nothing against Indians or India but why cast an Indian to play the role of an English knight from the middle ages?
what if a white guy was cast to play Martin Luther King or Bruce Lee or Gandhi??
ridiculous.
Not only is he Indian, he's neither a knight, nor was he alive in the 14th century. It's okay though, because it's acting. He's a modern-day man of Indian lineage PRETENDING to be a medieval knight.
shareThe "small" difference is that you don't need to be a 14th century knight to pass for a 14th century knight. That's why the people who perform and act are called 'actors'.
But no matter what a wonderful actor you are, if you're Indian, or Black, you're not gonna pass for a white dude, not without lots of make-up and CGI. That's why a black/indian dude is not a wisest cast to play a white dude (and 14th century knights were white dudes), that's why a 60 years old dude is neither a wisest cast to play a little girl, that's why Morgan Freeman is not the wisest cast to play Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and that's why Marty Feldman wouldn't have been neither the wisest cast to play a Marilyn Monroe biopic. Who would have imagined, huh?
Ah, yes, the site racist checks in with another logic-free comment to confirm that yes, he believes only white people should play fill-in-the-blank role. Thanks for sharing.
shareSo your (cough cough) counter-argument is "you racist! sexist! atheist! fascist!". I see.
Thanks for sharing.
No, my argument is the one I have carefully spelled out over several posts.
shareWhich makes no sense given that the original Arthurian tale -- for the literate people who are familiar with it (which likely means non-Leftists) -- is about a young man who beheads a knight and then will have the same blow dealt to him a year on.
King Arthur's Knights of the Roundtable were white. There's no escaping that. It's about a story steeped in medieval European culture. There's no escaping that.
If they wanted to tell the tale of the Green Knight but with an Indian, I'm completely fine with that. But then they should set it in India during the medieval era and then there's no problems to be had.
Race-swapping a renown European character for an Indian without explanation has no argumentative recourse. You either agree that it should have been set in India, or concede that it's a gross perversion of the original Arthurian tale.
I think my argument is much more sound than yours. The legends of King Arthur are foundational myths that embody the spirit and people of Britain. The people of Britain are no longer just white people, and haven't been for a long time. To argue that the myths only apply to white Britons is nonsense. An Englishman is an Englishman, whether his ancestors came over with the conqueror or in 1966. The Knights of the Round Table are the heroic spirits of Britain, whose citizens trace their ancestry to all corners of the world.
shareThe people of Britain are no longer just white people, and haven't been for a long time.
The Knights of the Round Table are the heroic spirits of Britain,
whose citizens trace their ancestry to all corners of the world.
If the American Indians had stayed around and they created and ran Detroit, it would make absolute sense to reflect the modern denizens of Detroit in their myths. The difference is that the Arthurian legends are the stories of Britain, and there are many Britons of Indian descent. You deciding that the myths should only reflect one group of British citizens is arbitrary.
shareand there are many Britons of Indian descent.
That's nonsense. You continue to confuse history with myth. There is nothing about casting a British actor of Indian descent as Sir Gawain that is muddying any triumphs, setbacks, or glories of man. If this were a biopic of Winston Churchill, Dev Patel would be an odd choice, as it's customary to find actors who closely resemble their subject, but this is a fairy tale that exists to inspire the British people. Making the characters resemble British people makes perfect sense.
At the time the stories were created, the people of modern-day England were a mix of Celts, who had lived on the island since times unknown, mixed with newer arrivals from what's now Germany, Denmark, Holland, and other parts of Northern Europe. Would you be upset if an actor of Danish ancestry were playing Sir Gawain? After all, the legends tell us that Arthur and his Knights were Celtic, original Britons, active in the 5th and 6th Centuries, long before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Frisians showed up. More importantly, do you think anyone in the 1200s would have objected to an Anglo-Saxon actor playing Sir Gawain in a reenactment of the legends?
Populations evolve, and newer members of a society are just as entitled to take part in the local mythology as are the older members. King Arthur and his Knights are eternal symbols of Britain, and they mirror the British people of all times and ages, not just the British people of 900 years ago.
this is a fairy tale that exists to inspire the British people.
Making the characters resemble British people makes perfect sense.
Would you be upset if an actor of Danish ancestry were playing Sir Gawain? After all, the legends tell us that Arthur and his Knights were Celtic, original Britons, active in the 5th and 6th Centuries, long before the Angles, Saxons, Jutes or Frisians showed up.
