Tired of having Race stuffed down your throat ? ...

[dogtag]

Me too. Try this one on for size: She may be pretty
but History is History for God's sake. Don't mess with it
with your stupid race crap.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/13065809/channel-5-race-row-black-actress-play-anne-boleyn/

[Vern Humphrey]

Who gives a big rat's ass?

[lyman]

Natalie Dormer was the best,,,,

[clintonhater]

Who gives a big rat's ass?

Irreproachably documented, undisputed, factual history out the window? Exactly as it was described in "1984," history is being re-written in new text-books that denigrate Columbus, the Founders, white accomplishments in general, while glorifying non-whites. You're not horrified?

But the BBC has being doing this kind of thing for yrs, not only for shock-value, but because BBC is required by law to cast 20% (I think) non-whites, whether there's an appropriate role for them or not. Last yr, the 2nd most important part in BBC's hugley-ballyhooed production of Les Miserables was given to a black man--to hell with the way the author wrote it. Few yrs before that, part of a blue-eyed blond French Queen in a Shakespeare play, for whom portraits exist to document her appearance, was given to a humongous Negress who out-uglies Serena Williams.

BBC produces countless contemporary dramas & series that are half-filled with non-whites, so they have NO trouble meeting their race-quota, whatever it is. This loathsome historical perversion is being done DELIBERATELY to stick a finger in the eyes of whites, & to insult those whites who take pride in their history. And man did they find a REAL Tar-Baby to do it with!

[Roadkingtrax]

Leave it to Clintonhater to identify with the whore-born Javert.

[Vern Humphrey]

Irreproachably documented, undisputed, factual history out the window? Exactly as it was described in "1984," history is being re-written in new text-books that denigrate Columbus, the Founders, white accomplishments in general, while glorifying non-whites. You're not horrified?

But the BBC has being doing this kind of thing for yrs, not only for shock-value, but because BBC is required by law to cast 20% (I think) non-whites, whether there's an appropriate role for them or not. Last yr, the 2nd most important part in BBC's hugley-ballyhooed production of Les Miserables was given to a black man--to hell with the way the author wrote it. Few yrs before that, part of a blue-eyed blond French Queen in a Shakespeare play, for whom portraits exist to document her appearance, was given to a humongous Negress who out-uglies Serena Williams.

BBC produces countless contemporary dramas & series that are half-filled with non-whites, so they have NO trouble meeting their race-quota, whatever it is. This loathsome historical perversion is being done DELIBERATELY to stick a finger in the eyes of whites, & to insult those whites who take pride in their history. And man did they find a REAL Tar-Baby to do it with!

Will they show the part where she committed incest with her brother and produced an ugly, red-headed daughter?

(That's the "treason" she was convicted of.)

[clintonhater]

Will they show the part where she committed incest with her brother and produced an ugly, red-headed daughter?

Guess that will have to be changed to "nappy-headed."

[togor]

I'm having deja vu on this thread.

DT I don't think the OG Anne Boleyn was available, and yes the new one is pretty.

[clintonhater]

yes the new one is pretty.

Ugh. But even if you believe that, does it justify making a mockery of history? How about a film about the Civil War with Lincoln played by a black man? Actually, that would be about right, so make it a black woman. Or how about that recent flop made about MLK? Why were ALL the main characters black? No white actors capable of playing those parts...even with grease-paint?

[togor]

Ugh. But even if you believe that, does it justify making a mockery of history? How about a film about the Civil War with Lincoln played by a black man? Actually, that would be about right, so make it a black woman. Or how about that recent flop made about MLK? Why were ALL the main characters black? No white actors capable of playing those parts...even with grease-paint?

Why stop at skin color? Make all of the male actors be under 5'3" unless there is historical proof of unusual height, and the woman 4'8". Make sure their teeth are truly awful--no prosthetics--and that they have real smallpox scars, not the made up kind. Lice should be ubiquitous on the set as well, and articles such as toilet paper and tissues are strictly forbidden. Shut down shooting during menstruation unless that is part of the scene, and period grooming habits should be strictly enforced for all on-camera personnel, no exceptions.

Or....it's a dramatization which may or may not interest individual viewers.

