The significance of this was that it was one of the first times I remembered seeing a period piece in which the ethnicity of the performers was entirely disregarded in the casting decisions. Victorian England (different Victorian) was, in reality, composed exclusively of white people, but the cinematic depictions of it needn't be. Not only was there Indian Dev Patel in the lead role, but the supporting cast had as many Blacks as it had whites, and at least one Asian.
It was, of course, not the first instance of casting without regard for race. As just one example that comes to mind, it was as long ago as 1993 that Denzel Washington appeared in Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, though that would have hardly been the first instance either. Oh, Black people got to appear in Shakespeare, but it was usually as Othello.
Even though this sort of casting has continued in the 30 years since then, it has largely been of the token variety. We all know this. The Personal History of David Copperfield was the first time I remembered this sort of thing not seeming like tokenism.
It's crazy that that was only two years ago, because nowadays it is simply not tenable to make a movie, or a TV show, that does not have a significant percentage of its cast representing diverse ethnic backgrounds. That goes for any sort of film, though you might notice it more in a period piece because it more strikingly cuts against what you know to have been the ethnicity of the characters during the time period being depicted.
Fans of Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings have certainly noticed it.
I've been fortunate not to have been too exposed to this, since I don't spend any time on reddit or other channels where fans can air their grievances. Nor have I seen either The House of the Dragon nor The Rings of Power. I do know, however, that there is diverse casting in both projects, and that some percentage -- maybe even a significant percentage -- of the fan base is not too happy about it.
The first time I encountered this was related to The Rings of Power. Although I don't hang out on reddit, I do get email notifications from Quora, having looked up something on there once and unwittingly become a subscriber to these notifications. One guy was complaining about the casting of Black elf characters, going into some deep mythology about skin tones in Tolkien and how there's an opportunity to cast Black actors as some certain race of mythological creatures who were known to be Black. I immediately downvoted the article. I hope others have too.
I should have assumed the same thing was happening with House of the Dragon, and indeed, it is. An ad for the podcast Beyond Black History plays during inning breaks when I listen to baseball games, and the host teased one upcoming topic about why Game of Thrones fans can't accept a Black Targaryen.
Sigh.
Without listing all the reasons the arguments of these haters are ignorant -- you already know those reasons -- I thought instead I would address my own approach to talking about diverse skin colors in the movies I review:
I don't.
Oh, I did back when The Personal History of David Copperfield came out. Here is what I wrote at the time:
However, there is one major step forward – if not for Iannucci himself, then certainly for society – which makes The Personal History of David Copperfield worth not only watching, but also celebrating. And that is the film’s joyous embrace of race-blind casting. While other films content themselves making token gestures in this regard, Iannucci jumps in whole hog.
In the title role, Dev Patel is of Indian descent. His love interest, Agnes, is played by Rosalind Eleazar, whose father is Ghanian. Her father in the film is played by Benedict Wong, a Brit of Chinese descent. If I don’t go on listing, it’s only because there are too many more examples to count. The effect is to be watching a multiplicity of cultural backgrounds in every composition of three or more characters, as the film cheerfully mirrors an idealised version of our modern society. Whereas Iannucci’s usual cynicism is missed from some parts of the film, its absence here is most welcome.
That perspective has held up over the past two years. I'm proud of what I wrote back then, at that cultural moment.
However, now I write nothing, and I think that's better.
Here are the problems with mentioning diverse casting:
1) At best, you run the risk of sounding condescending, or simply of virtual signaling. "Black people get to play roles that used to always be played by white people. Good for them." You risk sounding like you are patting someone on the head.
2) At worst, you look racist, if you stumble into an accidental criticism of the choice -- or especially an intentional criticism of the choice. "In the novel, the author describes the snow white skin of the protagonist, a detail that tends to be lost when they cast a Peruvian actress in the role." I think most of us would know to stay away from this, but not all of us.
3) The whole point of diverse casting is that eventually, one day, we are supposed to not notice it.
As critics, the least we can do is help that day arrive sooner.
It's not like I don't notice it. Oh I notice it. Every time.
But what purpose does it serve for me to draw attention to the fact that Cynthia Erivo, who plays the blue fairy in Disney's terrible Pinocchio remake, is Black? Even if I am trying to credit Disney for its good sense, I've already set back the cause by devoting 25 words to it. If the reader knows that Cynthia Erivo is Black, they will conclude that Disney has paid attention to diverse casting and they will either reward Disney or punish Disney for it in their own head. (The latter is not a group of people I'd really want to hang out with, though.)
Besides, I don't think any critic needs to congratulate a studio for making a decision that is most in line with current righteous thinking, and thereby is not the riskiest decision they could make, but rather, the safest.
So instead, in my plot synopsis portion of the review, I just put Erivo's name in parenthesis next to the character name, and made no further mention of her in the rest of the review. (She appears only in that one scene and doesn't ultimately play much of a role in the success or failure of the film.)
Ditto for the diverse casting in Bodies Bodies Bodies. Ditto for the diverse casting in Lou. Ditto for the diverse casting in Persuasion, which is probably the most direct corollary to David Copperfield. Since my reviews have pictures with them, and since these diverse cast members usually appear in those pictures, readers can figure it out for themselves if they care about it at all.
Neither do I want some sort of medal for telling you that I no longer mention diverse casting in my reviews. I just want you to, maybe, if you also write reviews or discuss entertainment online in any fashion, consider following my lead. (Nor do I actually think I am a "leader" here, just to be clear.)
The great thing about the prevalence of diverse casting is that, if I myself am to be taken as evidence, it has become commonplace enough to accelerate the very thing it is trying to accomplish. If I were to mention it every time it happened, I'd be writing about it in every review, and that would not serve a purpose for anybody. In reality, it is not, or should not be, any significant factor in why a film does or does not work. And tackling this core question is what you're supposed to spend your entire review doing.
There is one exception to this rule: if the film itself talks about it. If the diverse skin tones of the cast is text within the film -- something it openly grapples with, something that contributes significantly to the themes being discussed -- then yes, of course, talk about it. You'd be wrong not to.
But it the film doesn't care what color the characters' skin is, why should you?
No comments:
Post a Comment