Populations evolve, and newer members of a society are just as entitled to take part in the local mythology as are the older members.
Cultural Marxism has nothing to do with this. Arthur is as much a "historical figure" as is Jesus. They are characters of mythology, possibly based on a real person, or a combination of real people, but in minor ways, and the fabricated mythology surrounding them vastly outweighs any possible shred of true detail that exists.
Dev Patel looks like Sir Gawain should look-- like a British man.
Arthur is as much a "historical figure" as is Jesus. They are characters of mythology, possibly based on a real person, or a combination of real people, but in minor ways, and the fabricated mythology surrounding them vastly outweighs any possible shred of true detail that exists.
Dev Patel looks like Sir Gawain should look-- like a British man.
Jesus is absolutely mythological, and there are no texts, Roman or otherwise, from his time documenting him. He does not show up until long after he was supposed to have lived.
Arthur is about as likely as Jesus, and both are likely amalgamations of many individuals, with only the tiniest grain of truth grown into myth.
As for Tacitus-- much is made of a passage in Tacitus, who lived 55-120 A.D., about Christians being persecuted by Nero in 64 A.D. This passage is almost certainly a forgery, as it was never mentioned, even by zealous defender of the faith Eusebius and others, until the 15th century A.D. Even Tertullian, who read and often quoted Tacitus, makes no mention of it even though it would have helped his case immeasurably.
As for Tacitus-- much is made of a passage in Tacitus, who lived 55-120 A.D., about Christians being persecuted by Nero in 64 A.D. This passage is almost certainly a forgery, as it was never mentioned, even by zealous defender of the faith Eusebius and others, until the 15th century A.D. Even Tertullian, who read and often quoted Tacitus, makes no mention of it even though it would have helped his case immeasurably.
It's absolutely a forgery, and only someone unwilling to accept facts in order to further his own beliefs says otherwise. If the passage existed, it would have been quoted before the 15th Century, especially by Tertullian.
The fact remains that there is no historical evidence for Jesus until long after his death. That lack of evidence is compounded by the fact that there were about 40 historians who wrote during the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., none of whom mention Jesus. Some of them include:
Plutarch- Roman biographer, lived at the same time (46-120 A.D.) and same place where the Christians were supposed to have been, yet made no mention of them or Jesus in his histories.
Flavius Josephus- the most famous Jewish historian, lived 37-95 A.D. His father Matthias lived in Jerusalem at the same time as Pilate, and would certainly have told his son about someone like Jesus. Josephus himself was in Rome at the same time Paul was supposed to have been there. Yet in the many volumes of his histories there is no mention of Paul or the Christians. There are two passages, dismissed by both scholars and Christians as forgeries, that purport to refer to Jesus. Proof of the forgery, beyond the testimony of scholars who studied the work, is that before the 4th century A.D. the passage was not found in Josephus' works, and was unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers. It was first mentioned by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th century, a figure known to have inserted forged lines into other documents. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32). He openly admits that it is the accepted norm to add text where needed in order to propagate the story he wants to tell.
Pliny the Younger- lived 62-113 A.D. A letter, allegedly written by Pliny, to Trajan now contains the word "Christians," although the original word was "Essenes," and was later changed to "Christians" during a revision by Christian writers.
Seutonius- lived 69-140 A.D. He wrote a passage mentioning someone named "Chrestus" or "Chrestos" at Rome. As Christ was never reported to have been in Rome, the passage offers little support to the idea that there was a Jesus Christ. Further, that name was a common title in Rome.
Philo Judaeus- lived 20 B.C-50 A.D. considered the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus.
Seneca- lived 4? B.C. - 65 A.D. Never mentioned Jesus
Pliny the Elder- lived 23? - 79 A.D. Never mentioned Jesus
First of all, you're begging the question. Cherry-picking historians who didn't mention someone in text is not proof of forgery at all.
Second of all, you disprove your own point, given that Seneca did not write about people and events as some sort of historian. Majority of his writings dealt with self reflection and improvement, rather than dated events. Even more than that, Seneca references certain people and circumstances not found in other writings, which further validates that Tacitus very well did write off-handedly about an event no one else did (and he did so with snide invective). There is no reason for anyone to forge the vilification of Jesus Christ in a completely random anthology for the purpose of verisimilitude.
