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
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.
That comes across to me as somewhat bad faith. Of course it is fantasy, but it is fantasy from a historical culture.
My ideal for a story like this is that the story should be as true as possible to how the early iron age Greeks would have pictured the story in their heads when Homer first told it.
Anachronisms are "fine" to me in this story if they're portraying bronze age from an iron age perspective. Less so if theyre using Roman perspectives.
Thats the angle I'm personally coming from when discussing "historical accuracy" in a fantasy.
I think people crying "historical accuracy" are just racists
I guess thats me now huh?
Why does criticizing Tom Holland as "too american" come across as racist?
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
I guess I should clarify i dont see them separate at all? Historical inaccuracies aren't bad unless I notice them. Any historical issue is either immersion breaking or not noticed. My issue just like yours is immersion.
"Good" Roman costumes aren't what I want to see.
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
No one worth talking to has the issue with them playing a character. I think this conversation is more about which characters and in which context.
Helen's casting is not nearly as bad as having Tom Holland or Matt Damon but I think we all know why she's the center of discourse.
I personally would not hold Hades to the the same expectations of being faithful to the source material as a direct adaptation like Odyssey should in my mind. I would like to see Nolan make the story of the Odyssey, not a Greek fanfic.
I have no problems with greek fanfics if thats the story, Hades or Percy Jackson or Kaos and would not come from the same "historical" angle for those
That's just not what I am interested in for this story.
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
I tend to agree with you, but I find it interesting people in this thread are accusing you of promoting a white replacement theory and saying you must be racist for it in the same way you're casting my historical critiques as racist.
Im wondering if there's more nuance and good faith people have learned not to speak lest be grouped together with racists.
It seems like youre looking for a benefit of the doubt for your particular view "not being racist" but not giving it out to others.
Helen's casting is not nearly as bad as having Tom Holland or Matt Damon but I think we all know why she's the center of discourse.
Oh yeah, totally. The entire cast is garbage when you try to match looks to what you would imagine the Odyssey to be. I prefer to view it as "theater vs cinema" thing. Theaters rarely have actors playing characters who visually match them. And that's one of the reasons why I don't particularly enjoy theater. But that's not really about historical accuracy
Tom Holland will be Telemachus, right? I don't see it at all. And Matt Damon as Odysseus doesn't click with me either
I guess thats me now huh?
First of all, I haven't seen you express any opinions on that matter. And if you did in your previous comment, I must've misread it. Second, I think I might need to adjust my previous statement: "People who cry "historical accuracy" when talking about the casting of Helen and her only are racist". And let's face it, those are the majority
are accusing you of promoting a white replacement theory
That's reddit. The world is on fire and people are on edge. While we're having this discussion I have another conversation here on reddit with a nazi explaining to me that Russian people are being replaced by migrants in a grand conspiracy. I'm not joking, you can open my profile, the last comments are mocking the imbecile. So people here accusing me of parroting rightwing opinions are hilariously off the mark. But it's okay, I understand the sentiment. The world is on fire, people tend to have kneejerk reactions to anything that might be perceived as aligning with nazis
I prefer to view it as "theater vs cinema" thing. Theaters rarely have actors playing characters who visually match them. And that's one of the reasons why I don't particularly enjoy theater. But that's not really about historical accuracy
Oh yeah theater production gives no shits about historical accuracy and very few complain.
I think there is a bit of a difference as theater is inherently retelling the same story with different casts by design of having to put on a different show every night.
Movies are rewatched so there's more effort to have a "definitive version" that gets everything perfect for the next decade at least. There is no singular actor who plays Hamlet over decades in theater the same way Wolverine is played in a cinematic universe.
In theater if you dont like this current cast wait till next season.
Tom Holland will be Telemachus, right? I don't see it at all. And Matt Damon as Odysseus doesn't click with me either
Thats right. Terrible casting in my opinion. Lupita is third behind them in the badly casted department from my perspective, and its why after Tom and Matt I don't really have much to say besides this movie that on paper is made for no one else but me isn't for me at all.
First of all, I haven't seen you express any opinions on that matter.
I haven't in the thread sorry. I just do tend to care about "historical accuracy" in historical settings. A movie that is entertaining but also educational is always going to interest me over one simply made to be entertaining.
Again, I have no issue with A Knights Tale or 1996 Romeo and Juliet, or Inglorious Basterds not being true to history. They have their place. Not every movie has to be accurate to history.
I just think some movies like the Last Duel or Gladiator of even The Odyssey have more responsibility.
Its kinda a vibes thing thats hard to explain.
