X Close

Casting ethnic minority actors in period roles is political

Margaret of Anjou and Henry 6th in The Hollow Crown

January 21, 2020 - 4:26pm

Everyone’s favourite anti-woke bloke Laurence Fox remains at the fore of the news cycle five days after his Question Time appearance, following remarks about diversity casting in the Sam Mendes film 1917.

The actor, appearing on James Delingpole’s podcast, criticised the casting of Sikh actors in the war movie, saying that “There is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way.”

Several people have pointed out that there were Sikhs in the war, and indeed huge numbers of Indians fought and died on the western front. Yet there would have been separate regiments for colonial troops and Fox’s argument about it seeming incongruous might still be correct (I should add: I haven’t seen it yet.)

The biggest argument against Fox is the motive one: what kind of person would even notice or care about these things, such that having a brown person on the screen ruins their experience? That social pressure, I think, explains the strange recent trend for recasting British history as multiethnic, often in a far, far more historically inaccurate away than 1917.

I first noticed this with the BBC’s excellent Hollow Crown series in which a number of roles were played by black or mixed race actors. This was not a theatrical production, where Henry V is dressed up in 20th century combat gear or Lear is a corporate executive or whatever; this was a big budget production which had purposefully used realistic scenes and fairly accurate military hardware. They even cast exclusively Geordie actors to play the Percys – yet Richard III’s great-uncle is black and Margaret of Anjou is mixed race.

Both the actors in question were excellent, but it’s still an odd casting choice; because no one would cast a white actor in a role about a historical black figure, the logic relies on what Eric Kaufmann calls “asymmetrical multiculturalism” — that white people are so guilty, or conversely so special, that only their history and culture deserves to be shared.

The Hollow Crown argument is about offering opportunities for non-white actors — after all, the makers aren’t actually suggesting Henry VI’s wife wasn’t white (I don’t think) — but since then pretty much every historical drama shown on the BBC has cast pre-20th century England as multi-ethnic, when such diversity would have been very rare and concentrated in port cities.

Of course, films can’t always be accurate, and artistic licence extends to patterns of speech and all sorts of areas, but this trend has accelerated in an age when filmmakers are otherwise far more assiduous about accuracy; historical movies from the 1950s or 60s usually feature ludicrously inaccurate clothing or hairstyles, or have John Wayne playing Genghis Khan or other such weird casting. Filmmaking has got a lot better; so has history.

But all history is about the era that writes it and recasting England’s past as multiracial is a political statement about the present – and the future – and making everyone feel welcome. But it also feels like it is deliberately daring people into noticing and so challenge the agreed high-status orthodoxy that diversity is good.

Almost no one does, partly because the median person feels more uncomfortable with the sort of person who would care about diversifying history than they do about diversifying history itself, but also because the arts world tends to be quite conformist. It is because of this conformity that our society has developed the practice of shaming people who hold conservative or otherwise unorthodox opinions — which means that only shameless people dare to proclaim them.

Ed West’s book Tory Boy is published by Constable


Join the discussion

Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber

To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Notify of

1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hugh R
Hugh R
4 years ago

Recently, Sir Lenworth George Henry stood on a podium at a luvvies media bash and berated the audience for the lack of ‘expression of his life as lived’, and I had to chuckle.
Oh how I wish I saw the life I see, expressed in television productions and advertisement campaigns. If my eyes do not deceive me, it now appears that advertisers think that the majority of families in this country should be portrayed by a mixed race or BAME people, whereas I believe that approximately 85% of the population is white. To add to the joke at the 85% expense, it seems that fully half of the white people represented have red hair, again a massive over-representation that is effectively a caricature. There are other issues, very well that people self-identify as ‘black’ race for instance, a view I saw expressed with some venom by Sean Fletcher on GMB, yet who’s father was white, and so effectively airbrushing 50% of his genome from history. People who could have sometimes struggled to overcome pestilence, tyrants, wars, famine and diseases, to give him life.
It would be more honest if the individuals who currently do express as ‘black’ and who are mixed-race, were to simply state ‘not-white’. Then they can wear their racism on their sleeve, and we all know where we stand.
One day we need to talk about poor, working class white boys.