As I stated before, Occam's Razor is at play here and until you provide actual proof of forgery, it's nothing more than a completely spurious presupposition on your part.
And you conveniently forgot the Stoics, the only Greek philosophical sect who did adopt Christian principles to their teachings after Paul visited them in Athens.
Said teachings were later adopted to the Stoic principles, with the Judeo-Christian Yahweh referenced in Arrian's writings of Epictetus, the latter of whom met with the Christian apostles in Greece shortly after the death of Jesus, which you'll find discussed in the Enchridion, as well as The Golden Sayings, and in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
An easy find for anyone who doesn't go out of their way to indulge themselves in the historical revisionism of Atheist propaganda.
Game. Set. Match.
Occam's Razor tells us Jesus never existed. The burden of proof is on you, not me. There is no evidence whatsoever of Jesus in the historical record, even though he lived in a time and place that was thoroughly documented by local historians. If you want to believe in him, that's great, but don't pretend there is evidence when you can produce none. Belief in a magical god is a matter of faith, and you are free to believe what you wish.
shareOccam's Razor tells us Jesus never existed.
My substantial evidence is that it's considered a proven fact that Eusebius added the lines you quote. They didn't exist prior to the 4th Century, after he added them.
Nothing you mention is historical in any sense of the word. You, though you complain about an actor of Indian ancestry portraying Sir Gawain is paving the way for dangerous historical revisionism, seem indifferent to clear historical forgery and revisionism to prove the existence of someone you have faith, but no proof, existed.
My substantial evidence is that it's considered a proven fact that Eusebius added the lines you quote.
Nothing you mention is historical in any sense of the word.
seem indifferent to clear historical forgery and revisionism to prove the existence of someone you have faith, but no proof, existed.
Of course, once you've exhausted the nonsense, you resort to the ad hominem attack.
The fact remains that there is nothing in the historical record to suggest Jesus was a real person. Until you can provide something, you're working on faith.
This conversation has become a waste of time, so please reply with whatever attack you feel is warranted, and enjoy getting in the last word.
The fact remains that there is nothing in the historical record to suggest Jesus was a real person. Until you can provide something, you're working on faith.
[deleted]
Kazuo Ishiguro is British
shareSome people can't accept anyone as British unless their ancestors came over with the conqueror, or were there to greet him. It seems to be just a tiny number of people who hold this opinion, but, like most tiny, fringe minority elements, they are extremely loud with their misguided opinions.
shareI understand, but these days tend to reject, the argument that By Appearance a movie that isn't trying to be accurate enough should be deemed Unconvincing.
We only think we know how these people looked because that's how they have been Romanticized to have looked like, and we want that simple Linearity, (i.e., Jesus was a White looking dude because that's how people wanted him to look back then and it has carried forward to today).
But as our Minds get more Elastic and less Prejudiced, we can just let the story take it's course and not be concerned with whether a Person is Colored and what not.
If they wanted to tell the tale of the Green Knight but with an Indian, I'm completely fine with that. But then they should set it in India during the medieval era and then there's no problems to be had.
Excellent call!
That's how you do a cultural reinterpretation of fiction without undermining the original. A lot of people who may not have been familiar with Lear but saw Ran would then be enticed to check out the original. That's how it should be.
King Arthur's knights were, in all probability, romano-british, celts and decendents of Roman legionaries from all over the Empire and further afield. The current stories apparently start as stories written down in medieval France after the crusades - another great mixing of peoples. Just because Victorian printers had them illustrated as sturdy Anglo-Saxons it ain't necessarily so. In fact they were probably campaigning against them (ironic, ain't it).
shareIm not england and i kinda understand what OP is saying Pattel is not a bad actor but i dont see why they couldnt hire an actor more apropiate to the role
I believe is a reasonable complaint and you shouldnt accuse someone of being racist just for this.
I haven't accused anyone of being a racist. I'm only making the point that as a population changes, its myths change to reflect that population. Jesus is the classic example of this, but Sir Gawain is another.
shareWell if this is ok then white people in black face are perfectly fine then?
NPCerror.exe
Fucking dumbass.
How are those two things even remotely similar?
shareIf people can pretend to be white, why can't they pretend to be black? It's only makeup and acting.
shareNo one is "pretending to be white" in this film.
shareSo if anything black face is even less problematic since you can still keep the ethnicity of the character as it has been historically portrayed.