Second, I think I might need to adjust my previous statement: "People who cry "historical accuracy" when talking about the casting of Helen and her only are racist". And let's face it, those are the majority
I would say that's fair. Helen is the face of a discussion she's not nearly the worst offender on. And that's because this is a culture war battle, not history nerds like me expressing critiques.
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.
Saying Nolan cast non-white actors to hide poor production quality and make idiots mad sounds around as smart as "replacement theory."
If you think Nolan doesn't concern himself with Hollywood meta, you must be blind. If you think he's in the game purely for artistic expression, I suggest you watch his recent-ish interview and the way he speaks about Star Wars. He's a human being, he can have and does have motives other than artistic expression
It implies you're not in either side, and you're seeing things clearly
I do. "Above this" — no, more like "with a different perspective". Because I'm detached from the issue and don't have any apparent bias... because... you know... I'm not white or black
But hey, it takes two sides to culture war tango. And if in the year of our shitshow two thousand and 25 you haven't figured out that media stokes the flames to get your attention, I guess I envy the bliss
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.
Why do people keep bringing up this point while conveniently glossing over her appearance being described a number of times? Like I don't even care about the casting (not like i was gojng to watch the movie either way), but this argument is just fully disingenuous
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.
Greekness and whiteness are entirely made up concepts, so ranting about what’s “actually true” about them is pretty “idiotic and preposterous” and “dangerous”.
Spoken like a true fanatic . No point replying further. You pick parts while ignoring others and make an irrelevant argument to label me as something I'm not because that's the only way you've been taught to argue. Zero arguments. Labels and baseless claims.
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.
It's not deflection, it's about realizing that it's okay to adapt stories or even real events and people without ticking accuracy boxes and trying to make a documentary. You can make a movie about MLK as a white person if there's artistic intent behind it and you want to achieve a one thing creatively by doing it, that's what Coriolanus was about and , without having seen it yet, I believe that's what Nolan wants to do with this movie.
Mlk's blackness and Helen's greekness aren't cosmetic details. It's the cultural and mythological context the entire story exists in. His blackness is inseparable from what he represents. You can't extract it without destroying or at least distorting the meaning of his story. Having a white mlk would cause tremendous backlash and rightly so. Artistic intent doesn't automatically justify erasing that and "Nolan probably has a good reason" is just an assumption. I do not know his motives. I know how how it affects the story. Also, his take of the story is based on a specific translation to Homer's poem which is a problem for its own reasons. You can look that up.
I disagree wholeheartedly. It depends on what you're trying to do. Showing MLK as a white perspn could serve the purpose of forcing white people to identify with him and thus making them more empathetic to what he said and did for instance.
It depends on what you're trying to do. You seem absolutely locked into thinking that every single adaptation of any material, person or event MUST be made with the one and only intent of making a carbon copy and the success of an adaption is judged solely on counting differences and finding as few as possible - I fundamentally disagree with this.
I do not believe changing a character would make him more identifiable or relevant. White people relate to black panther the same way they relate to superman and the same goes for black people, asians and so on. We know this is something that happens. If you need to change the race , premise or core traits of a character so you can identify with them, either that character is just not for you or the character wasn't appealing enough. Both are okay. The Odyssey holds a very special place in the culture and history of Greece. It is literally the first wide work of western literature. To change it like that, and based on a nonsensical translation at that, takes away from it, not the opposite.
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..
Because we weren't born yesterday, have met racist people before, and seen said racists insult the most beautiful black women? These people are not serious people, I refuse to take them and their controversies at face value. We all know it's racism, stop pretending like it's something different, it's insulting. I'm supposed to believe these stupid chuds care about accuracy in adaptions of Greek mythology?
Dude, I'm sure there are racists in the world, but its really not that deep, this actor isn't attractive. Its basically, you have to find her attractive or you're a racist dafuk?
The actor being attractive or not has nothing to do with it. Racists have always shrouded their true words behind arguments that can be construed as reasonable. Go look up dog whistles. You're being taken for a fool if you think that's the reason this "controversy" is as widespread as it is. Do some introspection on why you feel like that's a reasonable argument.
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.
You're comparing two different things and claiming they are the same. Jesus is a central figure of Christianity, the son of God in a global religion practiced on every continent. Whilst Helen of Troy is a character from the cultural storytelling and mythology of Greece.
Your argument has no merit, and is trying to apply the same principle to different situations.
