There’s a place for those series but it doesn’t have to be in every series.
cgknight1 on
>Nathaniel Curtis as Sir Isaac Newton
Let’s leave aside that RTD would do that because a) he knows it would wind up certain types, and b) he worked before with Curtis. He has a indian father and a english mother – so does that mean he’s not white enough for some roles and not brown enough for some roles – because the implication is that a great actor is selected not on skill but individual perception of *who I think they are -* which feels wrong to me.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
ManitouWakinyan on
Of note – the report wasn’t saying colour-blind casting is clunky, or that anti-colonial storylines are preachy. They’re saying to avoid the clunky versions of these things.
>The review noted that color-blind casting was a matter of controversy for commentators and some viewers. Urging commissioners to “consider their choices carefully,” the report said that good intentions to increase diverisity can lead to inauthentic outcomes — outcomes that can sometimes be damaging to the communities they are attempting to serve.
>“In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities,” the review said.
>“What needs to be avoided is ethnic diversity which looks forced and tick box, and we found our interviewees of colour as emphatic on this point as those who were white.”
comrade_batman on
The headline is likely written that way to draw in clicks on a touchy subject but the actual report is saying that when creators and writers try to add diversity in their shows to reflect more contemporary attitudes, it can actually do more harm than good in, for example, casting a minority actor as Isaac Newton.
> The 80-page report revealed audience complaints about Doctor Who casting Nathaniel Curtis as Sir Isaac Newton in the 60th anniversary special “Wild Blue Yonder,” as well as the 2023 Agatha Christie series Murder Is Easy, which featured an allegory on colonialism.
> The review noted that color-blind casting was a matter of controversy for commentators and some viewers. Urging commissioners to “consider their choices carefully,” the report said that good intentions to increase diverisity can lead to inauthentic outcomes — outcomes that can sometimes be damaging to the communities they are attempting to serve.
> “In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities,” the review said.
> “What needs to be avoided is ethnic diversity which looks forced and tick box, and we found our interviewees of colour as emphatic on this point as those who were white.”
> The report said that the BBC’s efforts to measure representation should be done at a genre level, rather than on a show-by-show basis. It said current measurements can “lead to a sense that there needs to be a smattering of diversity in every programme which can lead to inauthentic portrayal.” It added: “In some cases, this can look clunky, particularly in scripted.”
mallydobb on
There’s no problem with a modern “clunky” show as it can be fun and add a spin on something based on history, but there should be no problem either having shows that are strict and historically accurate either. There’s room for both to exist.
Burwhale_The_Avenger on
It honestly sounds like their biggest issue is just the insanely poor writing quality they’ve cultivated over there.
Shockwavepulsar on
Tbh I found the Mavity “joke” more grating than the blind casting of Issac Newton
guiltyofnothing on
I kind of liked Murder is Easy and thought David Jonsson was the best part of it…
TheRealestBiz on
There’s a show on Netflix called Hollywood that takes the tact that all black and gay people had to do is make a really good movie and win some Oscars and bigotry would have gone away seventy years ago.
When in reality, the extremely religious (at the time) residents of Los Angeles would have burned the studios down and hung Rock Hudson and the other actors from the Warner Brothers water tower.
It’s just awful.
LordDusty on
Took them long enough to realise. I’m sure people have been telling the BBC this for years, but then the BBC has often been too stubborn or too slow on the uptake.
Diversity for diversity sake regularly stands out, particularly when its done to historical figures/societies or changes to well known and established fictional characters. But so often its done for a quotafilling reason rather than an artistic one.
SwugSteve on
This is going to make the worst person you know so angry
Directorshaggy on
I know I’m skating on thin ice here, but I think accurately depicting the racism of any given era is exactly how you teach its horrors and highlight the progress, which still needs to continue, we’ve made in overcoming it.
The_Man_of_Steel on
Super jarring when Dr. Who experienced racism for being black in one episode, then in the next one went to regency era England and the locals all loved him and just talked about how hot he was. I felt like the problem at the time for thinking it was a really ignorant way to handle his skin colour, and seeing no one else even mention it, including all the white producers and writers on the behind the scenes stuff. Like they were all scared to touch racism so they just ignored that it exists (which seems kinda racist??)
baconbananapancakes on
> “In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities,” the review said.
That’s certainly an interesting perspective. I agree that there is probably a line somewhere between historical fiction (leaning toward entertainment) and Historical Fiction (leaning toward education). The problem is thinking that the dweebs who truly would get hot under the collar about, say, a Southeast Asian Mr. Darcy, would actually agree with anyone rise about where that line is.
Regardless, one of my favorite things about BBC programming historically has been how diverse the casts are without being clunky or using that diversity for easy plot lines. In American terms, I would think about Kerry Weaver on ER — a richly-written character with a visible disability that is not mined for drama.
