324
submitted 7 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Jamie Lloyd Company has hit back after its production of Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” has been the subject of what they call a “barrage of deplorable racial abuse” aimed at an unnamed cast member.

The play, directed by Jamie Lloyd (“Sunset Boulevard”), stars “Spider-Man: No Way Home” star Tom Holland as Romeo and Francesca Amewaduh-Rivers (“Sex Education”) as Juliet. 

On Friday, the Jamie Lloyd Company issued a statement, saying: “Following the announcement of our ‘Romeo & Juliet’ cast, there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online directed towards a member of our company. This must stop.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

I only dislike it when historical shows or movies race swap, cause it kinda ignores the racism of that community at that point in time. Like a black woman playing queen Elizabeth wouldn't make sense. Or Cleopatra for that matter

[-] SupremeFuzzler@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I’ve been watching white guys play samurai and pharaohs and Jesus my whole life. It’s not that hard to get used to someone with historically inaccurate pigment playing a role. But for some strange reason, it’s only a political choice when the actor with the “wrong” skin color is dark.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

No it's always been weird with white guys too. John Wayne playing Asian us fucked up, so is all the blackface throughout Hollywood's history. I don't expect them to go find an Aramaic Jewish actor from the middle east for a Jesus movie, but don't make him Korean and act like it's accurate or something

[-] SupremeFuzzler@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

I guess what I’m getting at is that, when you watch John Wayne playing an Asian guy, do you spend the whole movie wondering why the other characters aren’t constantly asking about his skin color and facial features? Probably not, since we can easily accept that while the actor is white, the character is still Asian.

But when a black actor plays a white character in a historical piece, you want to know why everyone isn’t constantly asking about their skin color and facial features. The answer is exactly the same: the character hasn’t changed. The other characters in the film don’t see the actor, they see the character.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ok but by that logic why can't we get Cyllian Murphy to play Martin Luther King? Or hell, forget gender too, maybe we can get Allison Brie to play Pancho Villa, and it won't be distracting cause all the other character in the movie are gonna act like it's normal

[-] SupremeFuzzler@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

Well, why not indeed? Both of those could be interesting films, depending on who was involved in making them, and what they were trying to say.

[-] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

wait a minute. are you saying everyone accepts white washing? just because you do doesn't mean we should all just get used to it. people are tired of their classic ethnic stories being played by a bunch of white dudes or changed to a full white cast for the sake of palpability for the west. nobody aside from white people want that shit...

[-] GraniteM@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I find it a little interesting the effect of casting women and people of color as Imperials in the Star Wars universe. The Empire is explicitly supposed to be a fascist racist organization. The casting of all lily-white poncy British-accented dudes in the original trilogy is supposed to read to the audience as "These are the bad guys; see how colonialist they look?", while it's the rebels and outsiders who are ethnically and gender diverse. The existence of Thrawn and Isard in the expanded universe was supposed to highlight just how brutal and talented they were, that they were able to succeed in such a racist and sexist Empire, even given their backgrounds.

I understand the idea of wanting more diverse casting in modern Star Wars, but making the Empire diverse seems to confuse the visual metaphor just a tad. I suppose that they're keeping the "Empire is racist but only in the sense of it's human-supremacist," but it still seems a little odd.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah I agree with that too, as a kid, racism was an obvious trait of the empire, even how they refer to aliens like chewy "where are you taking this... Thing?"

Suddenly the Empire is racially diverse and even has aliens and people of color in command.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

The Empire is speciesist, not racist. It's similar in the Witcher universe: There's plenty of elves and monsters around for humans to hate so why hate on other humans.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

a lot of people don't understand that racism was different back then too. For example people in the Roman empire may not have understood the differences in skin color being that important, but would over index on tribe, religion or birth right

[-] ours@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

You would hate "The Great". It's semi historical but humorous and they cast all sorts to play what would be 99% just Russians and it is fantastic.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

If it's historical fiction it doesn't bother me really

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
324 points (93.3% liked)

News

23266 readers
3671 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS