Can someone explain me the casting controversy around this film?
I've only heard a trans actor was cast as Achilles, which is, if you actually know the Illiad, a choice that absolutely makes sense.
Don't know what the other controversy is about though.
Lupita Nyong'o is black and plays Helen. The original poster in the meme thinks this would be fixed by casting the above actress who, if you've wver been to Greece, looks way more caucasian/white than your average Greek.
Had to Google her but Helen's main thing is that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world, so once again absolutely defendable casting.
I don't know why I would join in in such stupid non-discussions anyhow, as if any maga idiot would be convinced by rational arguments, or as if I should care as a European.
When you don't have a horse in the race (I'm Asian), both sides are absolutely hilariously dumb. Studios do racebait viewers. The only reason this movie is discussed so much and the attention is diverted from the godawful costumes and production value in general is because people are discussing races of actors. Racists bite, start bitching and moaning about it, then the other side joins the discussion. The only winner is hollywood
I thought you were gonna cook until you said both sides then I said ahhhhh but then I kept reading and I kind of agree with you. Also the only winner besides Hollywood… is those that enjoy the product lol. Me a black guy, am happy to see Lupita play Helen. That’s a win for me
Nah, one side are objectively evil detestable human beings. And I understand that "both sides" is in dogwhistle territory at this point so I get your initial reaction
Also the only winner besides Hollywood… is those that enjoy the product lol. Me a black guy, am happy to see Lupita play Helen. That’s a win for me
Nah, one side are objectively evil detestable human beings.
Sorry can you clarify what the sides are and which one youre on then?
I thought one side was "casting good" and the other "casting bad".
In the "casting bad" camp you have a split between the "historical accuracy" types and the racists. It's muddled by the racists pretending to be the former. If you criticize Helen, Matt Damon, Tom Holland and Batman style costumes youre likely former. If you focus on Helen only you're likely latter.
Presumably this is the "objectively evil" side even though you seem to be part of the non racially motivated historical accuracy camp.
In "casting good" camp, they rightfully point out that the most vocal of the "casting bad" camp are being pretty vile and racist. They will sometimes annoyingly play dumb towards historical arguments and paint them in the same camp as the racists. This appears to have happened to you which is why youre now turning on the historical group and doing the same to separate yourself from the racists.
I see no issue with historical accuracy — it's Odyssey. We'll see sea monsters, cyclopses (what's plural for cyclops?), witches, gods. Historical accuracy was never in the picture. I think people crying "historical accuracy" are just racists
I think I should clarify — terrible costumes and historical accuracy are two separate things. I want certain level of immersion, the costumes look ass and I'll think about the costumes being ass the entire time if I go see the movie
And I see no problem in a black actor/actress playing a character. My favorite piece of media on greek mythology is Hades and if you played that game... half of the pantheon are black people
I don't like this particular actress but it's neither here nor there since that's not my issue with the discourse (or the movie)
I simply refuse to believe that the casting was made without them knowing this will cause a shitstorm. And I think they did it intentionally anticipating the shitstorm. It's free publicity and allows for certain details to be overlooked. And I don't think that the political climate worldwide is healthy enough to fan the flames when it's not needed
The studio didn't do casting, Nolan did, he's a popular enough director to just pick who he wants for parts. You say you're somehow above this, but fall into the rhetoric muck of conservative peabrains.
And? It contradicts what I said how exactly? Or do you think I literally mean "studio" as a defined set of people working for a studio that somehow exclude the director?
You say you're somehow above this
Aaaand can you point to where exactly I say that?
but fall into the rhetoric muck of conservative peabrains.
If conservative peabrains will start chanting "eating leafy greens and drinking enough water is good for your health", I won't disagree just because conservative peabrains are saying that
And AFAIK conservative peabrains think this whole thing is about some grand replacement conspiracy or pushing "agenda", my view different from them in that I recognize that it's Hollywood stirring shit so that people talk about it
And if anything you can't fault me for falling for this bs. Because even in the comment you replied to I pointed out the shitty production value we see in the trailers
Calling it a studio decision makes it sound like a soulless corporation casting to cause controversy.
Saying Nolan cast non-white actors to hide poor production quality and make idiots mad sounds around as smart as "replacement theory."
What's a simpler and more common sense explanation: the multi-billion dollar director making a 250 million dollar film cast minorities in his film which he has full control over just to hide that he makes bad costuming choices and "racebait." Or he just likes those actors and thinks they will give an interesting performance.
You say "I don't have a horse in this race" and refer to "both sides." It implies you're not in either side, and you're seeing things clearly. But the assertion of the right is that these actors are not cast genuinely or sincerely- it's not because of their ability or any artistic vision, it's to "cause controversy." Your perspective is just their perspective with a little smugness on top.
