How We Read Rings of Power

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

*** Does Tolkien's Arda include POC? Of course, absolutely. The Haradrim very clearly are. What cannot be the case is Amazon's multi-ethnic communities: something which at the technological and commercial level depicted simply would not have been possible (and that's even before getting to a queen of the House of Elros....)

Just a brief reply to this: I don't think that by casting POC as Elves, Dwarves or Númenóreans the makers of RoP are trying to say anything about the 'actual' ethnic make-up of these communities. They're casting actors to play people, regardless of what colour they're supposed to be. Sadoc Burrows is obviously meant to be a member of the same ethnic group as the other Harfoots (many of which are probably his relatives), never mind that he's played by a black actor and the others aren't. It's no different from an Afro-American or Asian actor playing Hamlet, or Kenneth Branagh casting Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves as brothers in Much Ado About Nothing.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Just a brief reply to this: I don't think that by casting POC as Elves, Dwarves or Númenóreans the makers of RoP are trying to say anything about the 'actual' ethnic make-up of these communities. They're casting actors to play people, regardless of what colour they're supposed to be. Sadoc Burrows is obviously meant to be a member of the same ethnic group as the other Harfoots (many of which are probably his relatives), never mind that he's played by a black actor and the others aren't. It's no different from an Afro-American or Asian actor playing Hamlet, or Kenneth Branagh casting Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves as brothers in Much Ado About Nothing.

There I would have to disagree. Besides Shakespeare having been staged myriad times over half a millennium and directors therefore trying to outdo each other in bizarre productions so as to be "fresh" (e.g. Branagh's 30s musical Love's Labour's Lost and especially his Mikado-cum-As You Like It), not just his particular Much Ado but also Will's original are really set in a fantastical no-place that happens to use Italian nomenclature, and his mix of skin tones and accents is no more disturbing than the casting of boys as Beatrice and Hero would have been to his original audience.

But establishing a Secondary World requires verisimilitude. If this were as abstracted as an austere 60s Bayreuth production, which demands the viewer to fill in the blanks from next to nothing. it would be one thing, but Amazon have lavished money all over weapons and other props, some armor (not Elendil's), and limitless terabytes of CGI all intended to turn Numenor and Middle-earth into real places.

And if the intention was simply to provide employment opportunities to non-European actors, they could easily have cast all the Southrons as BIPOC, as a coherent ethnic group rather than the multiracial (and multilinguistic) jumble they are.

(I also don't think it was an accident that they cast the notoriously outspoken Lenny Henry as Sadoc, either. I believe fan-baiting was a conscious strategy).

[Galadriel55]

Firstly - WCH, that is an excellent analysis of the situation, well-reasoned and well-put and I think with more than a grain of truth to it. I would rep you but apparently I have been too stingy with rep-giving of late and need to rep more people first.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Just a brief reply to this: I don't think that by casting POC as Elves, Dwarves or Númenóreans the makers of RoP are trying to say anything about the 'actual' ethnic make-up of these communities. They're casting actors to play people, regardless of what colour they're supposed to be. Sadoc Burrows is obviously meant to be a member of the same ethnic group as the other Harfoots (many of which are probably his relatives), never mind that he's played by a black actor and the others aren't. It's no different from an Afro-American or Asian actor playing Hamlet, or Kenneth Branagh casting Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves as brothers in Much Ado About Nothing.

So I actually disagree very much with this viewpoint. For one thing, the film industry is a visual medium, and there is expectation that what is shown is what is meant to be shown, not "we show you A but you really know it's B". Some films consciously deviate from the way people "should" look, and that is acceptable if it is done with self-awareness and audience's awareness of the film's self-awareness; sometimes it is done for budget/limited casting/costume reasons (and then you play along and make belief), or purposefully for stylistic reasons (and then it is almost like a fanfic - and I want to refer to Hui's post in the Fanfic thread because that is another one I want to rep but can't, it presents the explanation for agreeable deviation so eloquently). But in this case it is not the former, RoP not being some homemade production, nor the latter - as I don't get the sense they are doing this for stylistic reasons so much as for political correctness reasons. Casting people to play people is all well and good, but in a visual medium you're also casting people to look like people; you could cast Karen Gillan to play Bilbo Baggins, and she might even do a decent impression, being a decent actress and all, but as there is nothing remotely Bilbo-esque about her appearance it would probably be a little ridiculous. Again - it would be ok for a film that is doing this knowingly in full knowledge and intent of the effect it would cause; it would look ridiculous if it was done in Jackson's films. So where does it stop? Where is the magic line of what we're going to pretend not to notice? And how do you defend that line? Furthermore, people's appearance is part not only of their individual characters, but the setting. I have always been a proponent of logical diversity - it has to make sense within the context of the setting, and then it enhances the setting. In the context of a medieval society, in a busy trade port/town, more is more. In a reclusive village which probably hasn't seen any new addition to its gene pool for several generations, less is more. Diversity that is inappropriate or disproportionate to the setting (in either direction, mind! both too much or too little of it!) diminishes the impact of that setting, unless there is in-story explanation for why that is so: what happened to get this unexpectedly different or unusually similar group of people? Sadoc's appearance stands out as an anomaly among his community. So either make the community match (so he's not the only one), or explain his presence there (maybe he was actually from another tribe but married a girl from this one and changed camps? It could be as simple as that, a line of dialogue). If the argument becomes that it's not fair for actors who are otherwise perfect for the job to be passed over because of their appearance, and a disproportionate number of roles of a certain type within the industry are given to actors with a certain background - then the challenge is to write scripts where the setting and backstory allows for logical diversity to happen, not to smear it across the script without rhyme or reason. This is not a criticism of any of the actors, but of the show-makers. But, most importantly, I strongly believe that ignoring a physical trait in an attempt at equality is creating the opposite effect; when you're not allowed to notice something, it suddenly becomes the elephant in the room. Inequity does not come from noticing physical characteristics, but from reacting to them. Teaching and promoting acceptance and equality should be about recognizing that people are different - but not letting those differences be the foundation of your judgement, or your actions. The corollary of your position that we ignore the differences that we see, even though we clearly see them, is that at best you get the awkward elephant-in-the-room situation, and at worst the conclusion that when we see a dark-skinned individual we should pretend that he is white (and that, I think, is cultural sensitivity gone wrong big time).

