Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

BBC dumbs down Dickens to make it woke

Toxic relationships, self-harm, mental health issues, arson, prison breaks, bent lawyers and recreational drug use might. Add an expletive-laden script, an ethnically diverse cast and references to the evils of the British Empire this is the BBC’s Charles Dickens’s 1861 novel, Great Expectations.

With a cast that includes Olivia Colman as Miss Havisham and Ashley Thomas as Mr Jaggers, Knight places the story of orphan Pip in what he calls “the Venn diagram” between the explosive action of Peaky Blinders – his long-running show about the criminal Shelby family in early 20th-century Birmingham that redefined the modern costume drama – and the rich atmospherics of Taboo, his 2017 series about the dark underbelly of 1810s London. “Were Dickens alive now,” Knight says, “he’d be writing movies and TV.”

Shalom Brune-Franklin, the English-Australian actress who plays Dickens’s conflicted heroine Estella, never expected to find herself in a costume drama. “I remember saying to the director, ‘I don’t know if I’m capable of doing the stuffy period drama thing’,” she tells me. “And he was like, ‘That’s what I want to hear!’” This adaptation is about taking the supposed stiffness of Victorian Britain and “stripping all of that s--- away”.

Fionn Whitehead, who plays Pip, says he never read Dickens as a youngster since his attention span was too short to “even try and decode the language”. The actor hopes this new dramatisation will be “more accessible for younger people”.

The action is more Charles Bronson than Charles Dickens, then the language is also decidedly Tarantino-esque. So, in the Dickens novel, Jaggers, a London lawyer employed by Pip’s mystery benefactor, tells the boy that he is to be “brought up as a gentleman – in a word, as a young fellow of great expectations”. But, in Knight’s script, the line becomes more baroque: “I will teach you first to be a rat, then a snake, then a vulture and then, with blood dripping from your beak, I will teach you how to be a gentleman.”

Thomas delivers these lines with understated relish, telling me he was careful to avoid “caricature” or anything “pantomime-esque” – even when required to threaten to mulch a man’s testicles into a “savoury mash” and feed it to him.

Knight has also taken liberties with the plot; 𝒊𝒔 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒆’𝒍𝒍 𝒖𝒑𝒔𝒆𝒕 𝒑𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒔? “𝑰𝒕’𝒔 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒆’𝒔 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒘𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒕,”he says. “But I would say that the book exists, it is still there. This is not an attempt to say the book is wrong or this is better.”

The refreshingly diverse cast completes the picture: Brune-Franklin was born in St Albans to a Mauritian mother and English father, while Thomas was born in west London to a Jamaican mother and Dominican father.

He claims not to recognise the debate about so-called “colour-blind casting”. Along similar lines, Knight’s screenplay has a strong anti-colonial message.

He plans to do “at least another two or three” Dickens adaptations. A Tale of Two Cities might be next.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282May 3, 2023 4:14 AM

"Try and decode the language "? Of Dickens? How stupid is this guy?

by Anonymousreply 1March 18, 2023 3:59 PM

Yawn, Another retelling of the same old same old.

When are we due another Jane Austen adaptation?

by Anonymousreply 2March 18, 2023 4:01 PM

[quote]When are we due another Jane Austen adaptation?

On it.

by Anonymousreply 3March 18, 2023 4:03 PM

When are we going to see Oliver Twist with the color-blind casting of Feigin as a black man?

by Anonymousreply 4March 18, 2023 4:07 PM

I always thought of Dickens as pretty progressive, what little I know of his work. A Christmas Carol seems all about social consciousness.

by Anonymousreply 5March 18, 2023 4:10 PM

Lazy journalists and opinionated actors are the worst combination.

Sophie Okonedo played Nancy in an Oliver Twist adaptation opposite Tom Hardy and no one complained.

Dev Patel was David Copperfield in the recent adaption which got fantastic reviews.

There was some artificial outrage over Vinette Robinson playing Mrs Cratchett in the BBC version of A Christmas Carol a few years ago because she is mixed race.

If Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing was made now people would write about it being woke. Just ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 6March 18, 2023 4:10 PM

He's rewriting some of the characters' stories- namely those now played by POC.

Can't have a nasty, vain Black Estella- unless her personality has been formed by her experience of waycism.

by Anonymousreply 7March 18, 2023 4:11 PM

R1 my first thought. Doesn’t he speak and write in modern English as a first language? Like Dickens?

by Anonymousreply 8March 18, 2023 4:13 PM

R5 Dickens reinforced culturally-entrenched stereotypes/bigotry in his work to make them accessible to the masses. Such as his portrayal of the thieving Jew Feigin in Oliver Twist.

by Anonymousreply 9March 18, 2023 4:13 PM

There are anti Jewish themes in the Count of Monte Cristo too, distracts from an excellent tale of revenge.

by Anonymousreply 10March 18, 2023 4:22 PM

Show thread is here. I for one can't wait to watch it.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11March 18, 2023 4:42 PM

There is always a weird mixed message in these sorts of productions. 'British history is horrible and racist!'; 'British history is full of wonderful diversity, just like today!'.

by Anonymousreply 12March 18, 2023 4:47 PM

Grate Expectorations.

by Anonymousreply 13March 18, 2023 4:47 PM

[quote]refreshingly diverse cast

ZzzzZZzzzzzz

by Anonymousreply 14March 18, 2023 4:52 PM

R10 And because anti-Jewish bigotry/hatred is socio-culturally acceptable, no one thinks about "cancelling" or "warning" readers about the books. Which of course continues the promotion of anti-Jewish stereotypes/bigotry in the next generation.

by Anonymousreply 15March 18, 2023 4:52 PM

A warning about the bigotry will inform readers to make informed decisions but I oppose censorship

by Anonymousreply 16March 18, 2023 4:59 PM

A warning about the bigotry will PERMIT readers to make informed decisions but I oppose censorship

by Anonymousreply 17March 18, 2023 5:00 PM

R17 A warning about the anti-Jewish bigotry in books will FINALLY identify for the masses exactly what constitutes anti-Jewish bigotry. But no one wants that.

by Anonymousreply 18March 18, 2023 5:03 PM

If people are intelligent enough to read a Dickens book, they're intelligent enough to form their opinions about Jews for themselves. We really don't need you to put safety helmets on us before we read a book.

by Anonymousreply 19March 18, 2023 5:11 PM

I wonder how Woke BBC will remain once they get cut off from the money-spigot.

Of course if Labour wins in the meantime they are safe.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 20March 18, 2023 5:17 PM

OMG! Wypipo are literally Hitler, every one of them! THE WORST!

Now let's see. What should we bankroll here at the BBC? Original works by black screenwriters? No... How about historical dramas about great black people? Nah... Oh! I know! A white-ass story by a white-ass author about white-ass wypipo at a time in English history when the country was wall-to-wall cracker-ass yt? One that's been produced about 1000 times already?

YES! That'll strike a blow for racial equality and social consciousness!

by Anonymousreply 21March 18, 2023 5:22 PM

"decode the language."

Jesus Christ.

by Anonymousreply 22March 18, 2023 5:27 PM

To be fair, a quality BBC can render many people dumbstruck.

by Anonymousreply 23March 18, 2023 5:30 PM

[quote] they're intelligent enough to form their opinions about Jews for themselves.

R19 And the opinions they "form" are the same negative anti-Jewish bigotry/hatred that has been socially inculcated via books for almost two millennia. But you do perfectly illustrate the point that no one wants to point out to the masses what constitutes Jew hatred.

by Anonymousreply 24March 18, 2023 5:34 PM

It's about fucking time the BBC was taken of the nation's teet, using our money to prop up ridiculous salaries, boring programs and certain political agendas.

Last stroke for me was abolishing free TV licenses for the over 75s and the sheer waste of paper they send people accusing them of not having a TV licence. We must have hot one every other month threatening that "someone is coming around"!

by Anonymousreply 25March 18, 2023 5:39 PM

Hey, Matt Anscher @ R24

by Anonymousreply 26March 18, 2023 5:41 PM

[quote] That'll strike a blow for racial equality and social consciousness!

R21 It's suppose to be entertainment. Not a re-education class bludgeoning the masses.

by Anonymousreply 27March 18, 2023 5:41 PM

I won't be watching, these period pieces laced with darkies is off-putting, just another reason to dislike what the British have done, when will there be another seasons of Vera? She wouldn't have none of this.

by Anonymousreply 28March 18, 2023 5:47 PM

I'm sorry but the guy playing Pip can in no way compete with the beauty of Douglas Booth in the recent version

by Anonymousreply 29March 18, 2023 5:47 PM

So, could one of the Brits on here explain the BBC license, etc. So, are they completely funded by the government? Or the citizens? How is this enforced? How long has this been the system?

TIA.

by Anonymousreply 30March 18, 2023 5:50 PM

You need a license to watch TV in England?

by Anonymousreply 31March 18, 2023 5:58 PM

One of the only constructive uses for social shame is confronting us with our ignorance and thereby provoking curiosity.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 32March 18, 2023 5:59 PM

R30 BBC is mainly funded by citizens who pay a yearly fee of around £170 ($210) to receive live transmission. This is not optional if you have a TV or stream TV online.

If you don't pay the fee you may be investigated and prosecuted if you have a TV in your home. Doesn't matter if you watch the BBC or not. Add to that the constant reminders and threatening letters the TV licence company send to addresses without licences even if the house had no TV.

It started from approx the 1920s and increases most years.

by Anonymousreply 33March 18, 2023 6:00 PM

[quote] You need a license to watch TV in England?

Yes, and they will go to your door and bust it down if they find out you’re watching and not paying. It’s illegal to watch television without a license.

by Anonymousreply 34March 18, 2023 6:01 PM

Dickens was already woke, you stupid Tory cunt.

by Anonymousreply 35March 18, 2023 6:02 PM

[quote] I won't be watching, these period pieces laced with darkies is off-putting, j

What is off-putting is the racism of "diversity" and "inclusion". And the racists who demand it, turning what may have been an interesting drama/period entertainment into a platform for theatre of the absurd.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36March 18, 2023 6:04 PM

Thank you, R33.