Actually the right attitude would be to recognize they're trying to stir up a culture war by purposely miscasting and calling them out on it, not pretending like it's a good casting.
As a Greek I have absolutely no problem with the cast, beauty is subjective and Homer does leave the exact looks of Helen to the imagination of the audience. But that said he multiple times refers to her shining beautiful hair and her overly white arms.
As in many other cultures back then this signifies a sheltered, aristocratic life, untouched by the harsh sun of manual labor that the average Greek woman was exposed to.
This is a Hollywood movie as well, Nolan will diverge from the story in more significant ways and won't receive anywhere near the same backlash for it.
As a greek I have a problem with it. The average person out there doesn't care to research things, they stay at first impressions. These agendas give way to idiotic and preposterous works like "Black Athena" which many people think it's actually true and that shapes realities which in turn can prove dangerous to one's cultural and historic legacy. The bbc also had a so called documentary series a few years back and portrayed Achilles as a black man. Since then I have seen countless, and I mean countless claims and comments of how Greece is actually a fictional country or that Greece's history and culture is actually stolen and that it has African and subsaharan roots. Recently also a woman made such claims in a TV talk show. She even claimed she was teaching that stuff to elementary school and that everyone who disagrees "simply doesn't know history".
I am more surprised that people find this okay but will lose their minds if a white person or an Asian has dreads on their hair and will call it cultural appropriation and cause a mess. In Greece many people thought it was unimportant to speak up when Skopians kept talking about their so called Macedonian origin and everyone laughed. A few decades later the northern neighbors managed to steal the name and make an identity for themselves, claiming not only the name but the history that comes with it. If that was troubling a small indigenous race in any other part of the world anyone would be furious but since Greeks are whites, it's just another day in clownworld.
I agree with you. But I do have to say that Greek culture became everyone´s culture. First from Alexander´s empire followed by Rome, the Arab Caliphate and finally from Europe´s Renaissance (basically, the barbarians who invaded Rome recovering ancient Greek knowledge) who spread it to the rest of the world. The amount of words that are used in every language that come from Ancient Greek is insane, specially for scientific, philosophical and theological terms. I guess we don´t call it cultural appropriation when it takes 3000 years.
I see your point. I will close by saying this. I am calling cultural appropriation the effort of some pseudo-intellectuals who try to make a name for themselves by distorting cultural and historical norms, making unsupported claims and adding their own personal ideology on texts that are thousands of years old and completely irrelevant to their suggestions. Claiming that Black Athena for example is factually true and historically based, on American TV no less is something big. It's not a yt channel with 5 subscribers. Then you get a movie with black Helen, a documentary with black Achilles and suddenly you have people from Africa actually thinking that the greeks stole from them. This is not only a monstrous level of irresponsibility but it is dangerous as well. Some people prefer to call this racism . I call them entitled and ignorant hypocrites. Race has nothing to with it and it gets thrown out there way too often. These changes and these depiction choices didn't happen overnight. It took time. And by spreading a false perspective people start to accept something as reality. And it's not.
I don't believe there is such an agenda, I think it comes down to the necessity of diversity in the modern show business and the ignorance of individuals. Things like that can be easily disproven, but I don't think we can dictate the artistic expression of the global show businesses or how everyone else thinks.
Instead we should make our own movie with a fully Greek cast and make it as historically accurate as possible.
For example I am more bothered by their armor in this specific movie and I think a true historically accurate mycenaean armour would be way cooler to see.
I do believe there is such an agenda. Having the same recipe for diversity in every production does not increase diversity, rather it kind of makes everything look similar. I see no harm in seeing a story while remaining true to the source material, history or not. In any case, I will agree that yes, the armors and such seem out of place considering the era.
This is a debate tactic tjat deflects and not an actual argument but I'll play along. Coriolanus 2011 changed the setting and era not the ethnic/cultural identity of the characters. The Romans were still played by people of mostly Roman-European appearance. The adaptation modernized the context while keeping the cultural identity intact. (Did I like it? Not really but even if I was okay with it, it wouldn't really mean anything in this occasion. Personally, I prefer things to stay true to their source.)
Helen of Troy is different because Helen is one of the most culturally specific figures in Greek mythology. She's the daughter of Zeus and Leda, quintessentially Hellenic and her appearance (famously fair) is part of the mythological and literary tradition itself. As for the "historically inaccurate = false premise" part , Homer's Iliad is not a historical document. It's a myth. But myth is culturally owned in a way that history isn't. Greeks have a legitimate relationship to how their mythological figures are represented, that's not the same as claiming historical accuracy.