Or I guess it would be possible to reappropriate characters of different nationalities as white to save the trouble, and you'd obviously be completely fine with that.
Actually, it is your comment that is logic-free. He is right. It simply makes no sense, from a historical perspective, to have an Indian European knight.
To simply reply, "Ah ha, but you know. . . Acting!" is lazy. You should read up on a concept called verisimilitude.
The film is not depicting a historical event. It's a fairy tale about the magical times of the distant past. It may be based in some tiny way upon history, in that perhaps there was an Arthur, or a number of people who were morphed into one Arthur, but for all intents and purposes, it's pure fantasy. The Knights of the Round Table are the legendary beings who embody the spirit of the English people. To depict them as representing English society makes perfect sense, and is far more logical than saying, "nope, the stories were initially conceived 900 years ago, and must only include actors who looked like the Britons of the time."
And beyond that, the fact that it is acting is completely relevant. If you can't see past the color of an actor's skin, or hair, or eyes, or his height or weight or whatever else, the issue is with you, not the film. Acting means pretending to be someone or something you're not. Verisimilitude only enters into it if your prejudices won't let you see past some aspect of the actor playing the role.
Let me ask you this: Would you cast Elijah Wood as the lead in a Conan the Barbarian remake? If he were cast in such a role, would you accept your own "acting means pretending to be someone or something you're not" as a good explanation for that casting decision, or would you regard it as totally preposterous?
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, physical characteristics are an important consideration when it comes to casting for a role. This includes the racial make-up of an actor.
If you want to say that you, personally, are not at all bothered by the casting of an Indian guy to play a European knight in a story set in medieval Britain then you are certainly welcome to not be bothered by it. But if someone else brings up the obvious fact that such casting is entirely anachronistic and absurd, you are in the wrong for acting as if their concern has no merit, and certainly in the wrong for calling that person a racist (as you have already done at least once in this thread).
Consider your example: what are the defining traits of Conan the Barbarian? He's huge, musclebound, strong, and fearsome. So you cast an actor who has those traits, or most of them. Elijah Wood would be a tough sell, because he is small, thin, weak, and friendly-looking.
What are the defining traits of Sir Gawain? He is said to be a formidable, courteous, and compassionate warrior. The color of his skin is irrelevant, and it makes equal sense for him to be white, black, or Indian, just like the people of Great Britain, for whom he is a symbol. That you personally can't see past skin color is indicative of your own prejudice, so it as anachronistic or absurd to do.
And no, I have not called anyone a racist for any such reason. I pointed out that user Ku Kux U, who openly admits to being racist, and has posted saying that movies in which blacks are portrayed as intelligent are absurd and anachronistic, is in fact a racist.
Like it or not, race is a genuine characteristic. It's more than just skin pigmentation, but also says something about one's ethnicity, heritage and bloodline.
Sir Gawain, whether fictional or real, is a caucasian character, whose identity is deeply rooted in the peoples of Britain circa the 5th century (as is Arthur's). So it's perfectly reasonable to look at Dev Patel and sense a mismatch, in the same way that Chris Hemsworth has no business playing a legendary character of Indian antiquity.
This sort of casting might be fine for community theater, but it's questionable at best for a film.
So I am sure you will also agree that Mickey Rooney was just a 20th century man of Irish heritage PRETENDING to be a Japanese man in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", and John Wayne was just a 20th century man of British heritage PRETENDING to be a medieval Mongol ruler. That was okay, though, because it's acting.
shareWhy wouldn't it be? Apparently you don't think so?
shareI am testing your hypocrisy levels. Most people who approve of "colorwash" casting rise up in self-righteous frothing anger when "whitewash" roles are mentioned.
shareIt's not hypocrisy. It's just that non racists/white supremacists tend to take into account that by default most Hollywood acting roles, especially lead parts are overwhelmingly given to white actors, so there's a particular frustration among non white actors when the odd opportunity arises to play a character that is specifically non white, only for the role to be given to a white actor anyway.
It's a dead giveaway that you're dealing with a white supremacist bad faith argument when a person is only interested in complaining about "race swaps" on the odd occasions where it's actually to the benefit of a non white actor & NEVER complaining about the reverse despite being far more common.
