazy and it's a really easy way to aid storytelling to have different looking actors playing characters so that at all times the audience remembers who is who.
But it isn’t true colour-blind casting because if it were, then by chance Black and Asian actors would sometimes play the ‘baddies.’ They never do in this type of film. It’s always the snobby white person who is hateful.
Like Wonka? Which, set in a Victoriana English city of old. had similar casting with main corrupt oppressive businessman played Paterson Joseph and the corrupt chief of police played by Keegan-Michael Key?
There is only one actual baddie in this film. Everyone else is a victim of circumstance. Even Timothy Spall is as well, he just doubles down with it. Right now, Ncuti Gatwa is playing Algernon in The Importance Of Being Earnest. Could anyone really have a problem with that?
One major aspect is the British black and brown actors who have had to go to America to make it. One of Britain's biggest dramatic genres is British period fiction. Excluding black and brown actors from such productions sevrerly limits the productions they can audition for in the UK, and as a result the likes of Idris Elba, David Harewood, or Daniel Kaluuya went to the US. By just casting good actors in period drama irrespective of ethnic background, unless there is a very specific reason and it keeps British talent in Britain and you have seen less of that drain of late. Sometimes you can create an entire alternate history to justify the casting in Bridgerton. Otherwise, you can just accept that actors are actors. No one complains that there are people who are six foot tall or with decent teeth in period dramas after all. And yes, it does many it easier on the audience for storytelling purposes with a large cast to have a non homogenous ensemble.
I don’t mind colour-blind casting generally. The trouble is, with a few exceptions like Graham, the writer of Sherwood, or Mercurio, that of Line of Duty/Cardiac Arrest, writers often feel they have to make the heroes brown or black and the baddies white. As in this, where the two most likeable characters - the strong yet gentle boyfriend of the neighbour and the policewoman - were ethnic minorities.
It’s an attempt to make up for generations of racism, but it’s simplistic. But watch the excellent Sherwood: both black and brown characters who were ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ It makes it much more difficult to predict who will be the enemy.
By contrast, many ITV dramas are incredibly predictable because the wicked person is the posh, arrogant man and the decent people brown or black.
In this though it was slightly different because it was a true story. Netflix tends to do true stories well, the cast actually look like the real life characters. See The Menendez Brothers, or The Craigslist Killer.
"But... but... it's only a drama! It's not real life - What is your problem?"
... is what many will utter in response. The problem is that TV and film drama ARE very influential on people's perceptions of historical reality. There are many out there who will simply accept it as historical reality if it presents as such. And it presents as such by being accurate in other ways - costumes, language use, sets, etc. But not this. I think certain organisations - and I must include the BBC in this - are now frightened of showing things - for example the Battle of Hastings and events surrounding it - with an 'all white cast' - the reality of which was, whether people like it or not, generally the case in 1066 in southern England. They simply MUST shoehorn their modern reading of diversity and inclusion into anachronistic situations where it does not belong.
Of course, you may disagree... But, as an avid and long-time reader of English (generally medieval and military) history, I fully object to this sort of casual historical revisionism. It may well be well-intended, but it can work against the very minorites that it purports to centre and lift up, in my view. As well as being innaccurate!
So, if I may, I think your piece is excellent - very reasonable, sensible and well-worded and thoughtful.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. I absolutely agree with you, we need to portray history accurately. This blackwashing is actually unfair to Black and Asian people as it pretends that there was little racism in the 1920s, which is not the case. Showing white judges and police then doesn’t mean that British people were ‘evil’ then, it’s simply an accurate portrayal of the situation as it was. I agree with you about the BBC too.
Who WOULDN'T know that there weren't Asian policewomen and African judges in the UK in the 1920s?
Only suggestible and ignorant people, that's who.
Good evening to you, Leyla. AR
Just to add none of it was filmed in Littlehampton. Instead it was filmed in the posh areas of Arundel & Worthing
Race was not mentioned in the film, only gender. They just cast actors and actresses to play roles. One really practical reason to cast diversely is that an audience can often be lazy and it's a really easy way to aid storytelling to have different looking actors playing characters so that at all times the audience remembers who is who.
But it isn’t true colour-blind casting because if it were, then by chance Black and Asian actors would sometimes play the ‘baddies.’ They never do in this type of film. It’s always the snobby white person who is hateful.
Like Wonka? Which, set in a Victoriana English city of old. had similar casting with main corrupt oppressive businessman played Paterson Joseph and the corrupt chief of police played by Keegan-Michael Key?
There is only one actual baddie in this film. Everyone else is a victim of circumstance. Even Timothy Spall is as well, he just doubles down with it. Right now, Ncuti Gatwa is playing Algernon in The Importance Of Being Earnest. Could anyone really have a problem with that?