Why is the ethnic/cultural identity of the characters more important than the cultural identity of the setting? Why is it acceptable to change one and not the other? This is the foundation of your point, but you haven't explained it.
Because setting is context. Identity is the character. You can move a story to a different time and place (and that with caution) and the characters remain who they are. Change the character's identity and you've changed the character. Those aren't the same operation.
As a greek im expecting to see at least a blonde European attributed female actor. By Homers writings Helen is described as Golden blonde haired woman from Sparta with pale skin, everything is wrong with the cast..
Jesus does get depicted differently in different parts of the world (i.e. Ethiopia, Korea) so why would he being portrayed white cause a stir? Bad argument.
But the real reason is because Jesus is depicted in the eyes of his followers. White Jesus is European Jesus, Asia and Africa equally have regional versions that look more like them but not more like the "original" Jesus.
I don’t really care about Jesus or the casting, I’m just pointing out how it’s only when people who look a certain way get put in the spotlight that it’s a huge deal. Jesus “it’s in the eye of the beholder” but also it’s not for another character in a fictional story with gods and a cyclops? Yeah ok, you guys are just too sensitive that you can’t see an argument for its merit, it’s always gotta turn into a victim complex.
In Greek mythology Cassiopeia, "the vain and beautiful queen of Aethiopia" is black. Her daughter, Andromeda, beautiful enough to challenge the beauty of the nymphs, is also black.
Lupita Nyong'o is a model and conventionally attractive.
First of all, Lupita is beautiful but despite what you Redditors keep repeating, she’s nowhere close to one of the most beautiful woman in the world.
Second, by this logic casting Tom Cruise as Obama would be “absolutely defensible” because both are known for being charismatic.
Third, it’s not “maga” to dislike these terrible castings and the fact that you think it is makes it very doubtful you “had to google her” to get this often repeated talking point about Helen of Troy being the most beautiful woman in the world but ignoring literally everything else in her description.
She's literally described as white if you would read the damn source material.
Why can't we cast people who actually look like the depictions in ancient Greek and Macedonian art? Is that too much to ask? Do true European Mediterranean people not count towards Hollywood's DEI requirements?
Lmao noo. There are many greeks that look like that, its not uncommon at all. The problem imo, is the complete lack of any actually greek people in the movie. I mean there are many greek american actors that could have been cast. But this is Hollywood so not surprised lol
You have obviously never been to Greece. Also, Helen was supposed to be the prettiest woman in existence, not your average greek girl, even though there are quite a few average Greek girls with traits similar to this actress.
More model-ish than the average Greek sure, but not more caucasian. Their majority is light skinned like this. Google “Greek people faces” and you’ll see it.
They had plenty of merchant relationships across millennia with Africa and the East so they were pretty aware of other skin colours, but ancient Greece was always homogeneous. In text, they look like they were pretty indifferent to it.
But we know what they thought of as beautiful in women, and that’s from their statues of Aphrodite, which don’t have different characteristics from the general population.
Most mixing came up long after, during their occupation from the Ottoman Empire in the 1400s (and until 1800). That’s when racist slurs about darker skin started and led to the somewhat uniform skin tone of today.
That’s a myth though because DNA tests has shown Greeks have very little Turkish dna. Funnily enough it’s the other way around. People saying Greeks are not Caucasian probably have a skewed sense of the demographic. Greeks can range from extremely fair to olive but certainly not sub Saharan.
If you actually study Ancient Greece, the material culture and literary sources all say that the beauty standards for women was light skin- being pale was a sign of wealth since it meant a woman didn’t have to work outdoors. All ancient depictions of Helen of Troy thus make her pale skinned if they described her colour.
Achilles is described as a very beautiful, feminine man.
His mother didn't want him to go to war, because of a prophecy that said he wouldn't return, so hid him in a temple among women and Odysseus, who was charged with recruiting him, needed a ruse to find him, because he was not able to recognise him amongst them.
Also, he only decided to go back to war when his lover Patroclos was killed by Hector, after refusing to fight anymore because of a conflict with king Agamemnon.
casting is going up against fucking Peak Brad Pitt as Achilles
Is it?? Why do so many of you keep talking like they're remaking Troy? Why would we even want a gorgeous, muscular thirtysomething actor playing a miserable, half-decayed ghost who just shows up to impart a grim warning to Odysseus? Because that's all Achilles does in The Odyssey.
For that matter, why would we want a twentysomething catwalk model playing Helen, who appears in Odyssey as a jaded and cryptic queen presiding over her 29-year-old daughter's wedding?