Does this include just stuff that comes by cable (like does BBC provides the cable and its content)? What about OTA (Over the Air) channels? Or is the BBC an OTA channel? How does the signal come to households?

What about ITV?

So, just having a TV means you have to pay BBC?

Is the license specific to the BBC or are there other channels that charge for licenses?

Trying to understand the whole picture.

I'm an American and dropped my cable long ago and the number of OTA channels is growing.

It seems bizarre to be charged for an OTA signal.

TIA

by Anonymousreply 37March 18, 2023 6:13 PM

R34 haha they don't go that far but they try to bamboozle people by claiming to have more rights than they do, will take pictures through windows and the best is the mythical TV licence detection van which can supposedly pick up TV signals from your house!

R36 it isn't like cable, TVs nowadays just need to be plugged in and tuned, then they're good to go, no extra connections. If you want additional channels such as cable etc then you pay extra. As far as I understand BBC is the main beneficiary from the TV licence payments. Many other channels run advert breaks to help pay for their content.

by Anonymousreply 38March 18, 2023 6:18 PM

Blocking all of these anti-woke trolls is getting exhausting. It's starting to become impossible to read DL in between them all.

by Anonymousreply 39March 18, 2023 6:21 PM

R36 tbf with stories or plots or historical events that are many centuries removed from our current age, I don't really see why it matters if POC are there or not.

The world these people occupied is already so far removed from our current understanding and way of life, that changes like that are immaterial. We all drive high-tech cars now instead of riding horseback, we have flying machines, we have nanotech healthcare, we have 3D printers, we use plastic cards loaded with digital currency as tender and not gold coins. We're essentially living a real life right now that's a cross between a predictive sci-fantasy novel by J.G. Ballard, Philip K. Dick & William Gibson.

So why can't medieval diplomat's daughter & queen consort Anne Boleyn, French-speaking and educated in Belgium, who lived and died nearly 500 years ago (and whose year of birth is still unknown), be portrayed as a black woman, even though we all know she wasn't and couldn't have been POC? Why is that so audacious and weird and untenable? The world in which we're sat watching the story of her life--a retelling by airbrushed actors on an LED screen streaming pixels formed by a computer made of elements & metals undiscovered in her time--is completely alien to hers, anyway.

And dgmw, I'm not saying that historical accuracy doesn't matter at all and that we should cover it up or deny reality. I'm not advocating rewriting history books and museum tours, telling people that Anne Boleyn really was POC. It's that I don't understand why semi-fictional adaptations and retellings on television or film--entertainment mediums that even the lowest common denominator accept as incapable of conveying 100% or even 50% fact without bias or deviation--must conform to all of the currently-understood contextual facts, even when it doesn't serve the creativity or storytelling. If you can provoke enough curiosity about and sympathy for Anne through your drama adaptation, you will encourage people to go and read up about her, do their research and realise that in reality she was white.

If a decent actress really works in the role of Anne for a particular historical drama script and gasp, she's not white like the real Anne, that shouldn't disqualify her from getting cast; likewise, if a POC actress auditions and she's no good for the role or in general, she shouldn't get the part over a better white actress, either as a tick box exercise or any other reason. End of. Arguing anything different is pure sound and fury.

by Anonymousreply 40March 18, 2023 6:23 PM

R40, assuming the most talented get the roles, would you feel the same about casting white people as slaves in a story set in Georgia in the 1830s? Or a black man as Elie Wiesel in a film about his experience in Auschwitz? If not, why? What if a black man had actually been the most talented actor to audition for the role of Anne Boleyn? Should he get the role? If not, why?

by Anonymousreply 41March 18, 2023 6:46 PM

The first two examples you gave aren't apt, R41. You're talking about roles portraying people who were oppressed on the basis of being black and Jewish, respectively, so it makes no historical sense for someone of another ethnicity to play them. As for Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII wouldn't have married a man, so, assuming Anne Boleyn was not a trans-identified male in real life, her being female is an important characteristic. I know what you're probably going to say next, but what R40 is talking about, I think, is that, at this point, the historical woman Anne Boleyn is about the same thing to us nowadays, 500+ years later, as any other character. So it doesn't matter for Anne Boleyn to be played by an actress of her exact racial heritage. Yes, it's a little jarring, but it doesn't affect her role in the story.

by Anonymousreply 42March 18, 2023 10:01 PM

R42, got it. Then we can remake "Downfall" with a black man as Hitler and a Jewish woman as Josef Goebbels. That way oppressors are not playing the role of oppressed people. And by the same token, we can have a black man as Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."

by Anonymousreply 43March 18, 2023 10:15 PM

So when does that word die in a grease fire?

by Anonymousreply 44March 18, 2023 10:17 PM

[quote] You're talking about roles portraying people who were oppressed on the basis of being black and Jewish, respectively, so it makes no historical sense for someone of another ethnicity to play them.

What? Meryl played a Jew, you idiot.

by Anonymousreply 45March 18, 2023 10:19 PM

Olivia Colman....again.

by Anonymousreply 46March 18, 2023 10:23 PM

So it’s too much of a stretch to see a white person playing an American slave but it’s not too much of a stretch to see Anne Boleyn, a real person, being played by a black actress? Okay, so an Asian person can play Bill Cosby. Progressives are some of the dumbest people on Earth. Logic goes straight out the window.

by Anonymousreply 47March 18, 2023 10:24 PM

R46 = Glenn

by Anonymousreply 48March 18, 2023 10:24 PM

It's funny how abusive some people become when challenged. R40 made some well-reasoned points, but everyone who agrees is "an idiot." And no, R43, you don't "got it," nor does R44, trying to throw Meryl Streep as Sophie, a fictional character, in our faces.

The point is not that an "oppressor" shouldn't play an oppressed person. It's that the reason for their oppression is the identity of those biographical characters, and the same is true of the villains in the piece. Artistically, it makes no sense for a black person to play Goebbels or a slavemaster. I guess you'd rather see this through a political lens than an artistic one.

What has happened to DL? I get "pointless bitchery" and engage in it myself on occasion, but, damn, the unjustified anger and intra-thread personal sniping has gotten so ugly. There are so many threads I just stop reading because they degenerate into ranting between two particular posters. It is possible, you know, to discuss a subject without reacting as if someone's just dropped a scorpion down your back. I think there are a lot of people on here with personality disorders.

by Anonymousreply 49March 18, 2023 10:37 PM

Dumb down Dickens.

His storylines were fucking dumb enough as they were. Convoluted twists and turns where the characters have some connection revealed at the end.

by Anonymousreply 50March 18, 2023 10:39 PM

R49, we are, indeed, talking about art, about works of fiction. Artists are free to do what they want. They are not obligated to recreate the past even if a work is ostensibly set in the past. Art doesn’t have to be realistic, a point that is, apparently, lost on many.

by Anonymousreply 51March 18, 2023 10:42 PM

R45 Sophie was a Catholic, not a Jew. It's part of what she tells the concentration guard before he makes her choose. She gets sent to the camp because she's assisting an underground group saving Jews as she was able to translate.

by Anonymousreply 52March 18, 2023 10:46 PM

plays are boring

by Anonymousreply 53March 18, 2023 10:51 PM

How I wish I never have to hear or see the word “woke” ever, ever again. I’m sick of it. What does it even mean?

by Anonymousreply 54March 18, 2023 10:55 PM

Let anyone play anyone.

Black woman playing Anne Boleyn? Fine.

Jewish guy playing Hitler? Don’t care about it.

Julia Roberts playing Rosa Parks? Sure.

by Anonymousreply 55March 18, 2023 10:56 PM

R51, I agree wholeheartedly. Art has no obligation to be realistic; you could even argue that it has an obligation NOT to be too realistic, or it's not art.

So what exactly is wrong with an all-black Fiddler on the Roof or Diary of Anne Frank?

Or an all-Jewish Raisin in the Sun or Downfall?

by Anonymousreply 56March 18, 2023 11:00 PM

Charles Dickens didn't agree to this traducing.

He owns the moral copyright.

by Anonymousreply 57March 18, 2023 11:56 PM

I really liked both of this guy's other series, Taboo and Peaky Blinders. I'm more than willing to give this a shot.

Sounds like the usual fascist suspects making their usual fascist complaints. Anyone using "woke" to describe things immediately loses all credibility and I lose any interest in reading what they have to say.

by Anonymousreply 58March 19, 2023 12:03 AM

Poor people pay while the BBC wanks.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 59March 19, 2023 12:11 AM

Anne Boleyn came from Wiltshire. Abel Magwith came from Kent.

The producers of this new TV show came from Woke La-La Land.

by Anonymousreply 60March 19, 2023 12:13 AM

R21 These are white people doing this though. Steven Knight is a white man.

by Anonymousreply 61March 19, 2023 12:22 AM

The problem with the woman who played Anne Boylen was she spoke like a chav, very modern and jarring.

by Anonymousreply 62March 19, 2023 12:23 AM

Did Anne Boleyn actually sound like an upper crust white woman in London in 2023?

by Anonymousreply 63March 19, 2023 12:29 AM

[quote] As for Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII wouldn't have married a man, so, assuming Anne Boleyn was not a trans-identified male in real life, her being female is an important characteristic.

Love, Henry VIII wouldn't have married a black woman either so her being a white female is the important characteristic.

by Anonymousreply 64March 19, 2023 12:31 AM

Henry VIII would have been an “it’s all pink in the middle” pussyhound.

by Anonymousreply 65March 19, 2023 12:32 AM

Great Expectations is somewhat of a mystery story.

Having half of the pertinent characters being played by black people will be taking away the mystery.

Pip will guess very soon who is the "mysterious" benefactor is.

