5 ms·

This is a thoroughly nonsensical take. What is 'white' is very arbitrary in the first place. Where ancient Romans 'white'? Does it make it any more accurate to

This is a thoroughly nonsensical take. What is 'white' is very arbitrary in the first place. Where ancient Romans 'white'? Does it make it any more accurate to have an Englishman play an ancient roman than to have an Arabian or Japanese man? How about the debates over the historical portrayal of Jesus, a semitic man, as a blue-eyed Scandinavian. You're simply wedded to the hollywood convention which has nothing to do with logic or historical accuracy. Those conventions reflect the current culture and can change at any time. So it was the fashion before to use certain type of actors because the Hollywood elite decided those are the people audiences would be most comfortable with (not because it had anything to do with being accurate). And now demographics of audiences have changed so Hollywood has (slowly) adapted. It's just entertainment not Truth. Get with the times.

slothtrop 2y ago
> Where ancient Romans 'white'? The Scottish in 1600s were. Not to say it matters, as Macbeth is a quasi-fantasy play and it's been adapted a million times. At this point "black everything Macbeth" might draw more viewers than "just another fucking Macbeth" (maybe, idk but producers may have a better idea). The question is always "who is this for" and "will people pay to see it"
- thruway516 2y ago
  Well that's ironic. You do know many of Shakespeare's plays were adapted from elsewhere outside of England or Scotland. So Shakespeare would've been committing the same sins you're all getting twisted about by having Englishmen play characters called 'Malveolo' and 'Othello' and 'Titus Andronicus' etc. I'm really not understanding this slavish devotion to the skin color and ethnicity of who plays fictional characters.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    Not really. You can transpose a plot and/or create something based on another work with the freedom to do anything you want (see: Throne of Blood, based on MacBeth), and people will be singing your praises generations later. If conversely you take on the original name, script, characters, historical setting, aesthetic, etc collectively as if to approximate high faithfulness to the original work (one that is not genre fantasy), then putting a brazen change front-and-center (like a black Scottish king) sticks out. It will draw more attention than anything else, and maybe that's the point. There are a ton of Macbeth adaptations, they're not super-duper cheap to make, and they often lose money. It's just an artistic/stylistic judgement, not a complaint (very few readers here are likely to go see another in the pile of Macbeth movies). A modern day adaptation even with all the original names and dialog would still work better. I don't have a horse in the race because I don't care to see yet another Macbeth.
    - mpalmer 2y ago
      Following your line of argument, it is arguably way more "brazen" (quite the word choice btw) to cast a woman as Lady Macbeth.
      - slothtrop 2y ago
        https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ I don't see how.
        mpalmer 2y ago
        The first time a woman performed in one of Shakespeare's plays in England, he'd been dead for half a century. He wrote all his plays knowing the women would be played by men. How else do you explain the comic irony and theatrical resonance of Lady M saying "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, [...] come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall." What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird.
        slothtrop 2y ago
        Yes that was the convention, for all plays, and in film today it's decidedly not (not to mention, films.. aren't plays, and that in itself is a deviation). I didn't express any preference for any particular aesthetic. Everyone has them, but it's neither here nor there.
        mpalmer 2y ago
        "some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others", and I believe you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like. Maybe I'm crazy, sounded like a preference to me.
AmericanChopper 2y ago
> What is 'white' is very arbitrary in the first place Sure, I agree. As far as I’m concerned the earth is populated by ~8 billion individual human beings. But this is heresy according to the idiotic identity politics that has slowly taken over bits and pieces of western culture. It’s an ideology that demands everybody be shoehorned into race/gender/sexuality tribes. When it comes to DEI scores, there’s no ambiguity about who’s white and who’s not white. It’s an ideology that I don’t like at all, and it’s been constantly forced into a lot of entertainment. Whether this role was cast as a part of that mission or not doesn’t really matter, because it’s tainted the whole industry. > And now demographics of audiences have changed so Hollywood has (slowly) adapted I would say this isn’t a response to audience changes at all, and simply the result of a small elite of political activists, often producing product that directly defy the tastes of the core audience. But that doesn’t really matter either, because the people that don’t like it will simply disengage (though some will complain about it more than others). I personally don’t really care very much either, I’m just offering my perspective. I barely watch any TV or movies any more, and I couldn’t say my life has suffered for it at all.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  > the result of a small elite of political activists Conspiratorial thinking based on absolutely nothing. Anything that "directly defies the tastes of the core audience" will fail. It's obvious you're choosing to put yourself in this "core" audience. What if you're wrong about that? And what if I told you that the free market is the most powerful cultural force in the US, and TV/film studios produce content in ways they think will make the most money? That if they aren't making enough money, they change their strategy? Would that be new information to you?
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    "TV/film studios produce content in ways they think will make the most money" isn't always true. Sometimes a movie really has a purpose. And when it doesn't, it's a very inexact business (unless maybe it's Nostalgia Avengers part 99), so personal interests can creep in. Like how Microsoft built up DEI departments only to fire them recently. Even if Hollywood were a well-oiled machine, what would you say if they estimate they're losing sales from diversity casting, due to upsetting part of their audience, and decides to undo that?
hot_gril 2y ago
I get equally annoyed about intentionally portraying Jesus, ancient Italians, etc as English people as I do about making Cleopatra black. Especially if it's a movie about multiple different peoples, like Romans invading Egypt.
- thruway516 2y ago
  I'm sorry for you. You must be getting annoyed all of the time.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    I'm fine, will survive without a few TV shows.

