|
|
Post by nipkowdisc on Apr 30, 2023 4:13:03 GMT
they have objected to the new Cleopatra movie saying that she was not black. dam right she wasn't.    |
|
|
|
Post by nipkowdisc on Apr 30, 2023 4:17:12 GMT
neither was she of egyptian ancestry but instead greek-macedonian.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepiatone on Apr 30, 2023 15:28:39 GMT
THIS one seems to be.   Sepiatone |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Apr 30, 2023 15:45:12 GMT
There are plenty of people who do not research before stating their opinions as fact. Good ole Cleo was of Greek ancestry. There is some research that there were black pharaohs, Ethiopian and Nubian. I'm at a loss how some people are grouping native Egyptians, but I'm not so interested in that as I am what astonishing knowledge and accomplishments have been uncovered since the cloak of only white people could have done such things. I've said it before, but I repeat. A professor told us to forget our cultural rules and assumptions when looking at history. For over a hundred years archeologists, when they can't figure out what an object or building is used for, it must be a religious object. Heaven forbid in 200 years and a dump is excavated that we discover we worshiped Smurf dolls.
|
|
|
|
Post by nipkowdisc on May 1, 2023 4:32:37 GMT
THIS one seems to be. Sepiatone a beautiful blue-ish-gold combination of colors...and it is the egyptians who are complaining about MISREPRESENTING Queen Cleopatra as black. |
|
|
|
Post by sepiatone on May 1, 2023 15:38:03 GMT
There are plenty of people who do not research before stating their opinions as fact. Good ole Cleo was of Greek ancestry. There is some research that there were black pharaohs, Ethiopian and Nubian. I'm at a loss how some people are grouping native Egyptians, but I'm not so interested in that as I am what astonishing knowledge and accomplishments have been uncovered since the cloak of only white people could have done such things. I've said it before, but I repeat. A professor told us to forget our cultural rules and assumptions when looking at history. For over a hundred years archeologists, when they can't figure out what an object or building is used for, it must be a religious object. Heaven forbid in 200 years and a dump is excavated that we discover we worshiped Smurf dolls.Ha! Reminds me of a "political" cartoon in The Detroit Free Press back in the height of the "oil crisis" in the early '70's. A couple of stereotypical cartoon space aliens are in a desert wasteland looking at rusted remains of an automobile carcass. One says to the other.... "It seems they depleted all of their natural resources worshiping this strange idol." Sepiatone |
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on May 2, 2023 0:58:12 GMT
So what do we call this ? Blackwashing ?? 
Since just about every film set in the middle east has starred Europeans with British accents. And rarely has a western portrayed 1/4 of the cowboys being Black or Latino, which was the ratio in reality.
Films have normally gotten ethnicities wrong. So I don't see the big deal here. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on May 2, 2023 2:13:18 GMT
The Egyptian attorney going to court over this is calling it Blackwashing. We are in a period that actors are no longer to play anything; they play what they are. So be it. I don't object to a film having Cleo played by a black actress. I believe the controversy arose because the director said that Arabs hadn't migrated into Egypt by that time. The leaders of the Egyptian Antiquities Department are disputing this. Lots of DNA testing on mummies, including the interesting nugget that Ramses II really did have red hair-that it wasn't henna dye during mummification.
You have an excellent point about filmdom's portrayal of cowboys. Are you old enough, oh, probably not, to remember there was criticism that an Asian and a German played cowboys in original Magnificent Seven? Oh, my, Bronson of Russian descent played an Irish/Mexican?
I'm not Egyptian, let them argue their point. At this juncture I say why not a black actress as Cleo, but the director may want to compare her credentials with the Egyptian authorities before she makes statements about Egyptian history.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepiatone on May 2, 2023 16:42:17 GMT
You have an excellent point about filmdom's portrayal of cowboys. Are you old enough, oh, probably not, to remember there was criticism that an Asian and a German played cowboys in original Magnificent Seven? Oh, my, Bronson of Russian descent played an Irish/Mexican? Ha. I used to tease my wife about her favorite Mexican actor being ELI WALLACH.  Not sure who the Asian was supposed to be. But a German playing a cowboy isn't that ridiculous as Germans also emigrated to this continent as early as the 18th century. But the German you refer to was German actor HORST BUCHHOLZ, who was cast as a Mexican. Typical Hollywood stuff. Sepiatone |
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on May 2, 2023 17:03:54 GMT
Of course today, people argue for the sake of argument.
My only gripe is lack of opportunity for actors to work and make a living. During the era of the code, a minority actor had to wait for one of the few minority roles to come around.Then despair when it was given to a White actor. And remember, there was no social security like we have today. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. So in that context it mattered who played what ethnicity.
But now, there are enough jobs for everyone. I would even bet this was done for the publicity it would cause. And if that's the case, its surely working. In recent years we've had Black actors play Kojak and the Honeymooners on TV. All ethnicities should be able to get some work if talented enough.
In the context of today, I have no issue with whomever is cast as long as there is some diversity.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepiatone on May 2, 2023 17:22:22 GMT
Of course today, people argue for the sake of argument.
Yep, like it's RACISM is why an African-American actor wasn't nominated for an Oscar, NOT because he didn't do any performance that was Oscar worthy. And why NOT have an all female cast do an "Ocean's Eleven type heist movie? Or be the "Ghostbusters" team? I'm all for diversity, but not for diversity's sake. Sepiatone |
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on May 2, 2023 17:43:19 GMT
Of course today, people argue for the sake of argument.