And will guess the "mystery" of the temptress Estella.

by Anonymousreply 66March 19, 2023 12:33 AM

Feigin?

Wow.

by Anonymousreply 67March 19, 2023 12:33 AM

It seems the BBC’s new Great Expectations will be super confusing. It simultaneously rages against the evils and inequalities of the British Empire whilst presenting Dickens’ England as some kind of multicultural utopia where racism doesn’t exist.

by Anonymousreply 68March 19, 2023 12:33 AM

Why does this woke casting always involve black actors but never Hispanics or Asians? It's even more bizarre since the largest minority in the UK would be Asians/South Asians and the largest minority in the US are Hispanics?

by Anonymousreply 69March 19, 2023 12:36 AM

You know the answer to that R69.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil

by Anonymousreply 70March 19, 2023 12:37 AM

[quote]“Were Dickens alive now,” Knight says, “he’d be writing movies and TV.”

He'd almost definitely be writing for primetime soaps like Eastenders or Coronation Street considering much of his output was basically that anyway.

by Anonymousreply 71March 19, 2023 12:38 AM

[quote] largest minority in the UK would be Asians/South Asians

They did that in the recent David Copperfield.

I didn't pay to watch it; one, because they also tried to turn it into a knockabout situation comedy for chavs with a short attention span.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 72March 19, 2023 12:40 AM

Dev Patel seems to be the token Asian they use between David Copperfield and The Green Knight, although for movies not for BBC shows.

by Anonymousreply 73March 19, 2023 12:41 AM

Funny how "progressives" feel such a need to give a white history to minorities.

by Anonymousreply 74March 19, 2023 12:42 AM

I hear white progressives on Twitter who actually say that because whites dominated the film/TV industry for decades at the expense of POC, that whites should be banned from ever appearing onscreen again and POC should take all the roles. So white erasure is real.

by Anonymousreply 75March 19, 2023 12:45 AM

Maybe because colorblind casting is so common in the theater, but I’ve never had a problem with historical figures being played by POCs or Audra playing Carrie in Carousel.

The play/musical/movie deals with the subject of race, then obviously the parts must be cast in a way the story makes sense. Coalhouse and Sarah need to be black in Ragtime, where Mother and Younger Brother need to be white and Tateh needs to be Jewish. This is important to the story.

Race doesn’t play a role in The Music Man or Death of a Salesman or Carousel. Maybe a black librarian would not have been able to own all the books in River City, Iowa at the turn of the century, but colorblind casting works in The Music Man. I have no problem seeing a black Marion and sometimes it can even add another layer to the character- she is ostracized and gossiped about by the other ladies in town.

by Anonymousreply 76March 19, 2023 12:46 AM

It's funny how rightwing nutjobs are like a multiplex during working hours.

There's always projection going on.

by Anonymousreply 77March 19, 2023 12:47 AM

I GET TO PLAY THE PRINCESS!

by Anonymousreply 78March 19, 2023 12:47 AM

Yes, Zendaya. And overweight Ruby Lee Curtis can play the poor guttersnipe.

by Anonymousreply 79March 19, 2023 12:55 AM

Zendaya looks unwashed.

by Anonymousreply 80March 19, 2023 12:56 AM

Having non-white actors play traditionally white characters isn't a problem if it fits with the setting and material, such as a non-white cast for Death Of A Salesman or Long Day's Journey Into Night. Doesn't work so well when it doesn't make any sense to the era.

The biggest problem IMO is it gives younger, uniformed people the wrong idea about history and leaves the impression non-white people were well assimilated into society and held desirable or powerful positions, instead of recognising how badly they actually had it.

Maybe more new material should be produced giving non-white actors their chance to tell the real history and stories of their ancestors, which I'm sure there exist endless stories worth exploring.

by Anonymousreply 81March 19, 2023 12:57 AM

[quote] their chance to tell the real history

What, pray tell, is the 'real history' when people like Dr Eric Cervini and idiots like Donald Spoto create their own new histories.

by Anonymousreply 82March 19, 2023 12:59 AM

If you're worried about "young people getting the wrong idea" then the answer is better education and better instruction from their parents as to the realities of history. Hollywood casting and tv shows are for entertainment, not education the young.

by Anonymousreply 83March 19, 2023 1:03 AM

Well, does this mean we finally get to see Joseph Fiennes as Michael Jackson In that British TV movie with Stockard Channing as Elizabeth Taylor?

by Anonymousreply 84March 19, 2023 1:11 AM

They want colorblind casting but only of white roles. People get mad if a white man is cast as Othello.

by Anonymousreply 85March 19, 2023 1:17 AM

[quote] Feigin? Wow.

Are you upset about something?

by Anonymousreply 86March 19, 2023 1:18 AM

The repeated misspelling of the main villain's name in a thread where people are allegedly giving informed "opinions" of said character and the story does not upset me.

If I was upset by all the stupid things people said on the internet, I would have killed myself a long time ago.

Or gone on a shooting rampage.

It could go both ways with "upset" people.

Like the people freaking out over "woke" on this thread.

Since you asked, I commented "Wow," the way you would if you saw a column of water shooting out of a fireplug and flooding a street or watching a video of someone taking a selfie on the edge of cliff and suddenly the camera drops and you hear a scream.

by Anonymousreply 87March 19, 2023 1:35 AM

It's Fagin, R86.

Has there ever been a white bitch/asshole/villain role recast with a black person? Only the virtuous and the heroes, I'd wager. And, if you are this writer, if they are shitty, they are only shitty if they are white. Becoming black brings out their virtuous side, dontcha know!?

by Anonymousreply 88March 19, 2023 1:35 AM

[quote]The biggest problem IMO is it gives younger, uniformed people the wrong idea about history and leaves the impression non-white people were well assimilated into society and held desirable or powerful positions, instead of recognising how badly they actually had it.

Agreed.

by Anonymousreply 89March 19, 2023 1:45 AM

R88 I don't know if you're being ironic.

But you know about the Magic Negroes.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 90March 19, 2023 1:47 AM

I'll wait to see the adaptation; it may very well be terrible. But beware posters who link to The Telegraph -- it might look like a "prestigious" British paper from the outside, but it is, and always has been, a Right Wing publication closely aligned with the Conservatives.

by Anonymousreply 91March 19, 2023 1:47 AM

R91 is too busy shooting the messenger to pay attention to the message.

by Anonymousreply 92March 19, 2023 1:53 AM

If you mean adapting a novel written 163 fucking years ago so it will appeal and attract viewers under the OP's age of 75. Well yeah it must be a liberal woke plot. The original 1934 version is still on Turner in living black and white for you dear. Now time for your warm milk.

by Anonymousreply 93March 19, 2023 2:13 AM

R68 this I think is where some wires are getting crossed in the thread.

Absurd of course to claim that there is no racism problem in Britain and never was. However, class struggle and wealth inequality has since the Middle Ages always been a more salient problem and ubiquitous on our shores, and race is not always coupled to that as it seems to be in America. The most famous literature and storytelling of Britain often concerns itself with haves & have-nots, social mobility, class struggle, and the difficulty in achieving freedom of identity & lifestyle beyond one's station.

Dickens identified this as a primary societal bugbear, while also touching on race as a separate can of worms. To tell Dickens' tales is to tell stories of people who struggle to survive, rise above hardship and abuse, escape entrapment or find themselves because they are in some way hampered by their social class and poverty/wealth. Surely, people of every race can relate to that.

by Anonymousreply 94March 19, 2023 2:18 AM

[quote] Dickens … also touching on race….

R94 Where did he do that?

by Anonymousreply 95March 19, 2023 2:29 AM

R77 is wanking himself stupid over his oh-so-clever wordplay. Bless his heart.

by Anonymousreply 96March 19, 2023 2:32 AM

R96 At least he can still get it up pawpaw.

by Anonymousreply 97March 19, 2023 2:41 AM

"[R77] is wanking himself stupid over his oh-so-clever wordplay."

I'm not interested in being a part of your sexual fantasies.

" Bless his heart."

And may god have mercy on your soul.

by Anonymousreply 98March 19, 2023 2:42 AM

[quote]Henry VIII would have been an “it’s all pink in the middle” pussyhound.

Would he.

by Anonymousreply 99March 19, 2023 2:48 AM

[quote] “it’s all pink in the middle”

I've never heard that idiom before.

Does it relate to cooking roast beef?

Or does it relate to fornicating with vaginas and/or anuses?

by Anonymousreply 100March 19, 2023 2:51 AM

“ I'm not interested in being a part of your sexual fantasies.”

But I am. Messy and bareback, please.

by Anonymousreply 101March 19, 2023 3:39 AM

R63 She did not sound like a chav going down the chippie to get a curry.

by Anonymousreply 102March 19, 2023 3:59 AM

R102 The socialist woke BBC staff get pleasure in having a monarch talk like a chav.

by Anonymousreply 103March 19, 2023 4:04 AM

We don't need to wake up Dickens; he was a social reformer and critic. It's useless to read this novelist out of the context of his own time and place.

I'm fine with color-blind casting. But my feeling is that a movie or series works (or doesn't work) based on the quality and effectiveness of the writing, acting, and overall production values.

I am sooooo sick of this kind of bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 104March 19, 2023 4:17 AM

Lmao R46!

by Anonymousreply 105March 19, 2023 4:30 AM

[quote] If you're worried about "young people getting the wrong idea" then the answer is better education and better instruction from their parents as to the realities of history

I don't suppose that would work if the "young people" are like this luvvy whose attention span was too short to “even try and decode the language”.

by Anonymousreply 106March 19, 2023 4:30 AM

I’m Asian, I was pissed when they casted ScarJo as the lead in Ghost in a Shell, so I can understand why people don’t like color-blind casting in historical/historical fiction works. Honestly, it’s just so jarring and distracting if you have background knowledge of the setting.

by Anonymousreply 107March 19, 2023 4:53 AM

R107 Meh. Think more people in the world have read Dickens than Ghost in the Shell.

by Anonymousreply 108March 19, 2023 4:55 AM

This is a very interesting thread, and some great points were made.

by Anonymousreply 109March 19, 2023 5:00 AM

R72 The Guardian newspaper went ga-ga over that slapstick comedy movie.