15 Comments
There’s a place for those series but it doesn’t have to be in every series.
>Nathaniel Curtis as Sir Isaac Newton
Let’s leave aside that RTD would do that because a) he knows it would wind up certain types, and b) he worked before with Curtis. He has a indian father and a english mother – so does that mean he’s not white enough for some roles and not brown enough for some roles – because the implication is that a great actor is selected not on skill but individual perception of *who I think they are -* which feels wrong to me.
[deleted]
Of note – the report wasn’t saying colour-blind casting is clunky, or that anti-colonial storylines are preachy. They’re saying to avoid the clunky versions of these things.
>The review noted that color-blind casting was a matter of controversy for commentators and some viewers. Urging commissioners to “consider their choices carefully,” the report said that good intentions to increase diverisity can lead to inauthentic outcomes — outcomes that can sometimes be damaging to the communities they are attempting to serve.
>“In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities,” the review said.
>“What needs to be avoided is ethnic diversity which looks forced and tick box, and we found our interviewees of colour as emphatic on this point as those who were white.”
The headline is likely written that way to draw in clicks on a touchy subject but the actual report is saying that when creators and writers try to add diversity in their shows to reflect more contemporary attitudes, it can actually do more harm than good in, for example, casting a minority actor as Isaac Newton.
> The 80-page report revealed audience complaints about Doctor Who casting Nathaniel Curtis as Sir Isaac Newton in the 60th anniversary special “Wild Blue Yonder,” as well as the 2023 Agatha Christie series Murder Is Easy, which featured an allegory on colonialism.
> The review noted that color-blind casting was a matter of controversy for commentators and some viewers. Urging commissioners to “consider their choices carefully,” the report said that good intentions to increase diverisity can lead to inauthentic outcomes — outcomes that can sometimes be damaging to the communities they are attempting to serve.
> “In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities,” the review said.
> “What needs to be avoided is ethnic diversity which looks forced and tick box, and we found our interviewees of colour as emphatic on this point as those who were white.”
> The report said that the BBC’s efforts to measure representation should be done at a genre level, rather than on a show-by-show basis. It said current measurements can “lead to a sense that there needs to be a smattering of diversity in every programme which can lead to inauthentic portrayal.” It added: “In some cases, this can look clunky, particularly in scripted.”
There’s no problem with a modern “clunky” show as it can be fun and add a spin on something based on history, but there should be no problem either having shows that are strict and historically accurate either. There’s room for both to exist.
It honestly sounds like their biggest issue is just the insanely poor writing quality they’ve cultivated over there.
Tbh I found the Mavity “joke” more grating than the blind casting of Issac Newton
I kind of liked Murder is Easy and thought David Jonsson was the best part of it…
There’s a show on Netflix called Hollywood that takes the tact that all black and gay people had to do is make a really good movie and win some Oscars and bigotry would have gone away seventy years ago.
When in reality, the extremely religious (at the time) residents of Los Angeles would have burned the studios down and hung Rock Hudson and the other actors from the Warner Brothers water tower.
It’s just awful.
Took them long enough to realise. I’m sure people have been telling the BBC this for years, but then the BBC has often been too stubborn or too slow on the uptake.
Diversity for diversity sake regularly stands out, particularly when its done to historical figures/societies or changes to well known and established fictional characters. But so often its done for a quotafilling reason rather than an artistic one.
This is going to make the worst person you know so angry
I know I’m skating on thin ice here, but I think accurately depicting the racism of any given era is exactly how you teach its horrors and highlight the progress, which still needs to continue, we’ve made in overcoming it.
Super jarring when Dr. Who experienced racism for being black in one episode, then in the next one went to regency era England and the locals all loved him and just talked about how hot he was. I felt like the problem at the time for thinking it was a really ignorant way to handle his skin colour, and seeing no one else even mention it, including all the white producers and writers on the behind the scenes stuff. Like they were all scared to touch racism so they just ignored that it exists (which seems kinda racist??)
> “In depicting an anachronistic historical world in which people of colour are able to rise to the top of society as scientists, artists, courtiers and Lords of the Realm, there may be the unintended consequence of erasing the past exclusion and oppression of ethnic minorities and breeding complacency about their former opportunities,” the review said.
That’s certainly an interesting perspective. I agree that there is probably a line somewhere between historical fiction (leaning toward entertainment) and Historical Fiction (leaning toward education). The problem is thinking that the dweebs who truly would get hot under the collar about, say, a Southeast Asian Mr. Darcy, would actually agree with anyone rise about where that line is.
Regardless, one of my favorite things about BBC programming historically has been how diverse the casts are without being clunky or using that diversity for easy plot lines. In American terms, I would think about Kerry Weaver on ER — a richly-written character with a visible disability that is not mined for drama.