Maybe they won't make him up to be Indian.
shareIt's odd casting. I could see him getting the role as the green knight with a lot of green makeup on him. These are Arthurian legends that make up the foundation of Britain's cultural heritage. This would be like telling the story of the Hindu/Buddhist origin story of churning of the milk with white dudes playing the Hindu gods. There could be a token white as one of the lesser gods but the main gods should be Asian.
I think they are neglecting a large part of the target audience. Middle-aged white guys would love to see this story and might even buy merchandise and video games based on this movie. I think a lot of middle-aged white guys would be alienated by an Arthurian legend portrayed by a South Asian. Most of the Chinese/Indians/Latinx that I know in the USA are big fans of movies from their home countries.
Why do you think anyone will be alienated by an actor because he traces his ancestry to India? It has no bearing whatsoever on the film. Do you think there is some large contingent of secret racists who only want to see white actors?
shareI just think if the role is a historically/culturally significant person, the actor should represent the ethnic origins of that person either from history or from other sources. I also realize that actors of all races want to work so roles should be available to good actors of all races.
Gawain is King Arthur's nephew so he is directly related to King Arthur, the mythical King of England. I personally would prefer to see a European portray Gawain since that would be authentic casting. Similarly, I would want to see an African portray Shaka Zulu, a South Asian portray Nehru and a caucasian portray Clark Kent/Superman. I don't think it's racist to advocate for authentic casting since the film would be more accurate and respectful of the original work.
I wrote a response to another person that said about the same thing as you, but here's the most applicable part. You can see the rest if you scroll down a few comments.
"The King Arthur legends are just that, legends. They are mythical figures meant to embody the spirit and history of Britain. When they were initially invented, some 900 years ago, sure, the denizens of the British Isles were mostly white. Today, they aren't. In the past 900 years, Britain colonized most of the known world, and brought people from India, Jamaica, and all corners of the earth into their fold. Those are the British people of 2021, and those are the people that King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table embody and represent, so it makes complete sense to me that they should look like British people.
Take Jesus Christ as a famous example. He represents American Christianity, and is depicted as American-looking in our pictures and films, though the people of what's now Syria no doubt looked a lot different from us. As cultures change over time, their myths change with them, and to say that the Arthurian legends should only represent the people Great Britain circa 1100 A.D. sounds pretty nonsensical to me."
We'll disagree on this issue of casting but it's good to have an exchange of ideas. I won't order the movie but I might watch it if I see it in my streaming queue. I just think the target audience of a European medieval sword and shield movie are white males and the casting should appeal to them. As a white male, I would prefer to see Gawain played by a European male.
There is some scholarly debate about the historical origins of King Arthur so he may not be a mythical figure. He is referenced in some historical texts and poems but the recordkeeping wasn't good back then.
I always thought Jesus looked Jewish and I believe he is supposed to be Jewish. A lot of Jews and Syrians look European anyway. Hollywood was founded by Jews and they always played a big role on and off the screen.
Not to mention that (and most here will take this as SJW nonsense so I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to them, but you seem more human than the average poster here) there is something to be said for "reparations" or "paying back what's due"
Britain colonized the fuck out of much of the world, including India. They chose to disrupt other cultures in order to obtain more wealth and power. That's cool, it's history. No one is going to actually physically avenge these things. Same goes with the United States and black people. They bought or brought African slaves and kept them enslaved for many years. Some will retort with the argument that Africans would take part in enslaving other Africans and sell them to American companies. This may be true, but it was still the Americans who created the slave market in the first place
So no, there is no symmetry. I'm sorry. I'm neither Indian nor African American, but I do see fairness in giving these races/ethnicities opportunities to play historical/iconic figures that have long been portrayed as white, and NO I do not think that the reverse is true
If you feel that that is unfair, I don't care. Yes, maybe it is unfair that you are "paying" for the sins of your ancestors. If watching an Indian actor play a knight is "paying" for the sins of imperialism and slaughter, tough shit. Deal with it
I don't care much about identity politics, I don't NEED to see a black Superman or an Indian Gaiwan, but it doesn't bother me. But I DO see something wrong with a white person playing MLK. TOUGH SHIT if you disagree, clearly the movie industry doesn't and that's all that matters
"Go woke, go broke", yeah keep dreaming. Most people don't give enough fucks to let the race of an actor keep them from watching a movie. It didn't stop people from watching whites play Asians, Latinos, or Indians back when these practices were considered acceptable. It won't stop them now that the reverse is happening
If you feel that that is unfair, I don't care. Yes, maybe it is unfair that you are "paying" for the sins of your ancestors. If watching an Indian actor play a knight is "paying" for the sins of imperialism and slaughter, tough shit. Deal with it
That's not gonna happen, but ok lol. If it did I wouldn't mind, it's just not gonna happen. Who exactly do you hope is going to carry out this little power fantasy of yours?
