What's next? Racially diverse adaptations of Pride and Prejudice, Little Women, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre?
How would you feel about that? Would that still not take you out of the story?
Actually, there's already a diversity adaptation of a Jane Austen's novel
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8685324/
Miss Lambe's Indian heritage was in the original Jane Austen’s unfinished writing. So that still could be considered as faithful to the original books.
There are also "Bride & Prejudice" and "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", though neither really tried to be faithful to the original material.
To be honest, I haven't read the novel (or better said, the "completed" versions). But the character is the last one in the list of characters in the novel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanditon#Characters
So it's true that it appears in the novel, but it seems to me that they took a very secondary character and made her a main one. Because, you know, bless the diversity amen.
I agree her role was enlarged to promote diversity, but since she was in the books I guess we can't say she is out of place or historically wrong.
shareIt depends on how she has been portrayed. If she follows the source material, you'd be right. But this is 2020. The option by default is that she has been rewritten to transform her in some modern empowered independent black woman oppressed by evil white males.
Right now, watching a black character in the poster is like 'puff... no, thank you', 99% of times is the same cloned story again and again.
You've got the new multicultural David Copperfield adaptation.
shareLet it go Elsa.
Many of us are not advocating for it, we’re just not carrying on like fainting church ladies every time history is tweaked in movies, be it the race of a character or an actual bastardisation of historical events as we’ve seen in many popular films.
Were you this hysterical when the Wizard of Oz went black in the 70s?
Who really cares except people who would prefer not to watch black people in movies? If the argument is that historical accuracy is paramount then you have a long list of films to rally against already, rather than panicking over hypotheticals.
Well, if it doesn't bother you, then I guess lucky you, since that seems to be the current trend.
And for the record, it's not just about race for me, it's about any kind of inconsistency for the period depicted. For instance I couldn't keep watching Anne With an E (or recommend it to my niece in middle school, which I initially thought I would) because the present-day liberal sensibilities in it got just too ridiculous. NOT because I personally don't espouse them, mind you, but because it totally wasn't believable for the time.
When I watch these type of stories, it's definitely not for the sci-fi aspect.
I understand your argument. Doesn’t art always reflect the current cultural and political landscape at the time though? Th Crucible, for example, I think few would argue that play isn’t a work of art. Yet it unashamedly used present day sensibilities by making a parallel between the Salem witch hunts and MCCarthyism. Would it be better for the cultural landscape of America if it was never written because it was a comment on what is happening socially in the world? I feel that’s what many people are calling for now, using historical accuracy as their platform while passively watching Tarantino make Swiss cheese out of Hitler without a murmur of complaint.
share
Inglorious Basterds was meant to be an entertaining alternative history movie, not a historical drama. This (or The Crucible, for that matter) is totally not an analogous example. Especially considering that the novels I mention weren't written centuries after the events.
Of course. But if any of your arguably unlikely suggested adaptations were to be actually made, it would certainly be a deliberate political statement. Then it’s the viewer’s choice whether it’s a statement they wish to open themselves to.
There’ll be a few examples in the coming years, I’m sure you’re right there. I don’t see a tsunami of wokeness on the horizon though. I’m afraid I just don’t. Some will say it’s already here with diversity quotas and what not, but I think if everyone chilled for a bit they will find things will even out and soon someone playing a character originally not of their own race will seem as ordinary as a woman being allowed to vote.
Always best actor for the role 👍
Eh. Were Regina King and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II the best actors for their respective roles in Watchmen?
I thought it was such a travesty that they actually won the Emmys. It was definitely to fill a quota.
Meanwhile, Tom Pelphrey gave an absolutely astounding performance on Ozark last season, and wasn't even nominated.
Yeah and I’m still sore about Toni Collette being Oscar snubbed for Hereditary but what are you gonna do? I’d wager Toni herself wouldn’t be playing the white victim card about it though, as rightfully pissed as she might be.
We probably won’t see eye to eye much here but thanks for the respectful conversation, I appreciate it.
Toni Collette is an amazing actress! I've been a fan of hers since Muriel's Wedding. She was robbed of her Oscar for sure!
share
Sure, any time.
Who really cares except people who would prefer not to watch black people in movies?
You make very good points. My take is that no one is actually forcing you to watch any of these productions. There are literally millions of films and tv show to choose from and you cited two that offended you because of forced diversity. Mark my words, years in the future film historians will look at increased representation as merely a footnote in the evolution of the industry. It’s a simple reflection of changing values in the world. Everyone is telling me to panic but you know what? I’ll go with a beer and a good flick and ignore the stuff I don’t want to watch. Like I always have. Trust me it’s a fun way to enjoy movies.
share
I am bothered by forced diversity casting in historical movies (not so much this one, but definitely on “Mary Queen of Scots” and the recent “David Copperfield”) and I categorically reject the accusation that it’s because I “would prefer not to watch black people in movies”.