The answer is very very simple but people are going to bend over backwards to not admit to themselves or others that the only reason they are mad is its a black woman and a trans man. Even in this thread man, people are trying to create any narrative they can to denigrate Page and Nyong'o's casting in the film but we know it just boils down to good ol racism and transphobia. The notion that a black woman cant be the most beautiful woman is just inherently racist. And a trans actor existing is enough to piss some people off.
Achilles is described as "huge" and lion-like in combat, but the actor Elliot Page is 1m55. Yeah, Achilles is also incredibly beautiful and god-like, but that's not the same as being feminine. What you're doing here is performative ignorance - "look at me, not even logic can stop me from being open-minded". It's happening in literally every discussion of this movie and it's exhausting.
Also, I hope you realize that calling a trans man "feminine" is not the woke flex that you think it is.
With respect to Achilles, there might be a justification for casting Page as him, because in the movie he is presumably dead and therefore a diminished version of himself with dramatically reduced physical presence. This matches greek beliefs about the afterlife and in the trailer Page looks to be acting that way. That works much better than the nonsense you wrote.
He’s a legitimate bad person who should be judged by his choices, platforming him in a major motion picture is a decision that should actually be critiqued heavily.
While agreeing that 'feminine man' isn't the best wording, I don't think it disapproves the point that I was trying to make and stems from this not being my first language more than lack of knowledge about the Illiad (although I don't claim to be an expert).
I jus tried to point out Achilles, while he is a fierce warrior, is not described as as one dimensional in his masculinity as the manosphere crowd likes their men.
Ian McKellen is about 5' 10" and Elijah Wood is 5' 5", but clever camerawork magnifies the difference in LotR to make Frodo appear two and a half feet shorter than Gandalf.
Tom Cruise is 5' 7½" (officially) but never looks up at anyone on camera.
Yes he is. Achilles is famously one dimensional, he is arrogant, sensitive, and volatile. That's literally his character flaw.
Instead of inventing things to conform to your nonsensical worldview, you should read and educate yourself that other things exist outside of your narrow ideology.
look at the ancient representations of him. He has a beautiful and youthful face and no hair, but he still has the ideal body of a man. Nowhere in the illiad he isn’t described as «feminine »
Isn't he also supposed to be the definition of a perfect warrior? Isn't he described as "tall, striking, and physically unmatched," and called "fair-haired"?
Achilles was in no way described as feminine and was not perceived as such in ancient Greece. Westerns readers centuries later added this perspective . He was in fact the exact opposite , he embodied the essence of "kalos" (beautiful/noble) and was the archetype of masculine "aristeia" (which meant greatness, perfection ,martial excellence). So that casting choice makes absolutely no sense.
The controversy is casting a Kenyan actress (well Kenyan Mexican, but as far as ethnicity, she is just east African) as Helen of Troy.
Some people point that people like Diane Kruger who portrayed her before are too Germanic for Helen, which does have merit. It was perhaps vaguely acceptable casting for accuracy given some assumptions about Helen, but still very questionable for accuracy back when Diane portrayed her. Meanwhile a Kenyan one is entirely inaccurate.
The OP and many other people myself included would suggest simply casting a Greek (or Italian, Spanish, or even LatAm actress with strong Mediterranean features) to shut up the controversy and be truthful to the source.
Of course, if you care not about accuracy or want to make an arbitrary diversity decision, then this whole topic is quite moot and reeks of culture war bs.
I think it was stupid to do this personally. It exposes the Kenyan actress (whose name I always fumble) to unnecessary vitriol and it's deliberately provocative for no reason.
A Greek beauty, of which there are many, would have been the perfect casting.
People are mad about a black woman being in a movie set in the Mediterranean, even though we already know that the movie isn't trying to look accurate to the time and place. And frankly, it makes way more sense for a black person to be there than all the pale English and Irish actors that we usually see.
I don't at all want to engage with culture war BS, but historically both pale white German people and Kenyans are nonsensically inaccurate.
If you forced me to pick at gunpoint, I would say contemporary Germans are closer to that era Greeks than contemporary east Africans. I don't think you can argue the opposite if you're being genuine. But both are egregiously wrong.
But all of this bs could just be avoided if they casted Italian or Greek actress. As they should. Instead of erasure through Northern Europeans or forced diversity like here.
As a Greek, no, it does not make more sense to cast a Sub Saharan African actress to portray an ancient Greek woman simply because of geographical proximity. Ancient Greeks were Mediterranean European people and modern Greeks are their closest cultural and genetic continuity.