slothtrop 2y ago

> Where ancient Romans 'white'? The Scottish in 1600s were. Not to say it matters, as Macbeth is a quasi-fantasy play and it's been adapted a million times. At this point "black everything Macbeth" might draw more viewers than "just another fucking Macbeth" (maybe, idk but producers may have a better idea). The question is always "who is this for" and "will people pay to see it"

thruway516 2y ago
Well that's ironic. You do know many of Shakespeare's plays were adapted from elsewhere outside of England or Scotland. So Shakespeare would've been committing the same sins you're all getting twisted about by having Englishmen play characters called 'Malveolo' and 'Othello' and 'Titus Andronicus' etc. I'm really not understanding this slavish devotion to the skin color and ethnicity of who plays fictional characters.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  Not really. You can transpose a plot and/or create something based on another work with the freedom to do anything you want (see: Throne of Blood, based on MacBeth), and people will be singing your praises generations later. If conversely you take on the original name, script, characters, historical setting, aesthetic, etc collectively as if to approximate high faithfulness to the original work (one that is not genre fantasy), then putting a brazen change front-and-center (like a black Scottish king) sticks out. It will draw more attention than anything else, and maybe that's the point. There are a ton of Macbeth adaptations, they're not super-duper cheap to make, and they often lose money. It's just an artistic/stylistic judgement, not a complaint (very few readers here are likely to go see another in the pile of Macbeth movies). A modern day adaptation even with all the original names and dialog would still work better. I don't have a horse in the race because I don't care to see yet another Macbeth.
  - mpalmer 2y ago
    Following your line of argument, it is arguably way more "brazen" (quite the word choice btw) to cast a woman as Lady Macbeth.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ I don't see how.
      - mpalmer 2y ago
        The first time a woman performed in one of Shakespeare's plays in England, he'd been dead for half a century. He wrote all his plays knowing the women would be played by men. How else do you explain the comic irony and theatrical resonance of Lady M saying "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, [...] come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall." What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird.
        slothtrop 2y ago
        Yes that was the convention, for all plays, and in film today it's decidedly not (not to mention, films.. aren't plays, and that in itself is a deviation). I didn't express any preference for any particular aesthetic. Everyone has them, but it's neither here nor there.
        mpalmer 2y ago
        "some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others", and I believe you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like. Maybe I'm crazy, sounded like a preference to me.

AmericanChopper 2y ago

> What is 'white' is very arbitrary in the first place Sure, I agree. As far as I’m concerned the earth is populated by ~8 billion individual human beings. But this is heresy according to the idiotic identity politics that has slowly taken over bits and pieces of western culture. It’s an ideology that demands everybody be shoehorned into race/gender/sexuality tribes. When it comes to DEI scores, there’s no ambiguity about who’s white and who’s not white. It’s an ideology that I don’t like at all, and it’s been constantly forced into a lot of entertainment. Whether this role was cast as a part of that mission or not doesn’t really matter, because it’s tainted the whole industry. > And now demographics of audiences have changed so Hollywood has (slowly) adapted I would say this isn’t a response to audience changes at all, and simply the result of a small elite of political activists, often producing product that directly defy the tastes of the core audience. But that doesn’t really matter either, because the people that don’t like it will simply disengage (though some will complain about it more than others). I personally don’t really care very much either, I’m just offering my perspective. I barely watch any TV or movies any more, and I couldn’t say my life has suffered for it at all.

mpalmer 2y ago
> the result of a small elite of political activists Conspiratorial thinking based on absolutely nothing. Anything that "directly defies the tastes of the core audience" will fail. It's obvious you're choosing to put yourself in this "core" audience. What if you're wrong about that? And what if I told you that the free market is the most powerful cultural force in the US, and TV/film studios produce content in ways they think will make the most money? That if they aren't making enough money, they change their strategy? Would that be new information to you?
- hot_gril 2y ago
  "TV/film studios produce content in ways they think will make the most money" isn't always true. Sometimes a movie really has a purpose. And when it doesn't, it's a very inexact business (unless maybe it's Nostalgia Avengers part 99), so personal interests can creep in. Like how Microsoft built up DEI departments only to fire them recently. Even if Hollywood were a well-oiled machine, what would you say if they estimate they're losing sales from diversity casting, due to upsetting part of their audience, and decides to undo that?

hot_gril 2y ago

I get equally annoyed about intentionally portraying Jesus, ancient Italians, etc as English people as I do about making Cleopatra black. Especially if it's a movie about multiple different peoples, like Romans invading Egypt.

thruway516 2y ago
I'm sorry for you. You must be getting annoyed all of the time.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  I'm fine, will survive without a few TV shows.