Err I’m right here guys.
Awkward.
Well, we already demonstrated to you that it's not because we "don't like watching black people in movies", so I thought we were past that point where you specifically are concerned. Honestly I wasn't even thinking of you when I replied that.
And really, that particular claim couldn't be more off when it comes to me personally - I am a big movie buff and watch black movies and foreign movies, not to mention all the modern movies and series where obviously the casts are multi-racial.
I mean, I am picky about what I watch, but race isn't one of the criteria.
In my defence though I was responding to your “What if” and I have to say I stand by that. If there was an all black Jane Austen adaptation it wouldn’t be seen by people who don’t want to see black people in those roles. As I said before it would be a very deliberate political statement which we both know would have a target audience.
You know who I think is one of the most racist filmmakers to have emerged recently? Jordan Peele. I have a huge problem with the way he delivers his message.
Well, an all-black Jane Austen adaptation as part of which society, that lived where? Or do you mean an alternate history kind of thing like Tarantino or Hunters on Amazon Prime?
Also, what would be the artistic value of such a project?
The actors might be good? Good cinematography? Decent writing? I don’t know, what usually makes a good film?
shareIf 1900 London can be changed because historical accuracy is not important then can i change any film regarding fictional characters in Africa to contain white Europeans?
shareI’m sure you can do whatever you want.
shareBut you would call it racist. You would call it white-washing.
The hypocrisory screams when this happens.
Any white male fictional charcater can be changed to whatever they want and you are supposed to just accept it.
Any black fictional character can never be changed and will never be changed because there skin colour is important and defines them or something similar. You know how condescending that sound. We are told it is racist to define someone by there skin colour but that is exactly what people defending race swaps are advocating.
Such a double standard.
Then make your movie the way you want. Or only see the films you want to.
Either way, bitching at me because I don’t have a stomach ulcer over this shit really won’t change anything 🤷♂️
You could do it, but you would definitely be cancelled.
shareWhen it happens it's no longer 'tweaked' history, it's pure fiction is all.
share“The Wiz” was an abomination, largely because a 40-something Diana Ross (who, right?) insisted on being cast as Dorothy.
shareWuthering Heights? There's already been a black Heathcliff.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1181614/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_6
If Emily Brontë intended Heathcliff to be black she would have surely included mention of it in her novel.
Hindley Earnshaw would have undoubtedly cursed Heathcliff with vile racial insults, as would Edgar Linton and Joseph, sadly most people of that time period would have reacted to Heathcliff differently due his skin colour, to pretend otherwise is just absurd.
https://heathcliff.fandom.com/wiki/Heathcliff_%26_the_Catillac_Cats
Heathcliff has been different colors and races in other adaptations too
LOL
share
Heathcliff was Gypsy in the novel.
Well, you know one of the rules in modern Hollywood: every non-white group can be played blacks. Gipsies? blacks. Arabs? blacks. Ancient Egyptians? blacks. And so on.
shareC’mon kuk, if Elizabeth Taylor can pull off Egyptian 🤷♂️
shareAnd why not?
Ancient Egyptians are extinct. What you have now in Egypt are Arabs. Since the original Egyptian ethnic group has been extinct for a long time, I don't see the problem in casting a white chick.
Absolutely no reason why not. But why not a black one who logic would dictate would have at least a closer skin tone to Cleo than Lilly white Liz?
shareEgyptians (and people in the north coast of Africa in general) looked like a middle point between modern European and Arabs. It's not exactly that, but that's a good approximation. Actually, there were blonde and red-hair Egyptians.
The logical choice would be a white, a Jew or an Arab. A black? Is that a joke?
Not at all. I think someone like Zoe Kravitz would be far genetically closer to Cleopatra than Elizabeth Taylor. Especially with her Jewish ancestry. Not to say she’d be better than Elizabeth Taylor, I’m not brain dead, but let’s call it for what it is. I could name a few more black AND white actresses I could see as Cleopatra but I get the feeling I’m pissing you off.
shareYou're wrong. Check your sources.
shareAfrica’s most famous queen was of Macedonian Greek descent with a little Egyptian blood thrown in, and most likely a product of incest as practiced by the Ptolemies.
Surviving images of Cleopatra VII on Greek and Roman busts and coins show a woman of Mediterranean ethnicity, but artists at the time were perfectly capable of showing other ethnic groups too.