The next generation of WHAT? Of consumers? When I was growing up, trans gender people were called transsexuals. Explicitly gay characters, nevermind gay love scenes, were still somewhat taboo. Now we have LGBTQ characters everywhere and nobody really cares (including me). Years ago I remember religious groups would talk about a cultural backlash against this type of "moral decay". I'm still waiting for that backlash, hope they aren't holding their breath
I know most members of this forum are too dumb to grasp this simple concept, but Hollywood has ALWAYS leaned left. Artists, journalists, and critics tend to be liberal-leaning by nature. The corporate heads that run the studios only care about making money, and even when there WAS a resurgence of what you may call "white pride" during Trump's first campaign, Hollywood only dug in their heels even more
If anything, it is nutjobs like you that accelerate Hollywood's "leftist agenda"
The next generation of WHAT? Of consumers? When I was growing up, trans gender people were called transsexuals. Explicitly gay characters, nevermind gay love scenes, were still somewhat taboo. Now we have LGBTQ characters everywhere and nobody really cares (including me).
Years ago I remember religious groups would talk about a cultural backlash against this type of "moral decay". I'm still waiting for that backlash, hope they aren't holding their breath
USA Today and "thepostmillenial". I'm not quite thoroughly convinced, but believe what you want. It makes no difference, feel free to bump this thread in 5-10 years when your fantasy comes true and Hollywood starts either casting white actors in "non-white roles" or demures from its presentation of LGBTQ people. Like I said, just don't stay holding your breath
And that article you posted from the BBC is quoted as being signed by 1,000. I don't know exactly how large the French military is, but I doubt 1,000 people represents a sizable percentage of its population. I'm sure you could get 10,000 assholes in our own military to sign something similar, it still wouldn't change Hollywood's political biases, which is what you are trying to argue will happen
And it's funny that you use the term agitprop as a negative thing when you are actively engaging in it in a very unsubtle way. Describing your group as "normal people" versus SJWs is pretty clever, I must admit. Must really get your buddies riled up at the klan rallies
And the "agit" part can be found in your sad declarations of impotent rage: "hate it with a burning passion", "bubbling up", "blow back", "boiling point"
It is literally a fucking Indian dude playing a fucking knight in a Fantasy movie. You are too pathetic for me to bother continuing this conversation further. Sorry
The corporate heads that run the studios only care about making money, and even when there WAS a resurgence of what you may call "white pride" during Trump's first campaign, Hollywood only dug in their heels even more
Dude, it's like you can only do one thing at a time: either math, or critical thinking. I appreciate your efforts to back up your claims with sources, even though you lack the intellectual rigor to vet those sources, it's still cute seeing you try
But let us look at your math and examine how you interpret it. Ok, so only less than 2% of the total U.S. population is gay. I assume you are excluding anyone who identifies as bi, queer, trans, etc. First, let us note that self-identification is not necessarily a true, accurate representation of actual sexual orientation. But fuck that, that's just a minor issue in your high-school level analysis
You are assuming that because "gays" only make up about 2% of the population, that representing them in popular media is a gift, a charitable concession from the other 98%. It assumes that the remainder TOLERATES the tiny minority. That everyone else who is not gay finds gays as repugnant and decadent as you. You assume that out of that 98%, 98% WANT to censor the minority
It is just stupid-level thinking. Not sure how else to describe it. If the world worked this simply then all white people would have been vanquished from this planet via mass genocide by all other races or ethnicities. But they haven't. It presents a paradox to your dumbass world-view, because (at the risk of sounding redundant) your world view is dumb as fuck
You ignore people who simply do not give a shit if fictional characters on their TV are gay or not. You ignore allies. You ignore retards like yourself who clearly still consume movies and TV w/ minorities and gays despite being bigots. So NO, corporations will NOT stop representation despite your impressive grasp of basic statistics
So NO, corporations will NOT stop representation despite your impressive grasp of basic statistics
You're not going to win an obvious logical debate with someone of low intelligence that appears to drink the liberal Kool aid every morning.