They came out with a typically stupid Guardian headline.

It combines outrageous hyperbole ("change-film-for-ever") and sheepish timidity (could").

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110March 19, 2023 5:07 AM

R110 It was awful and silly. The race change for some characters and not others was distracting. jesus, if you want to tell a dot Indian story, tell their fucking stories. Don't force and foist them into white stories.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111March 19, 2023 5:10 AM

R104 /R111 Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by bigots like you two.

by Anonymousreply 112March 19, 2023 5:18 AM

Foolish consistency is racist!

by Anonymousreply 113March 19, 2023 5:20 AM

I think that speech quoted in R111 is convincing.

I reckon the Woke BBC should hire Dame Olivia Colman to star in their version of his 'Ma Rainey's Black Bottom'.

by Anonymousreply 114March 19, 2023 5:25 AM

How is it not racist to not tell original stories from different cultures and, instead, just "shove brown people in old coats and dresses and play a game of historical make-believe"? I'm surprised this isn't more of an issue for minority actor and writers themselves.

by Anonymousreply 115March 19, 2023 7:15 AM

R112 There is nothing “foolish” about accuracy. Except to those who are more interested in agenda than reality, relegating history to just another bunch of stories to be manipulated per whim/fantasy.

Accuracy matters in the recreation of characters, especially of the historical kind. Casting a white woman to recreate Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom (as R114 mentioned) or a black woman to recreate Anne Boleyn or a Jamaican as a Regency Era British aristocrat is not art for art’s sake. It’s nonsense of the highly selective, hypocritical kind. Such as R49’s curious assertion that “Artistically, it makes no sense for a black person to play Goebbels or a slavemaster”. No doubt R49 would concur that it suddenly becomes “artistically sensible” for a white person to play Idi Amin or Mobutu Sese Seko, since, as R49 asserted, “the reason for their oppression is the identity of those biographical characters” no longer applies.

by Anonymousreply 116March 19, 2023 7:21 AM

Meh. I don't get worked up over this. I've seen a dozen Anne Boleyns, maybe more. One Black one doesn't bother me.

An Indian David Copperfield doesn't bother me either. I've probably seen a dozen David Copperfields too.

I may like the shows or I may not but the color of the actors won't have anything to do with the way I react to the programs.

Having POC take on traditionally white roles isn't a problem for me. It doesn't seem to be a problem for lots of other people either. How about the people who don't like this kind of casting don't watch shows and movie that have it and people who don't mind and even enjoy this kind of casting go right ahead and watch it? That seems as though it would take care of things.

You would see nothing to freak out about and wouldn't go around sounding like a racist cunt and we wouldn't have to see or hear your racist cunt bullshit - win win!

by Anonymousreply 117March 19, 2023 7:33 AM

R117 = a morally superior person.

by Anonymousreply 118March 19, 2023 7:36 AM

[quote]an ethnically diverse cast

God forbid. How could they?

/s

by Anonymousreply 119March 19, 2023 7:39 AM

R118 A fucking idiot/ 'I have not seen any of these reinterpretations, but I will still support them, as I sit and gobble my virtue cookies'.

by Anonymousreply 120March 19, 2023 7:40 AM

The BBC is a very strange combination of Fascist in the news department and management (e.g., the Gary Lineker affair) and Maoist in the entertainment department (this, and much more).

by Anonymousreply 121March 19, 2023 7:41 AM

I had hoped the Gary Lineker affair might have broken up the BBC Empire.

by Anonymousreply 122March 19, 2023 7:44 AM

[quote]Except to those who are more interested in agenda than reality, relegating history to just another bunch of stories to be manipulated per whim/fantasy.

This is everything that's wrong with "woke". They have detached reality from the world. The Democratic party used to represent reality while the Repugs lived in a world defined by the edicts from sky fairies. Now, the SJWokester contingent of the Democratic party has infested our politics and entertainment with the idea that reality need not be considered, that feelings and whims are just as important as facts and reality. History is real and, just like science, shouldn't be subject to any group's momentary political agenda. History is history. Facts are facts. Reality is reality. Pretending otherwise is what is wrong with this world right now. We, as liberals and progressives, shouldn't be playing a role in it.

by Anonymousreply 123March 19, 2023 7:46 AM

Uhmmm.. you complainers about this are aware that Great Expectations is fiction, right?

And that David Copperfield is also fiction?

Just checking because you're getting pretty carried away with your self-righteous bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 124March 19, 2023 7:50 AM

R124, fiction still takes place in real historical times and places. And, don't pretend this is only being done to fictional characters. Watch what happens when Cleopatra isn't played by a black person.

by Anonymousreply 125March 19, 2023 7:56 AM

[quote] History is real and, just like science, shouldn't be subject to any group's momentary political agenda.

....𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑟𝑒𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126March 19, 2023 7:58 AM

[quote] Great Expectations is fiction, right?

It's Charles Dickens' fiction.

It's not a parable to be use and traduced by the Holier-Than-Thou BBC for their preaching sermons.

by Anonymousreply 127March 19, 2023 8:00 AM

Someone’s control issues have been triggered. Now do the part where you talk about stuff being “shoved down your throat.”

by Anonymousreply 128March 19, 2023 8:02 AM

No one needs another respectful, literal adaptation of any work of English literature from the BBC. They’ve been doing them for decades and produced them in triplicate. What a small, unsophisticated, and limited world you live in where there are right ways and wrong ways to be creative and history or any aspect of reality is carved in stone. Did you totally miss out on Heidegger and Einstein?

by Anonymousreply 129March 19, 2023 8:11 AM

Oh, R129, what could Heidegger have to say about Dickens?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 130March 19, 2023 8:26 AM

Do tv/film production companies in say Africa, India or Japan feel compelled to have White people represented disproportionally in those countries?

by Anonymousreply 131March 19, 2023 8:32 AM

Do tv/film production companies in say Africa, India or Japan feel compelled to have White people represented disproportionally in those countries?

by Anonymousreply 132March 19, 2023 8:32 AM

[quote]...limited world you live in where there are right ways and wrong ways to be creative and history or any aspect of reality is carved in stone.

Did you really just say that? You don't think history or reality are carved in stone. It's the actual definition of reality. It's real. It's right there in the word. Where could you possibly draw the line between reality and make-believe if you don't believe reality is real? Are you insane?

by Anonymousreply 133March 19, 2023 8:35 AM

You are being disingenuous. You know they are not multi-cultural like the West and their histories of bigotry and oppression do not necessarily or directly contradict their espoused principles of being egalitarian meritocracies.

by Anonymousreply 134March 19, 2023 8:40 AM

Art and perception more generally is subjective, relative and ever changing. Yesterday’s flat earth becomes a sphere becomes a satellite. Schrödinger’s cat is alive or dead or both depending on who, and when you are.

by Anonymousreply 135March 19, 2023 8:48 AM

I was with you R117, right up to this part:

[quote]You would see nothing to freak out about and wouldn't go around sounding like a racist cunt and we wouldn't have to see or hear your racist cunt bullshit - win win!

where you show yourself to be as intolerant of different takes and opinions as any of the people you're accusing of racism (some of whom, because it is not my first day on the internet, will be actual racists). You are free to care or not care about 'colour blind' casting, but there have been solid, non-racist points made in this thread regarding the silliness of casting a black actress as Anne Boleyn, for example. And every single person screaming "racist!" has, so far, completely avoided answering any of these points.

The point about it being weirdly patronizing to pocs is also a good one. I suspect in 10 or so years people will look back on today the way we look back on the early 2000s as deeply misinformed about how to deal with the realities of racism, misogyny etc. The only thing worse than black Anne Boleyn is smug white directors and producers thinking their casting choice is some kind of racism-inoculation that means they can't be argued with. It's all so fucking gross. I do hope you're equally as invested in calling Korean K-drama producers racists for not casting non-ethnic Koreans in their shows as you are in blithely labeling everyone with a differing opinion a racist.

by Anonymousreply 136March 19, 2023 8:50 AM

R136 seems to be debating for both sides of this debate.

by Anonymousreply 137March 19, 2023 9:29 AM

R129 Then what’s the point of adapting a piece of literature that is set in a particular place and time with a particular set of characters? If none of that matters just create something new.

by Anonymousreply 138March 19, 2023 9:38 AM

“The Empire was a horrible thing which involved a lot of British people going out and enslaving, pillaging and destroying a lot of cultures around the world. It was massively powered by greed,”

I'm no fan of the British empire (like many in the UK, my grandmother migrated from it) but this is a very caricatured and stereotypical vision of it which is very historically inaccurate. People who spout this kind of thing have never studied the empire or probably even read a single thing about it.

Even if the empire was as Knight imagines it, that's still no justification to go around rewriting 19th-century novels.

by Anonymousreply 139March 19, 2023 9:44 AM

Precisely r68, and that's just one problem with trying to make adaptions of older works that are ethnically diverse or ethnically diverse fiilms, book, etc. written today but set in the past: it presents an inaccurate image of an ethnically diverse and past, which is far from the truth. If film and TV producers want to include black or Asian people then they should write new works based around their actual stories, not rewrite historical reality.

by Anonymousreply 140March 19, 2023 9:52 AM

OK, Mary @ R128.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 141March 19, 2023 11:28 AM

R136, are you suggesting Hamilton will not be popular in ten years?

Good luck with that.

by Anonymousreply 142March 19, 2023 11:44 AM

At r39, I meant my grandparents migrated from the empire to the UK, not just my grandmother. My maternal grandparents that is. My paternal grandparents stayed in the old country and my dad migrated to the UK after independence.

by Anonymousreply 143March 19, 2023 11:51 AM

[quote] I do hope you're equally as invested in calling Korean K-drama producers racists for not casting non-ethnic Koreans in their shows as you are in blithely labeling everyone with a differing opinion a racist.