You’re saying we have to be “true” to fictional characters but can take liberties with people you assume were “real”. How is “the fake thing has to be real but the real thing can be edited” something you can say while saying someone else’s argument has no merit. Wouldn’t you want the “real”, more important person to be more accurate? I can’t believe you typed that last reply thinking it was good instead of just seeing you’re showing how ridiculous your logic is.
That's a lot of words to say you didn't understand what I said.
Jesus isn't changed because he was a real person, but because he is a symbol of a global religion, and is supposed to be the son of God, created in our image.
Helen of Troy on the other hand is a character from a cultural story and mythology rooted in Greece.
Perhaps this would be more understandable if the mythology was non-White / European, and we cast white actors in it, and called it white washing?
You keep failing to understand, and I'm not sure if this is a genuine inability to comprehend, or willful ignorance.
We're clearly going in loops now, and yet you simply can't comprehend even the most basic things I've said. Even the fact you think "Our image" is "so white" proves that you've failed to read and comprehended me, because I quite notably pointed out African and Asian Jesus, who is created to look like them rather than White or Middle Eastern Jesus.
Helen of Troy on the other hand is a character from a cultural story and mythology rooted in Greece.
True, I remember reddit's outrage at "O Brother, Where Art Thou"....The Soggy Bottom Boys couldn't add one rebetiko to the setlist?? Hollywood elites and their Bluegrass-washing as always.
People like you give a shit and mention it all the time lol, even though Jesus is far more likely to have looked white than Helen of Troy is to have looked black.
Lashing out and calling people snowflakes because you got triggered doesn't give you a monopoly on calling out that behaviour my friend.
You’re the one asking to treat white washing with nuance
If you think facts are something that shouldn't be acknowledged then you are way too far gone lmao.
Jesus was a Jewish person, Jewish people still exist today my friend, and some of them look "white" and some don't.
You know who also exist today? Indigenous Greek people, and they're not in any way black like sub-Saharan Africans.
If anyone is treating "white washing with nuance" it's you and your "artistic liberty" garbage. Why is Jesus being white not "artistic liberty" despite the Bible also including gods and fantastical elements?
Lol yeah I bet dudes born 2000 years ago near Bethlehem were pale with long straight light brown hair and blue eyes. Yeah that sounds like a fact for sure.
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.
You mean like how white artists have been depicting them for thousands of years despite them canonically being from the Sudan region of current day Africa?
Thats already been a thing! White people don’t make a fuss over that. It’s only when they see a non-white person getting portrayed in a role they think a white person is entitled to that it’s an issue. How quickly the moaning about accuracy stops when white people are being casted inaccurately. Nowhere near the same amount of backlash.
Because its not about accuracy. It’s about keeping things white. It’s extremely obvious. No one with a brain is going to take this whining about historical accuracy seriously when we’ve seen what you handwave away and selectively apply it to non-whites.
Maybe to some people, but I think most people want consistency and don’t like race swaps in general. Also, did you just miss the years of outrage over white people being miscast as other ethnicities?
No, we are tired of DEI. Not sure why Hollywood hasn't gotten the memo - you make politics more important than the movie, I'll just not go see the movie. Simple as.
Do you think Egypt always had the Arab demographics we see today?
There’s literally still native black Egyptians today.
Over the course of history many different races occupied Egypt. This idea it was completely monoracial is just some failure of American education system.
You do understand that the Arabs didn't displace the old Egyptians right? Their rulers converted to Islam or were conquered by Muslims. The people are the same they just speak a different language.
Of course there has always been some migration across the Sahara, but not in any large numbers, the Egyptians and the rest of northern Africa are and have always been about the same skin tone as the rest of the people around the Mediterranean.
During Egypt's 25th Dynasty. These rulers originated from the Kingdom of Kush (modern-day Sudan and southern Egypt) and brought significant Nubian culture to the Egyptian throne.
Short answer: yes , there is black people in egyptian civilisation
What does this have to do with Helen of Troy? She was the daughter of Zeus and a Spartan queen. Did Greeks interact with Egypt, and thus perhaps have a few folks looking like Lupita walking through the streets of Sparta? Maybe. But was Queen Leda of sub-Saharan African ancestry? No chance.
Personally, I don't care who Hollywood casts into movies. If they want Lupita playing Helen in the Odyssey or Jon Hamm taking lead role in the next Genghis Khan biopic, who gives a shit as far as I'm concerned. But let's not pretend either one is an accurate portrayal of what these two people would have looked like.
Even if you're not personally attracted to her you should be able to recognize that she's conventionally attractive and if that's subjective surely the casting doesn't bother you
Why would I spend money on something that I think is stupid?