They think just disagreeing with basic facts is a tactic ... Lol.
You're not going to win an obvious logical debate with someone of low intelligence that appears to drink the liberal Kool aid every morning.
They think just disagreeing with basic facts is a tactic ... Lol.
"I don't care much about identity politics"
He says, while writing a post drenched in some of the crudest, most ignorant and regressive identity politics imaginable.
‘ The King Arthur legends are just that, legends. They are mythical figures meant to embody the spirit and history of Britain. When they were initially invented, some 900 years ago, sure, the denizens of the British Isles were mostly white’
YOU should have stopped here. Dev pattel, and I like the actor, is not white. The history of Britain is most;y white.
So fuck off.
Well, there you go. You disagree, so "fuck off" and case closed. That's about what one expects from someone making and argument as goofy as yours.
shareNo argument is goofy when it is about something that literally is offensive to the culture and history of a country. And it’s offensive to shit on said culture/legends/mythology to forward some woke ideology.
And yes, you can say case closed, it’s not just a disagreement.
And it’s funny that same people that cheer on a black Anne get super offended when Gatod plays Cleopatra (a white character) and demand that it should be … Arabic or black
That you find Patel cast as Gawain to be offensive to the culture and history of a country is goofy, and that's being kind.
shareIf people can get all offended and boycott movies where white actors play non-white characters, then the same should apply to the reverse. I never watch any of the recent movies that have traditionally white characters played by non-white actors. If I hear about that happening, then boom! That's it for that movie as far as I am concerned. For example, I had hoped for a movie of Stephen King's Gunslinger for decades, but as soon as I heard Idris Elba was playing Roland, I wrote it off and have not seen it. Fortunately, I never miss much, because most, of not all, of these movies with a political agenda are rancid, stinking duds anyhow.
what do you think if a movie about a Chinese emperor was played by a white actor? would you honestly say the same thing that you just said about green knight? you wouldn't feel that Chinese / Asians would criticize the choice, and anyone in general watching the film would find this white guy out of place?
How about George Clooney portraying Nelson Mandela? How about Tom Hanks playing a Zulu king in Mozambique? Hitler played by Jackie Chan? same logic.
All that would be perfectly fine and no one would make any derogatory comments about those castings?
You're using examples contrary to the role we're discussing.
The King Arthur legends are just that, legends. They are mythical figures meant to embody the spirit and history of Britain. When they were initially invented, some 900 years ago, sure, the denizens of the British Isles were mostly white. Today, they aren't. In the past 900 years, Britain colonized most of the known world, and brought people from India, Jamaica, and all corners of the earth into their fold. Those are the British people of 2021, and those are the people that King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table embody and represent, so it makes complete sense to me that they should look like British people.
Take Jesus Christ as a famous example. He represents American Christianity, and is depicted as American-looking in our pictures and films, though the people of what's now Syria no doubt looked a lot different from us. As cultures change over time, their myths change with them, and to say that the Arthurian legends should only represent the people Great Britain circa 1100 A.D. sounds pretty nonsensical to me.
Beyond that, acting is based on a person pretending to be someone else, and skin color is pretty meaningless. Joseph Fiennes played Michael Jackson, Johnny Depp played Tonto, Laurence Olivier played Othello... one can probably find hundreds of examples of actors playing characters of a different ethnicity than their own. Why do you care? If they can play the part, they can play the part.
The King Arthur legends are just that, legends. They are mythical figures meant to embody the spirit and history of Britain. When they were initially invented, some 900 years ago, sure, the denizens of the British Isles were mostly white. Today, they aren't.
You make all sorts of bold proclamations, but just because you say anyone who disagrees with you is that, that, or the other is of no consequence.
No one is rewriting history, and this has nothing to do with past crimes or social justice. The myths of King Arthur represent Britain, and Britain is a changing entity. The people of England in 2021 are of different ethnic backgrounds than were those of 1121, but they are all equally British. Depicting the knights as representing what Britain actually looks like makes perfect sense, and involves no revision or rewriting of any history.
The myths of King Arthur represent Britain, and Britain is a changing entity. The people of England in 2021 are of different ethnic backgrounds than were those of 1121, but they are all equally British. Depicting the knights as representing what Britain actually looks like makes perfect sense, and involves no revision or rewriting of any history.