If you are not East/South/Southeast Asian, you do not work in India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or Thailand cinema. The Asian movie consumer is not interested in seeing non-Asian faces. No one considers this racist.

Those who shrug about historical/cultural accuracy, who think it lacks relevancy might want to keep in mind that it is exactly this indifference to reality that emboldens historical revisionists such as Marsha Johnson to publicly proclaim that he and other transvestites "threw the first bricks at Stonewall".

by Anonymousreply 144March 19, 2023 12:08 PM

[quote] If you are not East/South/Southeast Asian, you do not work in India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or Thailand cinema.

Tell that to Matt Damon or Kylie Minogue. Remember all the flack Matt Damon got from working on that movie about the Great Wall of China. It wasn't Chinese people who were upset but the white Twitter mob who felt the need to be offended on behalf of all Asians. Similarly, even ScarJo's casting in Ghost in the Shell didn't bother any Japanese people.

by Anonymousreply 145March 19, 2023 12:10 PM

R145 In the film, Memoirs of a Geisha, two Chinese, Gong Li and Zhang Ziyi, and one Malay Chinese, Michelle Yeoh, were cast as the principle Japanese characters. In this instance, both the Twitterai AND Japan and China were outraged at the "miscasting".

by Anonymousreply 146March 19, 2023 12:17 PM

[quote] It wasn't Chinese people who were upset

East/South/Southeast Asia have huge film industries, in some cases, larger than the US. Therefore, not only will one or two gweilo faces be lost in the sea of Asian faces, it is culturally ignorance/arrogant to project Western sensibilities on the East.

by Anonymousreply 147March 19, 2023 12:22 PM

[quote] The BBC is a very strange combination of Fascist in the news department and management (e.g., the Gary Lineker affair

Saaaaaur funny to me that Gary’s stand-in is a black lesbian, yet the racist contingent of viewers said not a word about it because she’s fit and femme and she used to be the Lionesses skipper.

Do a good job, look hot, and have something that impresses people, and all of this horseshit falls away in the TV & movie business. The waters are not as deep as everyone’s pretending.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 148March 19, 2023 12:30 PM

[quote]How is it not racist to not tell original stories from different cultures and, instead, just "shove brown people in old coats and dresses and play a game of historical make-believe"? I'm surprised this isn't more of an issue for minority actor and writers themselves.

It's not an issue because they're iconoclasts. Iconoclasm is the sole motive and goal of these productions, the stories are only relevant as vehicles to accomplish that. They actually do prioritise inserting themselves 'into white spaces' over their own stories, they get off on provoking a reaction and then dressing themselves up as a trailblazer fighting fascism!!... in the dumbest and safest way possible, of course.

And they want to be considered as indistinguishable from Europeans, it's their entire goal in life, the yardstick they measure themselves by; white validation. They'll never admit it, but actions speak louder than words. Why do you think they all want Oscars, despite constantly telling us the Academy is racist? They don't want awards from black people or Asians. They get up on stage and weep because the old white men gave them a trophy. Best night of their life. So historic. White validation is everything to them. And the worst thing you can do is simply point out that they're not Europeans.

by Anonymousreply 149March 19, 2023 12:53 PM

At r139!

Sunday morning typing...

by Anonymousreply 150March 19, 2023 1:42 PM

R142 Hamilton has already come under fire for not being woke enough. Plus all the whining coming from within by performers who don’t feel they’re being treated as special as they think they deserve to be (wanting a special gender neutral dressing room - ie a personal dressing room etc).

by Anonymousreply 151March 19, 2023 1:57 PM

[quote] Uhmmm.. you complainers about this are aware that Great Expectations is fiction, right?

But it’s not just stopping at fiction. Example: the recent production where William F. Buckley was played by a black man. What’s the point of that?

by Anonymousreply 152March 19, 2023 2:02 PM

At least a third of Britain's population in the nineteenth century was Black, if the latest BAME-cast Brit TV series are anything to go by.

by Anonymousreply 153March 19, 2023 2:17 PM

Great Expectations, like virtually all 19th century novels, was about contemporary society and how it worked. If you are going to ignore that, you might as well not bother. How, realistically, would a black Estella have functioned in that society, given the plot lines she has? It would not be remotely credible, unless you re-write pretty much everything into counterfactual history. It is preaching about the present, not reflecting the actual context of the work itself. A counterfactual Great Expectations-type production might actually be an interesting exercise (especially from a gay perspective, as it has strong homoerotic elements), if the authors did it intelligently and thoroughly, and didn't pretend it was by Dickens. A parallel version, perhaps, like Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea take on Jane Eyre, but you know that isn't what will happen here.

by Anonymousreply 154March 19, 2023 2:32 PM

[quote] At least a third of Britain's population in the nineteenth century was Black, if the latest BAME-cast Brit TV series are anything to go by.

And half the gentry

by Anonymousreply 155March 19, 2023 2:38 PM

I’m also noticing in more Brit shows that the aristocracy is being portrayed as outwardly angry at their position in society (the younger generation despising their wealth while enjoying it) or being portrayed as thinking they’re above the law.

I know that both of these make for more dramatic scenarios but how realistic is it? I’m wondering if the *majority* of British aristocracy just lived in their own world and led quiet lives. Surely every rich son that went to Cambridge wasn’t a communist rapist murderer.

by Anonymousreply 156March 19, 2023 2:58 PM

R156 They think everyone agrees with whiny Prince Ginge so graft that on to everything.

by Anonymousreply 157March 19, 2023 3:00 PM

Does the color of William F. Buckley’s skin matter? Is art merely representational? You sound like Muslim’s demanding there be no representation of Muhammad. When did Dickens, Shakespeare and William F. Buckley become so sacred, they can be creatively toyed with? Bunch of controlling Klan grannies who can’t stand that something might be done to please someone who isn’t them.

by Anonymousreply 158March 19, 2023 3:12 PM

It might have worked if Pip was the one who is black, if they truly wanted to project todays sociopolitical climate back to the1800s. I dont know, this is all too lazy anyway. Get some lesser known work in the first place, project the GenZ values there, not this thing that has been done to death.

by Anonymousreply 159March 19, 2023 3:15 PM

[quote] Does the color of William F. Buckley’s skin matter?

Buckley was a real person and what the play portrayed was a real event. What artistic point is being made by changing the color of one of the participants?

by Anonymousreply 160March 19, 2023 4:03 PM

R93 the "original 1934" was not a very good film, it's the 1946 version directed by David Lean that most people remember.

by Anonymousreply 161March 19, 2023 4:10 PM

They were making the point that a person’s skin color is irrelevant. The ideas, energy and soul or in this case soullessness are what matters. Apples don’t have to embody a Platonic ideal appleness in every painting.

by Anonymousreply 162March 19, 2023 4:11 PM

I had a disagreement with someone about quotas for Oscar Awards, as well as employment quotas that are apparently now in place in England in the film/TV business. I'm not a conservative, it's just that common sense would dictate that skin color shouldn't dictate art, or employment. This person thought quotas should be in place in the Academy Awards, for example, because for years there had been bias against hiring or casting minorities. My opinion is that imposing an overcorrection won't change the past. There seem to be a good many minorities in (and working on) films, now. I even watched the 1974 Oscars broadcast the other night, and there were many people of color nominated, or on hand as presenters (almost 50 years ago). Imposing quotas seems just to be appeasing certain factions and may not make much sense at this point.

I don't believe in colorblind casting, it takes a play or film into the realm of fantasy. If it's meant to be fantasy, that's one thing. If not, casting let's say a Chinese woman as Woodrow Wilson seems to reduce everything to a kind of children's game.

by Anonymousreply 163March 19, 2023 4:23 PM

[quote] They were making the point that a person’s skin color is irrelevant.

At the expense of the real story which is how a white conservative intellectual and a gay liberal intellectual interacted in a public space at a time when the US was moving from conservatism to liberalism.

I think the point some people are trying to make is that sometimes racial casting has the wrong intent and wipes out a more interesting theme or story.

by Anonymousreply 164March 19, 2023 4:24 PM

I think they are self-involved literalists who need to control and feel threatened by anything that doesn’t confirm their pre-conceived notions of what is possible.

by Anonymousreply 165March 19, 2023 4:30 PM

All sorts of things are possible, r165, that doesn't mean they're not bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 166March 19, 2023 4:32 PM

Your world is going to be very small if you start dismissing the “bullshit”.

by Anonymousreply 167March 19, 2023 4:35 PM

Lol, r167, no, my world is not going to be very small if I don't watch the new BBC take on Great Expectations.

by Anonymousreply 168March 19, 2023 4:38 PM

[quote] I had a disagreement with someone about quotas for Oscar Awards, as well as employment quotas that are apparently now in place in England in the film/TV business.

What I’m seeing in Brit tv is that they’re using the same minority actors over and over. It must be frustrating to the minority actors that aren’t popular that they’re still not getting anywhere.

It’s also interesting how they shoehorn minorities in. For example, in the latest series of Endeavour, there’s a woman in the newspaper office who is in a wheelchair. In one office scene, she goes rolling down the specially built ramp for her. I guess modern audiences can pat themselves on the back for portraying a functional person in a wheelchair but it ignores the struggle that people had to get accessibility. 1960s Oxford had wheelchair ramps everywhere!

by Anonymousreply 169March 19, 2023 4:38 PM

[quote]They were making the point that a person’s skin color is irrelevant. The ideas, energy and soul or in this case soullessness are what matters. Apples don’t have to embody a Platonic ideal appleness in every painting.

That's all fine and dandy if it's a black person playing a white historical figure. And you know it.

What would happen if Meryl Streep were cast as Rosa Parks?

