- Jun 2018
- New York
While I can certainly agree with that, there also needs to be some form of accuracy if it is a historical work being made. If a movie or show is about medieval Europe with historical figures there needs to be a degree of accuracy. No matter what you do you are going to get someone attractive to play these figures, that is how the industry works. But if they were to make the king of say, Britain or France black that can be seen as sacrificing accuracy for diversity or a quota to be made. And if that is the case why not make a movie taking place in Africa?Most historical figures were not as attractive as the modern-day actors and actresses who portray them. Jesus almost certainly did not have blond hair and blue eyes. Peter O'Toole was nine inches taller than the real Lawrence of Arabia. Charles Lindberg was 25 when he flew the Atlantic. He was played by Jimmy Stewart who was almost 50 at the time. It shouldn't be what the actors look like. It should be what they say and do and how they say and do it.
I can only take something with so many liberties. Conventional attractiveness of the actor? Will almost always be above average, gotta sell the movie at face value somehow. Changing a historical figures race completely for the sake of diversity? Something is bound to come out of that, not always good.
If i look at completely fictional works the diversity of the cast depends on the context and setting of the show.