For those who like a 1940's style production with Anne B. in it, surely there is already one out there to watch.

[lyman]

Why stop at skin color? Make all of the male actors be under 5'3" unless there is historical proof of unusual height, and the woman 4'8". Make sure their teeth are truly awful--no prosthetics--and that they have real smallpox scars, not the made up kind. Lice should be ubiquitous on the set as well, and articles such as toilet paper and tissues are strictly forbidden. Shut down shooting during menstruation unless that is part of the scene, and period grooming habits should be strictly enforced for all on-camera personnel, no exceptions.

Or....it's a dramatization which may or may not interest individual viewers.

For those who like a 1940's style production with Anne B. in it, surely there is already one out there to watch.

HBO or Showtime did a decent version,

except Henry was not fat , they left him skinny,

[clintonhater]

Why stop at skin color?

The obvious issue is that skin color, you say, "doesn't matter" in only one direction: blacks playing whites. Whites playing blacks--that's TABOO! In some early films, whites in grease-paint DID play blacks, because film production units consisted of a limited no. of contract actors, who played in every film made by that particular studio. TODAY, those films are excoriated & reviled by film critics because whites were allowed to play Negroes!

[Art]

Why stop at skin color? Make all of the male actors be under 5'3" unless there is historical proof of unusual height, and the woman 4'8". Make sure their teeth are truly awful--no prosthetics--and that they have real smallpox scars, not the made up kind. Lice should be ubiquitous on the set as well, and articles such as toilet paper and tissues are strictly forbidden. Shut down shooting during menstruation unless that is part of the scene, and period grooming habits should be strictly enforced for all on-camera personnel, no exceptions.

Or....it's a dramatization which may or may not interest individual viewers.

For those who like a 1940's style production with Anne B. in it, surely there is already one out there to watch.

Out over your skis a bit. You are correct that not having "smell-a-vision when depicting ancient people is probably a blessing. But, not everybody had bad teeth though the inability to fix them was a problem and people of the upper class had generally worse teeth than commoners due to diet. In her later years Elizabeth I (5'0"-5'3" depending on the source) had rotten teeth, literally. The average height wasn't 5'3" for a man or 4'8" for a woman either. Even if it was the relative proportion of size would make it irrelevant on a set.

However...the height of the average British man varied over the centuries according mostly to diet and living conditions. During the Roman occupation the average British man was about 5'7." This is ascribed to the relative peace and prosperity of the Roman occupation. Afterwards, during the dark ages the height shrunk to about 5'5" due to harsh living conditions. Under the Normans it went up to almost 5'8" and then started to fall bottoming out in the 1600s at about 5'5" (probably due in part to the famines of "the Little Ice Age.") before recovering in the late 1700s. Of course height is variable between individuals. Henry VIII was 6'2" tall. Anne Boleyn was just under 5'3." The average Briton at the time the real Anne Boleyn was alive were shorter than we are on average but they weren't runts either. The above info is based on actual archaeological excavations.

The Romans, who were generally pretty short, about 5'3" on the average for men and just under 5" for the women, also had excellent teeth. Good teeth were considered so desirable that Romans of the Imperial period would use urine to whiten them which led to some creative joking about people who had really dazzeling smiles. I was listening to a forensic archeologist commenting on this while excavating Heraclenium, that not only did the average Roman have very good teeth they also tended to have very even teeth. The shortness of the average Roman is most often ascribed to a lack of meat in the diet of the average guy. A Roman soldier for example ate a diet extremely high in coarse carbohydrates and very deficient in protein, especially animal protein. Their Celtic and Nordic enemies who were much more cornivorus often over 5'9" sometimes called the Romans pigmies.

One of the most inauthentic things in all movies is depicting women before 1920 with shaved "pits" and legs......nope. Of course unless there was a sex scene you'd never notice because of clothing styles before 1920.

All that being said, the danger of the sort of depiction on the OP is people will begin to believe its true. Interesting how a black Anne Boleyn isn't "cultural appropriation."

[rayg]

Interesting post Art....

[clintonhater]

Interesting post Art....

Yes, interesting rejoinder to another of Togor's idiotic distortions of an issue made in defense of the indefensible.