You tell us.

by Anonymousreply 170March 19, 2023 4:41 PM

R169 That's interesting. From what I seem to remember reading a couple of years ago the quotas involve hiring in offscreen positions, as well.

by Anonymousreply 171March 19, 2023 4:44 PM

We certainly haven’t been exposed to white people playing Othello, Geronimo, Pancho Villa or coolies. Never seemed to reduce the enjoyment for white people before.

by Anonymousreply 172March 19, 2023 4:49 PM

[quote]We certainly haven’t been exposed to white people playing Othello, Geronimo, Pancho Villa or coolies. Never seemed to reduce the enjoyment for white people before.

Try to do that in 2023 and watch what happens. Stop being so disingenuous.

by Anonymousreply 173March 19, 2023 4:52 PM

[quote] We certainly haven’t been exposed to white people playing Othello,

Not in our generation, but Laurence Olivier did play Othello.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 174March 19, 2023 4:53 PM

Let's see a black actor playing Geronimo then, r172.

by Anonymousreply 175March 19, 2023 4:53 PM

It ALWAYS ruins it for me when I see older movies with white actors in yellowface, or brownface, or blackface. It's not even a moral objection -- it's that it looks stupid, it's equal parts cringe-inducing and laughable, and it destroys the illusion that the movie is trying to sustain. I just can't enjoy watching those movies. They're embarrassing.

But apparently you disagree, R172. You feel it's enjoyable if people of one race portray people of a radically different-looking race.

by Anonymousreply 176March 19, 2023 4:54 PM

R172 is all for Micky Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi.

by Anonymousreply 177March 19, 2023 4:57 PM

[quote] It ALWAYS ruins it for me when I see older movies with white actors in yellowface, or brownface, or blackface.

R176 Your view pleasure is no longer ruined. Now you have black actors playing whites. How lucky for you!

by Anonymousreply 178March 19, 2023 4:59 PM

[quote]It might have worked if Pip was the one who is black

Because he does nothing of significance, pisses away his cash handouts, and glorifies white pussy?

by Anonymousreply 179March 19, 2023 5:00 PM

I love how the privileged get so indignant and morally outraged when they are exposed to even a fraction of the barriers other people experience on an hourly basis and are able to shrug off and move on.

by Anonymousreply 180March 19, 2023 5:00 PM

R172 Again, that's the past, isn't it?

By the way, a prominent black actor did play Othello, in the past - Paul Robson. Opposite Uta Hagen, in the mid-40's. Longest-running Shakespeare play ever produced on Broadway.

I think this point is usually ignored: those white or ethnically different actors in the past were attempting to convince the audience they were as CLOSE as possible to the ethnicity and skin tone of the characters. Today what we are seeing is the idea that white characters can just be played by people of other colors or ethnicities without any attempt to portray a white person. The audience is just supposed to suspend disbelief, or use their imagination to ignore the fact that a white character is not being portrayed by anyone resembling or attempting to resemble a white person. That is a completely different concept.

[quote] It ALWAYS ruins it for me when I see older movies with white actors in yellowface, or brownface, or blackface. It's not even a moral objection -- it's that it looks stupid, it's equal parts cringe-inducing and laughable, and it destroys the illusion that the movie is trying to sustain. I just can't enjoy watching those movies. They're embarrassing.

[quote] But apparently you disagree, [R172]. You feel it's enjoyable if people of one race portray people of a radically different-looking race.

R176 So it must also always spoil it for you when a white character is portrayed by someone of a different race, right?

by Anonymousreply 181March 19, 2023 5:01 PM

Myrna Loy was a terrific Chinese princess

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 182March 19, 2023 5:02 PM

R180 What constitutes "priviledged"?

by Anonymousreply 183March 19, 2023 5:02 PM

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 184March 19, 2023 5:03 PM

R183 pretends to be stupid.

by Anonymousreply 185March 19, 2023 5:03 PM

[quote] What I’m seeing in Brit tv is that they’re using the same minority actors over and over. It must be frustrating to the minority actors that aren’t popular that they’re still not getting anywhere. It’s also interesting how they shoehorn minorities in.

British soaps are doing this with sexuality and gender identities--sometimes at the expense of continuity and good storytelling, sad to say--and I'm not seeing half the same outcry. Presumably because the OFCOM Complainer contigent won't watch or admit to watching soaps.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 186March 19, 2023 5:04 PM

R185 doesn't have to pretend.

by Anonymousreply 187March 19, 2023 5:04 PM

Poor Mickey Rooney gets shit for his Mr. Yunioshi role. While Alec Guinness, who played both a Brahmin (A Passage to India) and a Japanese (Majority of One), remains safe/ignored in the shadows.

by Anonymousreply 188March 19, 2023 5:08 PM

Sticking black characters into Jane Austen is ridiculous, however politically correcting Dickens is not. He'd probably approve. He was far ahead of his time with his views on child labor, poverty, the exploitation of women, etc. I'm sure old Charlie would be Wokester Number One if he was still around.

by Anonymousreply 189March 19, 2023 5:08 PM

R189 It's good that you speak for Dickens.

by Anonymousreply 190March 19, 2023 5:09 PM

R189 is perfectly correct to project 21st century sensibilities on the 19th century. That's exactly how theatre of the absurd works.

by Anonymousreply 191March 19, 2023 5:12 PM

Has anybody thought to ask Dickens himself ?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 192March 19, 2023 5:12 PM

The Klan Grannies of the DL - for whom a headline in the Daily Mail is a deep dive - are now going to pretend to be Dickens scholars.

After they've been epidemiologists and endocrinologists and *huge fans of girls sports.

by Anonymousreply 193March 19, 2023 5:23 PM

People who use the term "Klan Grannies" = low IQ.

by Anonymousreply 194March 19, 2023 5:26 PM

R193 if you find the DL so offensive, why don't you head back to Celebitchy and Lipstick Alley from whence you came?

by Anonymousreply 195March 19, 2023 5:26 PM

I saw the Oliver Twist version with Sophie Okenedo playing Nancy. That’s an instance where diversity casting worked. Although Timothy Spall playing Fagin like Mrs. Meers was a poor choice.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 196March 19, 2023 5:26 PM

Shakespeare explain his own literary preferences,

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 197March 19, 2023 5:28 PM

R180, how is the fact that Charles Dickens, writing in almost uniformly white Britain of the mid-19th century, wrote exclusively white characters a barrier for black people?

by Anonymousreply 198March 19, 2023 5:31 PM

The worst colorblind casting ever: I saw the two-part His Dark Materials adaptation at the National. Lesley Manville played Mrs. Coulter. A young blonde actress who looked just like Renee Zellwegger played Lyra Belaqua. David Harewood was cast as Lord Asriel. The big reveal in the story is that Lord Asriel is not just Lyra's guardian but her biological father, Mrs. Coulter being her biological mother. When the dramatic announcement came with Lord Asriel proclaiming he is Lyra's father, a muffled titter ran across the room.

by Anonymousreply 199March 19, 2023 5:31 PM

Why are they remaking this Gwyneth Paltrow-Ethan Hawke masterpiece?

by Anonymousreply 200March 19, 2023 5:37 PM

R200 HAHAHA! First proper laugh of the day, bravo!

by Anonymousreply 201March 19, 2023 5:38 PM

R196, it only "works", to the extent that it does, because the character of Nancy is a prostitute who is eventually killed, hence a very marginal, vulnerable figure and thus the imagination could stretch to a black woman who somehow ended up living in mid-19th-century London being in this position. But that's a sad representation, to be honest.

by Anonymousreply 202March 19, 2023 5:39 PM

R188 don't forget Sir Ben Kingsley as Mahatma Gandhi.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 203March 19, 2023 5:41 PM

R203 His dad was Indian so technically he's not brown face or whatever.

by Anonymousreply 204March 19, 2023 5:43 PM

You mean Krishna Pandit Bhanji, r203?

by Anonymousreply 205March 19, 2023 5:43 PM

[quote] Nancy is a prostitute who is eventually killed, hence a very marginal, vulnerable figure and thus the imagination could stretch to a black woman who somehow ended up living in mid-19th-century London being in this position. But that's a sad representation, to be honest.

But she was a white blonde who seemed to love her life in the musical version!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 206March 19, 2023 5:47 PM

R206 until Oliver Reed killed her anyway!

by Anonymousreply 207March 19, 2023 5:49 PM

[quote]until Oliver Reed killed her anyway!

Do you know how much she was spending to get her teeth whitened?

by Anonymousreply 208March 19, 2023 6:01 PM

R203 He was half-Indian, but what if he wasn't? Would the movie or his performance have not been as good?

What about Linda Hunt playing an Asian man in The Year Of Living Dangerously? A white person from Morristown, New Jersey.

by Anonymousreply 209March 19, 2023 6:25 PM

So how do we feel about Glenn sort-of playing a man? Or does it not count because it's diegetic crossdress as part of the plot? Could she have got away with playing an actual male character, or not?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 210March 19, 2023 6:33 PM

R209 about Linda Hunt.

Was it a convincing performance? Yes

Was it respectful, not stereotyped or mocking? Also yes.

Same questions for Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, answers no and no.

by Anonymousreply 211March 19, 2023 6:42 PM

[quote]even ScarJo's casting in Ghost in the Shell didn't bother any Japanese people.

Why are you lying R145? Japanese artists objected, as well as Japanese people IN THIS THREAD.

Dumbass.

by Anonymousreply 212March 19, 2023 7:43 PM

R211 Nobody was asking you to compare Linda Hunt and Mickey Rooney.

So now the goalposts are that a performance in yellowface is okay as long as it's convincing? "Convincing"is completely. I don't know what the yardstick is for "stereotyped". Who's the judge of that? Mocking/not mocking is more obvious.

I thought Luise Rainer in The Good Earth was convincing, not stereotyped, and not mocking, therefore I approve of her yellowface performance. I actually do approve of it. I also think Aline McMahon and Turhan Bey in Dragon Seen were convincing, not stereotyped, and not mocking. Hepburn was the second two things, but not the first (not very convincing).