Blacks among the slaves would have been fine.
shareI think your problem here is that you have mistaken this adaptation of a modern novel, itself adapting a fictional story of a Victorian era detective, for an historically accurate recreation of Victorian times in a documentary style.
Once you worked out the obvious error with your thinking here, you should have no problem taking this piece of light entertainment (again, not historic recreation) for what it is. Good luck 👍
Your tone is so didactic, but I have to wonder, WHAT does being a documentary have to do with anything? So, we can only apply any sorts of standards of believability to documentaries?? 🙄
It's about the dumbest argument anyone can use. You saw it all the time back on IMDb.
shareI love how having some (and in fact very few) characters played by racially diverse actors has the ability to "take you out of the story", yet having the girl from Stranger Things turning directly to the camera, breaking the forth wall, and talking directly to YOU didn't! 😂
share
There are many books where the protagonist talks directly to the reader, too.
But whatever, just go laugh somewhere else - I won't respond because there is obviously no prospect of an intelligent discussion here.
there is obviously no prospect of a racist discussion here.
Eh, who cares about anything you say, you can't even read. [shrug]
A narrative device is not the same as historical (in)accuracy.
shareOf course it isn't. But then I never claimed it was.
The very specific point was that the OP was claiming racial diversity in this fictional tale was taking him "out of the story" despite the picture repeatedly using the breaking the fourth wall convention. The very purpose of which is to take the viewer "out of the story".
Therefore the claim, in the context of this film, is utterly absurd.
"The very specific point was that the OP was claiming racial diversity in this fictional tale was taking him "out of the story" despite the picture repeatedly using the breaking the forth wall convention."
You're comparing them, thereby suggesting they're similar.
"The very purpose of which is to take the viewer "out of the story"."
If that's the purpose of the device, then there's no reason for the OP to complain about it.
"Therefore the claim, in the context of this film, is utterly absurd."
The context of the movie is late 19th century London. Unless the purpose of the racial diversity is to take the viewer out of the story, the OP's complaint is not at all absurd.
I am not "comparing" them, I am saying that the outcome of the fourth wall device quite deliberately takes the viewer out of the story, whilst the OP claims that it was seeing racial diversity that took him out of the story. My point is that for the OP they should both be taking him out of the story / removing believability and the fourth wall breaking happens first.
Otherwise we have to accept a viewing experience whereby the OP has the girl from Stranger Things turning winking at him going "What ho! Cor blimey something is clearly afoot here!", etc, etc, scene after scene with him thinking to himself - Wow, this is amazing! I'm so fully immersed in this Victorian period piece I fully believe that Enola Holmes herself is talking to me herself! This is just soooo realistic!
We'd have to believe that he himself believes this so much, has invested so much in the realism of what he is seeing, that not even the girl from Stranger Things talking repeatedly to him has given him the slightest inkling that he is watching a fictional fantasy...
He would have to be what we'd consider a very "special" viewer to be in such a state having watched all this to then have his illusion of being in authentic recreation of Victorian times shattered - frothing at the mouth at the outrageous indignity of it! - by seeing a couple of non white characters appearing in the background!
It's completely laughable.
Yes, you are comparing them by saying the OP should be bothered by both or bothered by neither.
"I am saying that the outcome of the fourth wall device quite deliberately takes the viewer out of the story"
And that's the difference. The racial diversity takes the viewer out of the story when it's not supposed to.
Once the narrative style is established, one is able to go along with it. But racial diversity goes against the historical context of the story.
"It's completely laughable."
Only because you're turning it into something the OP didn't even imply.
And that's the difference. The racial diversity takes the viewer out of the story when it's not supposed to.
Not irrelevant whatsoever, the context of the movie is that it's supposed to be late 19th century London.
A character breaking the 4th wall does not automatically take one out of the story. She is still in-character and it's simply a device to express her inner voice. It's not something to be taken literally like the way characters look.
A character breaking the 4th wall does not automatically take one out of the story.
Well, if you say that a narrator of a novel revealing their inner thoughts instead of just describing events takes you out of the story, then we certainly have to agree to disagree.🤷♀️
share
You are wasting your time - this just isn't an intelligent individual, and every point he makes only proves it further. It's like he learned the skill of writing from somewhere, except that it's all based on pure sh*t. Like, why even keep repeating the utterly meaningless phrase "the girl from Stranger Things"? Is that all she is going to be for the rest of her life now? What a preposterous way to refer to an actor.
And btw, the OP is a she, which I would have thought was beyond clear from my nick and avatar.
What you say involves that portraying blacks as deeply retarded (that was usual during 30s and 40s) is OK because it's not supposed to be an accurate recreation in a documentary style, isn't it?