Yep, like it's RACISM is why an African-American actor wasn't nominated for an Oscar, NOT because he didn't do any performance that was Oscar worthy. And why NOT have an all female cast do an "Ocean's Eleven type heist movie? Or be the "Ghostbusters" team? I'm all for diversity, but not for diversity's sake. Sepiatone
The entertainment industry (Movies and TV), tends to guess the coming trends. When trump entered office, did you notice the number of new TV shows based on the military ? In this administration there is a woman of color as vice president. So they infuse Black women into practically every genre. They are simply trying to give the people what they appear to want.
Remember, its not our money they are risking in those "all women cast" movies. The issue I have is as you said "diversity for diversity sake". The "all women" concept should have been better set up in the plot line. Rather than looking like its pandering to a particular crowd. A person can watch all the Ocean's 11 films, skip Ocean's 8, and feel they haven't missed anything. Its like an add on that's not really necessary. Hollywood hasn't really done "all women" films well at all.
There's a Marvel film coming soon where the main superheroes are women. It should do well because they set up the scenario in past films and TV series.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on May 2, 2023 17:51:03 GMT
Of course today, people argue for the sake of argument.
My only gripe is lack of opportunity for actors to work and make a living. During the era of the code, a minority actor had to wait for one of the few minority roles to come around.Then despair when it was given to a White actor. And remember, there was no social security like we have today. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. So in that context it mattered who played what ethnicity.
But now, there are enough jobs for everyone. I would even bet this was done for the publicity it would cause. And if that's the case, its surely working. In recent years we've had Black actors play Kojak and the Honeymooners on TV. All ethnicities should be able to get some work if talented enough.
In the context of today, I have no issue with whomever is cast as long as there is some diversity.
A question (or issue if you will), related to diversity is the historical setting of the roles. A black actor can play Kojak (an inner-city leading detective) and that is realistic (makes sense), since there were some back-in-the-days and clearly are if the setting was moved up to the 21st century. But how about a western that takes place in the western USA around 1875? The running joke about the black sheriff in Blazing Saddles is funny because it is so un-realistic and how the town folks react to this very-out-there situation (that never really happened back then). Thus, how does one add diversity to such a setting, without the diverse characters all being stereotypes? Not an easy task (assuming the creators should even try). E.g., there was diversity in 50s\60s TV westerns but most of the diverse characters were stereotypes. I do recall one exception; this was in Wagon Train and featured Sessue Hayakawa as a samurai warrior. The all white Wagon train folks viewed him as just another Chinese semi-slave worker and were disrespectful. It took a while to convince them that such a man was highly regarded in his native land and thus should be given the proper respect. |
|
|
|
Post by gerald424 on May 2, 2023 18:25:43 GMT
Of course today, people argue for the sake of argument.
My only gripe is lack of opportunity for actors to work and make a living. During the era of the code, a minority actor had to wait for one of the few minority roles to come around.Then despair when it was given to a White actor. And remember, there was no social security like we have today. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. So in that context it mattered who played what ethnicity.
But now, there are enough jobs for everyone. I would even bet this was done for the publicity it would cause. And if that's the case, its surely working. In recent years we've had Black actors play Kojak and the Honeymooners on TV. All ethnicities should be able to get some work if talented enough.
In the context of today, I have no issue with whomever is cast as long as there is some diversity.
But how about a western that takes place in the western USA around 1875? The running joke about the black sheriff in Blazing Saddles is funny because it is so un-realistic and how the town folks react to this very-out-there situation (that never really happened back then). Thus, how does one add diversity to such a setting, without the diverse characters all being stereotypes? Not an easy task (assuming the creators should even try). E.g., there was diversity in 50s\60s TV westerns but most of the diverse characters were stereotypes. Historically, approximately 25% of all cowboys were Black, Hispanic or Indigenous. So the unrealistic part is that all cowboys were White in the first place. The word "Cowboy" was meant to be derogatory, only used with minorities. The White workers were called "Cowhands" in 1875. Most of what we now recognize as the "cowboy look" , is basically copying the look of Nat Love, a Black man , who was alive in 1875.
That scene is only a running joke based on Hollywood Westerns , not Western life.
There are many scenes in Hollywood films that are backwards of what happened in real life. I believe they call it "creative license".
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on May 2, 2023 19:39:18 GMT
But how about a western that takes place in the western USA around 1875? The running joke about the black sheriff in Blazing Saddles is funny because it is so un-realistic and how the town folks react to this very-out-there situation (that never really happened back then). Thus, how does one add diversity to such a setting, without the diverse characters all being stereotypes? Not an easy task (assuming the creators should even try). E.g., there was diversity in 50s\60s TV westerns but most of the diverse characters were stereotypes. Historically, approximately 25% of all cowboys were Black, Hispanic or Indigenous. So the unrealistic part is that all cowboys were White in the first place. The word "Cowboy" was meant to be derogatory, only used with minorities. The White workers were called "Cowhands" in 1875. Most of what we now recognize as the "cowboy look" , is basically copying the look of Nat Love, a Black man , who was alive in 1875.
That scene is only a running joke based on Hollywood Westerns , not Western life.
There are many scenes in Hollywood films that are backwards of what happened in real life. I believe they call it "creative license".
Yes it was unrealistic to not have more people-of-color cowboys, but how many were sheriffs back then? I assume few, if any. So, the running joke is about western life if there were few people-of-color sheriffs. Mel Brooks was making a joke about racism in real western life. Are you saying that his joke was misplaced? |
|