But I think people are apt to judge films from closer to their own era less harshly (like TYOLD) because they themselves were touched by them and never disapproved of the yellowface at the time.

by Anonymousreply 213March 19, 2023 7:43 PM

*"Convincing" is completely objective.

by Anonymousreply 214March 19, 2023 7:44 PM

R210, hey dumbass, Glenn Close plays a woman trying to pass as a man.

by Anonymousreply 215March 19, 2023 7:46 PM

R212 Hands up who has read Ghost In The Shell?

by Anonymousreply 216March 19, 2023 7:47 PM

Jonathan Pryce starring in Miss Saigon? Burn the theater down!

by Anonymousreply 217March 19, 2023 7:58 PM

R216, I have, although it’s famous for the anime adaptation.

by Anonymousreply 218March 19, 2023 8:50 PM

[quote] *"Convincing" is completely objective.

"Convincing" is entirely subjective.

As is 'disgusting'.

by Anonymousreply 219March 19, 2023 11:43 PM

[quote]*"Convincing" is completely objective.

Not really, r214.

by Anonymousreply 220March 19, 2023 11:50 PM

"Convincing" is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not convinced by this Shalom person pretending to be Estella.

by Anonymousreply 221March 19, 2023 11:55 PM

Meh, I'll just watch the South Park episode again. Much faster.

by Anonymousreply 222March 20, 2023 12:15 AM

Some of Dickens' lighter and less enduring fare is already stupid enough on its own. 'The Pickwick Papers' and 'The Old Curiosity Shop' for example are just absolutely unserious novels. Actually I'd like to see some of the sillier obscure ones adapted for once, they never get put on film.

by Anonymousreply 223March 21, 2023 2:37 AM

R219 Corrected. I meant to write subjective. Entirely subjective.

by Anonymousreply 224March 21, 2023 2:50 AM

R221 the Shalom person as you call her was excellent in The Tourist and Line of Duty. You haven't seen the last of her.

by Anonymousreply 225March 21, 2023 2:22 PM

[quote] don't forget Sir Ben Kingsley as Mahatma Gandhi.

At least Kingsley was part Indian.

Don't forget Kingsley played German Jew Yitzhak Stern in Shindler's List. Indian in Jew face.

by Anonymousreply 226March 21, 2023 3:47 PM

[quote] At least Kingsley was part Indian.

Kingsley was half-caste Indian.

Estella Magwitch was full-caste Kentish.

by Anonymousreply 227March 21, 2023 7:31 PM

Don't forget Kingsley played a Persian in [italic]Prince of Persia[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 228March 21, 2023 11:30 PM

But Charles Dickens didn't write 'Prince of Persia'.

by Anonymousreply 229March 21, 2023 11:34 PM

R226 Not that it matters but Kingsley had Jewish ancestry as well.

by Anonymousreply 230March 22, 2023 3:19 AM

Oh well, that changes everything!

We must bow all our heads and acquiesce to all requests made.

by Anonymousreply 231March 22, 2023 3:22 AM

Someone called him "an Indian in Jewface".

by Anonymousreply 232March 22, 2023 3:30 AM

[quote] Not that it matters but Kingsley had Jewish ancestry as well.

R230 No, Kingsley did not. Per Kingsley, “There might be some Russian-Jewish heritage way back on my mother's side, the thread is so fine there's no real evidence."

by Anonymousreply 233March 22, 2023 7:03 AM

On a related note, the current Broadway revival of that 19th century feminist warhorse A DOLL'S HOUSE (starring Ms. Jessica Chastain) is set in a Norwegian small town that is 50% non-white.

by Anonymousreply 234March 22, 2023 2:02 PM

Ibsen spins in his grave.

by Anonymousreply 235March 22, 2023 3:00 PM

R234, if they wanted to get the modern "creative" world right, they needed to flip the roles, have the almost transparently white Nora be the oppressor, and have Torvald be played by a black trans woman. They need to get with reality!!!!

by Anonymousreply 236March 22, 2023 3:20 PM

[quote] if they wanted to get the modern "creative" world right, they needed to flip the roles

Enough tampering with Ibsen. There was a production of A Doll’s House several years ago where all the men were played by “little people” aka dwarves/midgets and all the women were over 6 feet tall.

by Anonymousreply 237March 22, 2023 5:27 PM

R233 You say "No, he did not," then quote him saying there might be. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "he did not" is the same as "there miight be".

by Anonymousreply 238March 23, 2023 1:01 AM

The first review says

[quote] The desire to sex up Victoriana is predictable and lazy, and demonstrates an odd lack of imagination

by Anonymousreply 239March 23, 2023 11:28 PM

What is odd about a lack of imagination? Nothing could be more common.

by Anonymousreply 240March 23, 2023 11:31 PM

[quote] It is entirely plausible that this adaptation of Great Expectations will be best remembered as the one in which Matt Berry’s naked arse is beaten with a riding crop.

by Anonymousreply 241March 24, 2023 12:11 AM

It's being advertised on the BBC as "From the writer of Peaky Blinders".......

by Anonymousreply 242March 24, 2023 8:35 AM

They just showed a preview of all the Spring shows coming up on PBS (which is where all the Brit shows are shown in the US) and you'd think 70% of Edwardian and Victorian and earlier England was black or mixed race. I literally thought it was almost like watching shows with blackface because these were characters who woud very obviously have been historically white but they are blackwashing the characters for attention. It's like watching Henry Louis Gates produce a show about an ancient African civilization and having 50% of the cast be pale Swedes. Ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 243March 24, 2023 8:46 AM

The reviews are in and they're all awful. Olivia Colman is the only thing all the reviews say are great

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 244March 24, 2023 8:51 AM

Why remake the same old shit and cast POC when there are countless stories from other cultures that we're less familiar with and would provide non-White actors the opportunity.

But no, it's Dickens, Austen on rinse and repeat.

Next up no doubt will be Wuthering Heights, with a Black actor as Heathcliff, cause y'know......they're like both...y'know.....outsiders and stuff.

by Anonymousreply 245March 24, 2023 8:54 AM

Well, R245, I can't imagine prissy Miss Catherine Earnshaw coming at that suggestion.

by Anonymousreply 246March 24, 2023 8:59 AM

The reviews will go easy on Colman, she's one of those insufferable 'National Treasures' we're forced to endure.

by Anonymousreply 247March 24, 2023 9:02 AM

Here's another

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 248March 24, 2023 9:09 AM

R247 Colman is a professional thespian; the rest of the cast were chosen for their youth or skin colour.

by Anonymousreply 249March 24, 2023 9:11 AM

"I had GREAT EXPECTATIONS of you, and you had to let me down, you and the rest of the CISGENDERED PATRIARCHY!!!!"

by Anonymousreply 250March 24, 2023 9:54 AM

[quote] The reviews will go easy on Colman, she's one of those insufferable 'National Treasures' we're forced to endure.

Yeah, I don’t really understand this. She’s ok as an actress and has been good in some things. But it’s like producers are just shoving her into every project they dream up and she’s overexposed.

I just watched “Empire of Light.” Maybe she agreed to do it because it was working with Sam Mendes or was an easy paycheck but it was a crap movie that she should have turned down. And don’t get me started on her casting as Queen Elizabeth in The Crown.

I don’t think I need to see anything else from Olivia Colman, Keeley Hawes or Imelda Staunton.

by Anonymousreply 251March 24, 2023 12:39 PM

Keeley Hawes is over-exposed and suitable only for heterosexual men.

And Imelda Staunton looks like a scrubber with none of the charm of that quintessential scrubber Kathleen Harrison.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 252March 24, 2023 12:53 PM

R245 Andrea Arnold already did Wuthering Heights with a black Heathcliff in 2011.

by Anonymousreply 253March 24, 2023 1:04 PM

When are we going to get a “Rebecca” with a black woman playing the Second Mrs. de Winter? Olivia Colman can play Mrs. Danvers.

by Anonymousreply 254March 24, 2023 1:11 PM

[quote] color-blind casting of Feigin as a black manP

Sometimes you can’t just transliterate directly from Cyrillic to English, Ludmilla.

by Anonymousreply 255March 24, 2023 2:59 PM

I was watching some mystery show set in France starring Roger Allam and was an amazed at how many black, non Muslim French people there were, especially in important, supervisory positions.

by Anonymousreply 256March 24, 2023 3:03 PM

Jeez the BBC makes a new version of Great Expectations every 10 years or so….surely time to mix it up a bit. I can’t remember ever seeing an adaptation of Dombey and Son or Martin Chuzzlewit.

by Anonymousreply 257March 24, 2023 3:03 PM

R255 брат, не Людмила. Борис!

by Anonymousreply 258March 24, 2023 3:04 PM

[quote] Dombey and Son or Martin Chuzzlewit.

I haven't read either but I'm sure they're episodic, undramatic and tedious.

by Anonymousreply 259March 24, 2023 9:10 PM

They also did Wuthering Heights with an Anglo-Indian Cathy (Merle Oberon) in 1939. Though most people didn't know it.

by Anonymousreply 260March 25, 2023 12:38 AM

Of course the best version of this story was by David Lean.

It had so many brilliant scenes with such a perfect cast. One of my favourite memories is the pork pie baked by Mrs Joe Gargery which young Pip steals and in desperation gives to Abel Magwitch on the marshes. It’s such a good looking pork pie, tall with thick pastry. It seems such a shame that Abel Magwitch unceremoniously wolfs it down like a starving Darfur orphan.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 261March 25, 2023 3:39 AM

I hate woke shit.

But I love it when classics are reimagined. It shows just how universal a story really is.

Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Wilde, and more actually work just as good with modern tweaks.

by Anonymousreply 262March 25, 2023 4:21 AM

Modern? I thought that today we wanted to cast with ethnicities appropriate to the character.

In others words no more white people playing Native Americans, or Asians and whatever.