And the nazi movies where the Jews always happened to be the villains, that's OK too because it's not supposed to be an accurate recreation in a documentary style, isn't it?
Who would have guessed...
Historically speaking there were already Africans and Asians in UK since 17th century, though not in large numbers, but that is OK, there aren't that many Africans and Asians in the movie. But British nationality law at the time was that even you were born in UK but if you father was not a British citizen then you are not a British citizen. Denization, which was granted by monarchy as an exception, was the only other way.
That changed in British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, after that as long as you were born in UK or one of colonies you are a British citizen according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law
Enola Holmes movie should be set in 1884 when Representation of the People Act 1884, or the Third Reform Act, was passed (That was the only reform bill passed in late 19th century which extended suffrage to more people). That should be the reform bill mentioned in the movie, at least chronologically, if we are faithful to the history.
As women’s suffrage did not pass in any capacity until 1918, but if we focus more on the story, then Representation of the People Act 1918 or women’s voting right bill was more likely what the movie was referring.
But in either case Edith (the black lady) was not a British citizen at the time. None of these things applied to her, so what was she risking her life fighting for? Also there were heavy racial discrimination at the time, so what transpired in the movie (Edith joined a group of white women fighting for women's rights) was not very likely.
So I think that was more likely the reason you were uncomfortable about what was in the movie.
I don't understand, more likely than what?
I'll add to that that there would have been no way for a black woman to work at a cafe back then, let alone manage or own one.
Actually that is not exactly true, there were examples of successful black proprietors at the time, According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_African_presence_in_London#19th_century
shareThree people. And you can be sure they have looked extensively for every historical case.
shareWell, that is enough to say being a black person owning a cafe in London at the time was not historically impossible. Though Edith was a woman, being a black woman owning a cafe in London was still very unlikely, but I guess not impossible.
shareI said owning because I don't think any white owner at the time would have hired Edith, not to mention also teaching Jujitsu upstairs and having banned books on shelves.
Also there were some explosives upstairs, unless Edith was the owner that is just not very realistic.
I also don't think that she would have had customers even if it was possible for her to own a cafe, or that it was the kind of situation where it would have been possible for her to have an all-black clientele.
As I mentioned in my other topic, even Jews weren't allowed in society back then, let alone anyone non-white.
I do agree racial segregation was still largely in place at the time but it does not have to be in an all black neighborhood since Edith used white waitresses. Though it seems Edith serves customers from time to time as well, if that did not happen then nobody might even know the owner was a black woman.
And we can see most of clientele were white women, though there was a well dressed black man. So that also makes the believability a bit more difficult.
Also they are serving things like macarons so that might not even be a poor neighborhood, more like a afternoon tea place for middle class since noble houses would have in house staff making afternoon tea and would not have tolerated a noisy upstairs.
I guess Edith's place was the few places serving people of color, which no doubt would have repelled some customers, in a strip mall kind of marketplace near working class but not poor neighborhood.
I guess it could be considered exotic, macarons are foreign and exotic at the time (I think it is still foreign and exotic to some people even today). and I guess it could have been hard to find a good place serving decent afternoon tea and exotic deserts at a reasonable price (macarons are still quite expensive today and very difficult to make at home).
The point is although unlikely (all white female clientele and waitresses and no teaching of Jujitsu upstairs are more "likely") I still think that is possible at the time.
Edith's tearoom was in East London as on address, which was a rapid changing neighborhood at the time and a mix of rich and poor according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London#Accelerated_19th-century_development
By the end of 19th century there were still fine houses but a lot of areas became slums in East London. A movement began to clear the slums. "Artisans' and Labourers' Dwelling Act" passed in 1876 to provide powers to seize slums from landlords and to provide access to public funds to build new housing, official slum clearance programs had begun in 1890. These included the creation of the world's first council housing.
So if they want to make things up and make it hard to disapprove, I think that was the perfect place and time.
Or shoehorning in somebody like Matt Damon as the savior of ancient China.
...Oh, wait.
That movie was billed as fantasy, though.
I don't mind the black and Asian characters in Thor, for instance, because I mean who cares anyway, it's not even happening in this world. Although I know some people do, because obviously non-white characters couldn't have possibly been part of the original mythology.
Matt Damon, Pedro Pascal and Willem Dafoe all played Europeans, the movie follows Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal on their journey to China, evading Alien Creatures along the way.
The film was directed by the brilliant Yimou Zhang, also known for Hero, House of Flying Daggers, and Curse of the Golden Flower. If Matt Damon had been playing Jet Li’s character in Hero, or if Pedro Pascal had nabbed Takeshi Kaneshiro’s role in House of Flying Daggers you’d have had a point.
How dare a Chinese production cast an American actor!
share