So, with no offense to any of the actors touched by this argument - including the aforementioned Sadoc, who I think acts the part very well - it is different. I am unfamiliar with the specific examples you give so cannot compare and contrast directly, but I've seen enough examples myself to argue the general point, I think. The film has to be cognizant of what its casting choice is achieving, and that purpose is different in every film. RoP tries to establish its settings and populations. And just like it wouldn't make sense for Moria to look all flimsy and artsy like Rivendell, or for Rivendell to be stout and stubby like the Southland villages - it also doesn't make sense for the populations to look out of place for their setting and story. So far there have been three cultures where one member stands out against the rest. My argument: either normalize that appearance, or else explain why this individual stands out. Why is this not necessarily an issue with all the other films and plays? Because establishing the setting is not one of the primary consequences of cast selection.

This is actually one of the things I was very willing to wait on before outright criticising though, because I can well believe that we will see both more characters and more backstory before the show is done, so there is some potential for this to be resolved in later episodes - and in the scheme of things it's not something that bothered me a great deal to begin with, other than one more dissonant note to add to the rest. But I take issue with the argument. If RoP is not trying to show us the "actual" ethnic makeup of these communities, then it should, and this is on the show-makers. If its expectation is that people would just pretend to see homogenous crowds when they are not so - then that is so much more disrespectful, and not the right message at all.

But, now that it's brought up and I managed to get sucked into this discussion - this is another hot topic on the subject of the subconscious preconceptions influencing the reactions to the show and/or promo material. Some of the characters do not match the descriptions people traditionally associate with Tolkien's characters of this type, and that's also caused a bit of a stir. And you can rationalize what is actually said or not said in the canon about skin colour and hair colour and all that jazz, in the end it's the fact that the appearance does not match the expectation, the mental image. And you can argue about whether it is the Tolkien schema or the broader racial differences schema that is playing into people's reactions or both - but before it could really be argued and reasoned, you get the other side implying that any criticism of this sort smells of racism, and thus no discussion is allowed on fear of evoking the R word. And I don't think that's right. I think there are more reasons to criticize a cast for disproportionate diversity than racism. In a film that tries to portray its world as vividly as possible, you can't just say "oh but this doesn't count" - because it does. In a film about ancient China, I expect to see a lot of Asian people, and there better be an explanation for any non-Asian people around. In a film set in an ancient Saxon village, I expect lots of blonds, and if there is an Asian person there - I expect an explanation. Normalizing diversity is not the same as pretending differences don't exist. So - on the one hand, perhaps we need to self-reflect on what exactly bothers us on these points, but on the other - waving away all criticism as prejudice also gets us nowhere.



Also, returning to an earlier conversation:

Originally Posted by Pitch

I really hope we'll see this yet, just pushed into the future by an Age or so.

Thanks again to Hui's posts on other threads, I think I now realize why that explanation doesn't seem to satisfy me or pacify my anger at the situation. I can roll my eyes at Elrond and Gil-galad, but Galadriel makes me most angry. And that's because in the show Gil-galad and Elrond don't yet have well-established stories, so as fan-fiction it is allowed to alter them to a degree so long as it then sticks by those alterations and nothing else. But they include Galadriel's backstory, they acknowledge it - that she is already an Age old, that she saw the death of the Trees and many battles and hardships that the "young" Elves can't imagine - they establish that she is of the older generation. And yet in character development they transpose her from an Age ago. It's inconsistent. You can't both have the canonical Galadriel timeline of events, and the fan-fic compressed timeline of her character. That either makes it seem like she was effectively in a time capsule for the First Age, because it's just not logical for her present character and behaviour to follow from her backstory.

And this is one reason I love these discussions - I feel like there are many overlapping threads at once, it's like one giant discussion being carried over on multiple threads and 3 sub-forums, and one helps better understand the other.


EDIT: Xed with WCH, who made a very similar point much more succinctly and eloquently.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Firstly - WCH, that is an excellent analysis of the situation, well-reasoned and well-put and I think with more than a grain of truth to it.

All arguments, disagreements and diverging perspectives aside, I concur with this.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

]And this is one reason I love these discussions - I feel like there are many overlapping threads at once, it's like one giant discussion being carried over on multiple threads and 3 sub-forums, and one helps better understand the other.

Same!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Same!

Cheers! All arguments, disagreements and diverging perspectives aside, I am very glad to see so many people here, and would not be on any other forum. ^.^