But now what we're saying that it's really OK.

And so you see blacks playing white characters. And THAT should be applauded.

I'm confused.

by Anonymousreply 263March 25, 2023 5:02 AM

What's more confusing is that you'll never see a Native American or Asian cast in these roles. Color-blind casting or diversity seems to only equal BLACK.

by Anonymousreply 264March 25, 2023 5:13 AM

R264 That’s because it isn’t colorblind casting.

by Anonymousreply 265March 25, 2023 5:27 AM

We did colorblind casting in high school back in the 70s.

by Anonymousreply 266March 25, 2023 2:35 PM

Reviewed:

You know who knew how to effectively document the darkness and despair of 1860s London? Charles Dickens. And he didn’t need a dominatrix, orgies, or a literal shoot-out at a burning mansion to do it.

London was gray and black and miserable, but why does everything in that tonal palette now have to look like “Ozark”? The original score for the series is senseless too. It is possible to effectively use modern music in a period piece (“Marie Antoinette” and “Corsage” come to mind), but the only way I can describe what I heard here was “True Detective” lite. Turns out, that’s not a coincidence: composer Keefus Ciancia assisted T-Bone Burnett on the background score of the HBO blockbuster. But where “True Detective” was tempered with generous dollops of metal, hip-hop, country, and psychedelic rock, Ciancia’s score for “Great Expectations” sounds like minimalist dubstep meets Nine Inch Nails. It simply does not work, and the more annoyed I became with the poor quality of the writing—practically every line of dialogue is either an insult or a threat, all possessing the sharpness of a rusted kitchen blade—the more aggravating the score seemed too.

Additionally, I’m a proud advocate for color-blind casting, but such a practice is only interesting when done well. You can’t hire a diverse cast, hand them rubbish lines of dialogue that stretch even the most generous of audience imaginations, and expect praise for your efforts.

However, it all comes back to the writing, something that Knight has been lauded for in the past (“Eastern Promises”) but equally criticized, especially lately (“A Christmas Carol”). In “Great Expectations,” Knight’s writing constantly hits the audience over the head, as if to cement the idea that adding sex and violence makes something edgier and cooler, and therefore better than what came before.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 267March 27, 2023 6:12 AM

[quote] Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Wilde, and more actually work just as good with modern tweaks.

R262 Can you give us examples of some those that you have loved?

by Anonymousreply 268March 27, 2023 6:26 AM

Mark my words, this kind of lazy, self-serving pandering on the part of producers will be, within 10 years, seen as the patronizing bullshit it is. And everyone screaming about the terrible racists in this thread will become very quiet regarding their past support for 'all non-white characters must be played by members of their specific, non-white race or that's racism, but white characters being played by non-white characters is proof of non-racism.' I dare any of you fuckwits to make a serious case for that obviously contradictory position without implying I'm typing this from my local cross-burning.

by Anonymousreply 269March 27, 2023 7:10 AM

I don't really see how a non-white Estella can work. So when she marries Bentley Drummond, who is otherwise a huge arsehole with no positive features, are we supposed to think, well, at least he's not a racist?

by Anonymousreply 270March 27, 2023 5:48 PM

Coming soon ?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 271March 27, 2023 9:38 PM

I'm informed, R271, that white people may never portray black people because they are the oppressors and black people the oppressed.

Therefore, I propose that all black historical people be portrayed by other oppressed minorities. Chinese (and Indian) people were brought to North America and the Caribbean as indentured servants -- all but slaves, and treated nearly as badly.

Certainly Chinese people in the US did not profit by owning black slaves.

So these black historical figures should be portrayed by Chinese people. It's only fair.

by Anonymousreply 272March 27, 2023 11:04 PM

[quote]Mark my words, this kind of lazy, self-serving pandering on the part of producers will be, within 10 years, seen as the patronizing bullshit it is.

I hope you're right but I'm rather pessimistic. I think it will be further ingrained into our culture. I think it's unstoppable and there's no turning back.

by Anonymousreply 273March 28, 2023 2:52 AM

If a black actor gets the part of a white character over a white actor, it's a little hard to see that black actor as oppressed.

by Anonymousreply 274March 28, 2023 5:34 AM

𝐁𝐁𝐂 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞

The BBC’s modern reworking of Great Expectations has suffered a ratings flop, losing nearly 3 million viewers since the first episode aired last month.

Steven Knight’s adaptation, which stars Olivia Colman as Miss Havisham and Fionn Whitehead as Pip, has been mired in controversy over accusations of wokery and the inclusion of opium addiction and sadomasochism.

Episode one pulled in 4.4 million viewers, reaching a peak of 5.5 million, but 1.8 million had switched off by episode two.

Last week’s penultimate episode only managed to draw in 1.5 million, some 2.9 million down on the first instalment.

It is one of the biggest losses for a new BBC drama so far this year. The Gold, starring Jack Lowden as Kenneth Noye, one of the masterminds behind the Brink’s-Mat robbery, lost 2 million viewers across six episodes, while Belfast police drama Blue Lights lost 1.2 million.

The Dickens Fellowship said the latest ratings slump was a result of ‘appalling dialogue’ and a ‘juvenile attempt to shock’.

Paul Graham, honorary general secretary, told the Mail: ‘It comes as no great surprise. Far too many major liberties have been taken with the original story. It is being mis-sold as Great Expectations.

‘𝐴𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 – 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 – 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝐷𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑗𝑢𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑦 𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑠𝑚, 𝑑𝑟𝑢𝑔 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖-𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑐, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔.

‘That, for me, is the greatest arrogance, to ditch the brilliant dialogue Dickens wrote and replace it with something far inferior.’

by Anonymousreply 275April 29, 2023 9:42 AM

I posted the comment at R6.

There's a media led culture war backlash against Great Expectations on grounds of "wokeness" but a lot of people just haven't enjoyed it and watched something else.

Other colour blind casting adaptations of literary classics have got great reviews, so it's not that.

Stretching it out to 6 hours has been a problem. Andrew Davies, arguably the most respected adapter of classic novels, turned Bleak House and Little Dorrit into 7 and 8 hour series. The two previous adaptations of Great Expectations (Tony Marchant and Sarah Phelps) have fitted it into 3 hours.

by Anonymousreply 276April 29, 2023 10:20 AM

Hasn't Great Expectations been overdone? Looking at IMDB, other than the 1934 Hollywood low-budget version and David Lean's 1946 version, there were versions in 1974 (TV, Michael York, Sarah Miles), 1981, 1989, 1998 (Ethan Hawke version), 1999 (Ioan Gruffud), 2011-2012 (TV), 2012 (film), 2013, and 2023.

by Anonymousreply 277April 30, 2023 2:28 AM

I wonder why people haven't enjoyed it, r276. It can't simply be because it's been overdone, as several million people tuned in to watch the first episode.

by Anonymousreply 278April 30, 2023 7:07 AM

[quote]I wonder why people haven't enjoyed it, r276. It can't simply be because it's been overdone, as several million people tuned in to watch the first episode.

People watched initially because 1. it was being shown in the 9pm Sunday evening slot 2. it was promoted very heavily. 3. it was promoted as Dickens meets Peaky Blinders 4. there was a concerted campaign by anti BBC media to trash the series before anyone had watched it so a lot of people watched to to see what the fuss was about.

People stopped watching because 1. it's boring 2. it's overly familiar 3. there are plenty of other things to watch on the BBC, ITV, C4, Sky, Netflix, Prime, Apple,

I watched the first 2 episodes and just don't feel inclined to watch the remaining 4 while there is so much other TV to watch. There was nothing wrong with the performances or the casting and some scenes were beautifully shot. The spanking scene was just bizarre. But it was plodding and dull.

The previous BBC adaptation by Sarah Phelps (Douglas Booth, Ray Winstone, Gillian Anderson) in 2011 was 3 hour long episodes shown over 3 consecutive nights between Christmas and New Year.

by Anonymousreply 279April 30, 2023 10:15 AM

Like Michael Tolliver, Miss Havisham lives!

by Anonymousreply 280April 30, 2023 10:17 PM

I want Douglas Booth to take a seat on my face. That's the key to getting us watching, good writing and a gorgeous guy

by Anonymousreply 281April 30, 2023 10:21 PM

𝐁𝐁𝐂 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐃𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐬' 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠

BBC viewers were left raging when the latest adaptation of Great Expectations concluded - with a different ending to the one Dickens wrote.

Steven Knight’s adaptation, which stars Olivia Colman as Miss Havisham and Fionn Whitehead as Pip, has been mired in controversy over changes made to the story, including the depiction of opium addiction and sadomasochism.

In the Dickens classic, Miss Havisham's wedding dress is burned in a tragic accident which leads to her death - however, in the BBC's reimagining Miss Havisham sets the dress alight on purpose as part of a revenge twist and emerges unscathed.

The series also made a stark change to the conclusion of Pip' story, with his character in the novel reuniting with Estella, who reveals she has finally opened her heart to him.

But in the final episode of the BBC show, Pip declines Estella's proposal, and instead opts to marry his childhood friend and Chartist Biddy.

Moreover, while Miss Havisham sets her dress alight, when Compeyson comes to her, she tries to shoot him before setting Satis House on fire.

Compeyson and Magwitch fight in the burning building and die in the inferno, while Miss Havisham watches Satis House burn, surviving her ordeal.

Elsewhere, fans were shocked that Pip rejects his gentleman lifestyle to return to a lowly life as a blacksmith.

In this new version, Pip doesn’t marry Estella, despite her asking him to propose to her using Miss Havisham’s ring. Pip won’t accept Estella’s terms of needing to marry somebody who loves her but whom she doesn’t love, and so he returns the ring and tells Estella that what she needs is her equal, a fellow exile from the human race. 𝑃𝑖𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑑 𝐵𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑦, 𝑎 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑜’𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑎 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑙𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑚. He and Biddy will now try to reform society together to end inequality and class privilege.

by Anonymousreply 282May 3, 2023 4:14 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!