Sunday Express Skeleton Sunday November...
Crosswords3 mins ago
Is This Request For Total Diversity Boarding On Absolute Ridiculousness?
26 Answers
http://
/// Of course, if his cast were to be truly reflective of the period they should all be shorties with no teeth and the pox, and Richard III would have scoliosis of the
spine. ///
/// Of course, if his cast were to be truly reflective of the period they should all be shorties with no teeth and the pox, and Richard III would have scoliosis of the
spine. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
you can cast who you like in Shakespeare; the director appears to like white people. But as the writer says, claiming this is about historical authenticity is nonsense.
I'm not sure she's right about teeth, though; people didn't really start to lose teeth en masse until sugar arrived in the country.
I'm not sure she's right about teeth, though; people didn't really start to lose teeth en masse until sugar arrived in the country.
Is This Request For Total Diversity Boarding On Absolute Ridiculousness?
No...not really.
Having non-white actors playing roles within Shakespeare's plays isn't a big deal for many younger people. It will be less of an issue as time goes on.
If you built a time machine and were able to bring a theatre-goer from Shakespeare's time to 2015, he or she would find most of our white actors unrecognisable as 'Shakespearean' because they would be so physically different.
If theatre-goers can accept Bradley Cooper as the Elephant Man, then I'm sure that they have the sophistication to accept non-white actors in Shakespeare.
I know that there are some who feel that black actors should feature more as villains in drama, and that their inclusion in some programmes 'spoil' the narrative, but we must accept that not everyone has these views.
No...not really.
Having non-white actors playing roles within Shakespeare's plays isn't a big deal for many younger people. It will be less of an issue as time goes on.
If you built a time machine and were able to bring a theatre-goer from Shakespeare's time to 2015, he or she would find most of our white actors unrecognisable as 'Shakespearean' because they would be so physically different.
If theatre-goers can accept Bradley Cooper as the Elephant Man, then I'm sure that they have the sophistication to accept non-white actors in Shakespeare.
I know that there are some who feel that black actors should feature more as villains in drama, and that their inclusion in some programmes 'spoil' the narrative, but we must accept that not everyone has these views.
I've come to find women like Katy Guest who have long red hair in curly ringlets to be confused and untrustworthy (Rebekah Brooks is another)
they're best avoided and should be ignored completely.
Actually, in Olivier's film version of RichardIII he did play him as if he had scoliosis of the spine (see my avatar).
they're best avoided and should be ignored completely.
Actually, in Olivier's film version of RichardIII he did play him as if he had scoliosis of the spine (see my avatar).
sp1814
http://
*** Mr Scott has already come under fire over the decision to cast white actors in the lead roles, despite depicting events in the Middle East and north Africa. ***
***Christian Bale, who plays Moses, caused upset last month after he described his character as 'barbaric' and 'schizophrenic' at a press conference. ***
*** Speaking in Los Angeles, Bale said he had undertaken significant research for the role in the Biblical epic, reading the Torah, the Koran and Jonathan Kirsch's life of Moses. ***
*** The actor said: 'I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life.' ***
Didn't stop him however from accepting the role along with a very fat pay cheque.
http://
*** Mr Scott has already come under fire over the decision to cast white actors in the lead roles, despite depicting events in the Middle East and north Africa. ***
***Christian Bale, who plays Moses, caused upset last month after he described his character as 'barbaric' and 'schizophrenic' at a press conference. ***
*** Speaking in Los Angeles, Bale said he had undertaken significant research for the role in the Biblical epic, reading the Torah, the Koran and Jonathan Kirsch's life of Moses. ***
*** The actor said: 'I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life.' ***
Didn't stop him however from accepting the role along with a very fat pay cheque.
AOG
I personally think that it's more important to get a talented actor in a role, than to fill any perceived quota.
But there are considerations that need to be addressed when you're launching a multi-million dollar film (such as 'Exodus') which are not the same when launching a Shakespearean play.
Named stars are more important to Hollywood - because of the vast investment that needs to be made to get a film like Exodus made.
To me, Mark Strong or Amr Waked would have made a more 'authentic' Moses, but it's not a big deal for me that they chose a known Hollywood 'name' to headline the film. Basically, there aren't enough marquee actors who can play authentic Middle Eastern or north African roles.
Shakespeare, however is an odd fish.
If I went to see MacBeth or Hamlet, what I would be looking for are actors who can convince me of the tone of the play. They need to be actors not film stars (there's a massive difference - very few actors are film stars and vice versa...the few that I can name off the top of my head are Meryl Streep and...err...that's about it).
I personally think that it's more important to get a talented actor in a role, than to fill any perceived quota.
But there are considerations that need to be addressed when you're launching a multi-million dollar film (such as 'Exodus') which are not the same when launching a Shakespearean play.
Named stars are more important to Hollywood - because of the vast investment that needs to be made to get a film like Exodus made.
To me, Mark Strong or Amr Waked would have made a more 'authentic' Moses, but it's not a big deal for me that they chose a known Hollywood 'name' to headline the film. Basically, there aren't enough marquee actors who can play authentic Middle Eastern or north African roles.
Shakespeare, however is an odd fish.
If I went to see MacBeth or Hamlet, what I would be looking for are actors who can convince me of the tone of the play. They need to be actors not film stars (there's a massive difference - very few actors are film stars and vice versa...the few that I can name off the top of my head are Meryl Streep and...err...that's about it).
Actors are actors....they make their living from playing people other than themselves. I couldn't give a monkeys what colour an actor is...its the performance that counts.
I recall seeing Fiona Shaw playing Richard II and she was marvelous.
But who could deny that this clip of Olivier and Maggie Smith isn't completely compelling !
I recall seeing Fiona Shaw playing Richard II and she was marvelous.
But who could deny that this clip of Olivier and Maggie Smith isn't completely compelling !
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.