Good arguments! There is some historical record of Arthur's exploits from the 5th and 6th century AD so they shouldn't just say all the stories are myths. The story of the green knight sounds unbelievable but it could be based on a real encounter way back when. Similarly, Jesus Christ existed as a person but a lot of the miracles in the bible are perhaps exaggerated.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/king-arthur-facts-real-round-table-holy-grail-death-buried-lancelot-guinevere/
Oh no doubt about it.
Jesus even appears in some Roman texts, specifically a journal by a Roman Senator during that time.
My broader point, however, was that even if we were to reduce the Arthurian legend to just folklore (even though there's plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise), the tales making their way to film and television is still historically relative to the culture and times of that epoch, and should be respected as such.
If the folklore of other regional ethnicities should be respected, like John Henry, then so should the folklore of Caucasians.
If there is an African country that has a large contingent of Chinese and white citizens who have been raised in that country's culture, then by all means they are as privy to their nation's mythology as are those who can trace their ancestry back longer than they. Why wouldn't they be?
shareAh, so then you'd have no problems with an iteration of John Henry being played by whites or Hispanics to reflect modern day sensibilities, right?
shareCan you really not see how that's utterly different, or are you trolling at this point?
shareFeel free to explain the difference, and I'll gladly provide an antithesis as to why you justifying racism in one case and arguing against it in another is wrong.
shareI'm not arguing for or against racism in any regard. I'm saying that I think a country's mythology applies to all of its citizens, not just those who have been there the longest.
I don't know anything about John Henry, but after your first mention of him, I looked him up and see that he was an African-American laborer who, according to legends, challenged, and defeated a steam-powered rock drilling machine. He was part of a team of African-American laborers who had been released from prison and put to work digging tunnels. He may or may not have defeated a steam-powered drill, and it's likely that the story has been exaggerated somewhat over the years, but he was a real person who lived in fairly recent times. To put it in perspective, he lived at about the same time as my grandfather.
I don't see much of a connection between Sir Gawain and John Henry, and would assume a film based on Henry would cast a muscle-bound black actor, as it seems they have-- I read that Terry Crews is going to portray him in an upcoming film.
I don't see much of a connection between Sir Gawain and John Henry, and would assume a film based on Henry would cast a muscle-bound black actor, as it seems they have-- I read that Terry Crews is going to portray him in an upcoming film.
You're making a ridiculous leap of logic, and you know it. I think at this point there's no reason to continue this.
shareMy guess is that rather than slather him up in Lou Ferrigno makeup, they decided that his skin color already made him stand out & left it at that.
Like Oliver Stone's Alexander; he cast a bunch of Scots as Macedonians to contrast with the American-sounding Greeks. It didn't really work but I can at least understand the thought process behind it.
The Indian actor Dev Patel is set to play Gawain and the green knight will be played by a British actor. Sean Connery had green face paint on when he played the green knight in the '84 flick Sword of the Valiant. It looks like the green knight has a helmet that covers his face this time.
There should have been more Greeks cast in Alexander but most agree that it is a good film even if it has some historical discrepancies. Alexander was a Greek who was king of Macedonia, a Greek city-state. There was a big dispute between Greece and the country North Macedonia ( formerly Macedonia ) due to the country taking the name of Macedonia, one of the famous Greek city states.
Ah, I see. I commented after watching the trailer where Patel was featured. I incorrectly assumed he was the title character. The actual Green Knight looked brown on my screen. Thanks for the correction.
sharewell - A welsh guy played Darth Vader , but no one ever saw his face or heard his voice.
If the same applies here - thats all right isnt it?
I wouldn't have a problem with Dev Patel playing the green knight since the green knight is a supernatural being. The Indian actor Dev Patel is playing Gawain, the famous knight of the round table and King Arthur's nephew. Sean Connery played the green knight in Sword of the Valiant and he was covered in green paint.
shareAnd what’s the historical (or mythical) ethnicity of Darth Vader? Just curious …
shareNow a Native American "Indian" running around medieval Europe would have been even more weird.
sharehe is the green curry king bro!
shareA more apt comparison, perhaps, would be if you had an English actor play Rama in a film adaptation of the Ramayana.
I know I would raise an eyebrow just the same, but then, colorblindness can only go one way these days, and if you disagree, you must clearly be an awful human being.