Hollywood will eventually catch back up with the times, I'm looking forward to the right person getting the job instead of checking a box for diversities sake.
Then what am I trying to do? I haven’t read the Odyssey maybe her having long luscious hair is a big part of it idk. But you know my motives better than I do I guess, so I’d like to know
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.
It's the exact same logic whether the character is fictional or not, it just becomes very obvious that the logic is flawed when applied to non-fictional characters like Obama.
It's absolutely the same logic. The casting choice being defensible because the actor fits one character trait despite otherwise not fitting the character at all does not change based on whether the story is fictional or not.
If you want to make the argument that casting choices only matter in non-fictional stories but don't in fictional stories because it's "fiction", then that is a different argument unrelated to the logic that fitting one character trait makes the casting defensible.
It’s a fictional story. The characters can be purple.
Characters can be made purple in non-fictional stories too, that would just be a bad choice that makes no sense, just like casting Lupita as Helen of Troy is.
Or even animals. The Lion King was based on Hamlet. Did you take a stink about how hamlet was a white man and not a yellowish lion?
The Lion King was inspired by Hamlet, it's not an actual adaption nor does it claim to be an adaptation of Hamlet, nevermind an accurate one.
What a dumb argument. Are you usually this dumb or just when it comes to defending blackwashing?
That Americans are selective with what is cultural appropriation and what is not. Like Hollywood butchering Greek and Scandinavian culture is totally fine for whatever reason.
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?
I mean Jesus was more important than her from a mythology standpoint and we don’t have a problem with him being whatever race we make him (I.e he’s Asian in Japan, white in most of the west, etc) when he is very much none of those things.
Mel Gibson has cast a blue eyed, blonde Scandinavian as Jesus in his new movie and absolutely none of these people who object to a black Helen have uttered a word about that.
We do have a problem with that tho. Atleast I certainly do. And they are not comparable, Jesus has been getting white washed for like 2000 years now, so that christianity sells better. It's fucked up, but just because we have done it in the past, doesn't mean we should continue to do it. Would you say the same thing if an african mythology figure was potrayed as white? I bet ya wouldn't. This is hella racists, and just culture washing, which we should all frown upon, in any form.
I mean you realize the stories of Homer were literally adapted for the regions they were retold in right? They were verbal tales that the bards would change the locations, people, etc. to fit the region they were telling them in. The race isn’t specific nor important to the story, the events that occur within the story are.
It's greek culture. If these were incan mythology, or japaneese, or african (I am ashamed I do not remember any mythology from african country aside from egypt), and they replaced them with whites, then suddenly it would be a huge problem. Be consistent, greeks deserve to be represented, there are a lot of greeks you could get to represent them. Race does .atter, it is their culture. I would be furious, if hungary's folklore, was represented by black people. No, that's hungarian, hire a fucking hungarian, or get people who are crom around the Ural mountains, since that's where they come from. Same thing for historical movies, you should try to be historical. You don't mess with other people's cultures, or history. That's fucked up. And that goes for everyone. Single. One. Of. These.
Of course, don't take this, like I am fuming over this, it bothers me enough, to talk about it, express discontent with this, especially because a lot of these "black representations" are just soulless shilling, trying to use black people to make themselves seem better. I don't think Nolan is doing this, for that reason, he has a really good reputation, but still.
Right, you could have just googled "jesus depictions" and realised your position is wrong but instead you went ahead and just lied to the whole class huh? Why are you like this?
The same way you googled: Troy, Mycenaean era, etc. and decided to say yeah races that did not venture in those geographical places or at least there is no record that verifies it. Let alone hold suxh position like the current depiction of Helen.
Granted, the jesus stuff was a fuck up from my side and something that I didn't intend to venture too.
The same way you googled: Troy, Mycenaean era, etc. and decided to say yeah races that did not venture in those geographical places or at least there is no record that verifies it. Let alone hold suxh position like the current depiction of Helen.
What are you talking about? I never claimed anything about geography or regional migration in the bronze age (at least in this thread).
Or is it because you're upset about the idea of a black person being in Greece during the bronze age? Mycenaean trade included Egypt and the Levant, we know this because of shipwrecks and their goods. Helen probably wasn't black yeah, but I really don't care all that much. Personally I'd use someone with more stereotypically Grecian features but I just don't think it's worth getting worked up about.
No I mean Jesus, Christianity has always adapted his image and representation to best fit the area. That is what tends to happen with oral traditions. Same thing with the Homeric stories. They were verbal stories told by bards and adjusted for the people and region in which they were told.
149
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.