Geographical proximity alone does not determine ethnicity or appearance. Greece is geographically closer to Slavic countries than to Central Africa, yet nobody would argue that Greeks are therefore Slavic. By the same logic, Americans being geographically close to Mexico would not automatically make them ethnically Mexican. The argument simply doesn’t hold up.
And to clarify, North Africans and Sub Saharan Africans are not interchangeable populations either, historically or genetically.
People are objecting because they feel that modern media increasingly reshapes historical populations through an American racial lens, often disconnected from the actual historical and regional context.
Ancient Greece was, of course, connected to Africa, the Near East, and many surrounding civilizations through trade and cultural exchange. But acknowledging contact between civilizations is not the same thing as claiming those populations were ethnically identical.
I mean I think it's a bit disingenuous to be shocked by the discourse when the internet would be having a conniption if they cast a white woman in a traditionally African role.
The internet was mad enough at Odessa Ozarion for considering a role for a movie where she was literally the "correct" ethnicity but wasn't dark skinned enough that she turned the role down and publically apologised lol.
I personally dont think it should matter either way, but either commit to actors needing to be the accurate ethnicity or don't, don't pick and choose depending on if they're white or black
if they cast a white woman in a traditionally African role
OH my sweet summer child hold on to your fuckin' pearls. How soon we forget they blacked out Angelina Jolie to play a Cuban-Afro character.
The fact that they care about the melanin of a leading character and not the inaccuracy of the armor, weapons, ships, etc honestly to me is a total condemnation that it's never actually about accuracy.
We dont know, and maybe no one? Considering Achilles died in the Illiad and is only featured briefly in the Odyssey. Idk why people are acting like Achilles has a huge impact on the Odyssey. It legit was just a theory based on Elliot's one line in the trailer that people flipped their shit about.
Nolan is making an adaptation that has no intention whatsoever to be source material or historically accurate, people who hate wokeness see black actors and lose their shit about source material and historicall accuracy because they are perpetually outraged and build their entire personality around their victimhood complex.
Elliot Page isn't even playing Achilles, that was just Internet bigots getting up in arms about something they made up. He's playing Elpenor, someone none of the people upset at this have ever heard of.
Achilles dies in the Illiad, he only appears in the Odyssey as a ghost briefly, I would not be super surprised if he wasn't even in the movie.
So conservative authoritarians are trying to get into positions of power in democratic countries so that they can use those positions of power for personal benefit. Getting votes as a conservative authoritarian alone can be kind of difficult, so they create fake controversy like this to try to get white men angry in the hopes that it will get them to vote for them.
It’s simple, somebody had the audacity to cast a dark skinned black woman in place where they falsely believe could only be a blond white woman. Historically, Helen has had multiple depictions but the main thing is the fact that she is meant to be the most “beautiful” woman. Blond blue eyed has been used as a theatrical standard of “beauty” and people be up in arms if there is a deviation.
Some people are big mad that she's black. Others are mad that she's not "pretty enough" for the role.
Helen of Troy is supposed to be jaw-droppingly, the most beautiful woman alive, so much that her mere existence caused a huge war. It's sort of the equivalent of having a movie hype up a role as an Arnold-schwartzengar-esque action star..... but then actually hire a fairly thin or "normal" guy for the role, instead of a muscle-bound guy.
But Lupita Nyong'o is gorgeous? Subjectively I think she's one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen (which is why I totally see why she was cast). Can't really speak objectively on this topic because tastes differ, but she is such a classical beauty that I don't get how people could call her average or worse unless they're strongly biased against black skin, and there's a word for that.
I think it's the short hair. I've seen pictures of her with longer hair that make me "get it" but with short hair I just don't find her particularly attractive.
They are mad about Helen but not all the white people playing Greeks. They have Tom as Telemachus and Matt Damon as Odysseus and don't see an issue with those casting choices.
But the highly decorated and awarded black woman is where they draw the line.
Everyone who has an issue with this but not the other thing is flat out racist.
It’s actually not racism. The “highly decorated and awarded black woman” is just not attractive. It would be way less of a controversy if they have chosen someone like zendaya to be Helen.
Achilles being an 85 pound trans women doesn't make sense? Tf are you smoking? Achilles was supposed to be the greatest of all Greek warriors. Ellen Paige is like... The polar opposite of that.
Gay doesn't mean feminine (how this thread is consistently refering to elliot which is kond lf fucked in jts own right). Achilles is described as being massive and hulking
148
u/SosseV 13d ago
Can someone explain me the casting controversy around this film? I've only heard a trans actor was cast as Achilles, which is, if you actually know the Illiad, a choice that absolutely makes sense.
Don't know what the other controversy is about though.