Guest Post by Maria K. Fotopoulos
Director Josie Rourke Adds Asian, Black Influence to the 16th Century Court of Mary Queen of Scots
A long-time friend shared his disappointment the other day about a film screening that he and his wife look forward to each year of the Short Films nominated for an Academy Award. In disgust, he wrote that the films “violated basic tenets of decency” and that those who had nominated the films needed to do some “soul searching.”
Films often reflect the “spirit” of the times in which they are made, and filmmakers are, of course, products of the period in which they live. We’ve seen dark moods before. Look back to the Academy Awards “Best Picture” nominations in 2009, for example, a year of films — with the exception of Juno — inhabiting the dark side, with films including There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, among others. When viewed from the lens of contemporary culture and politics, right now we are living through a dark, ugly and some would say Orwellian period of history. So my friend’s evaluation is probably not surprising. He advised friends not to go.
No worries on that front here. My enthusiasm for Hollywood films has dampened in recent years. And that’s from a long-time film aficionado. I remember the enthusiasm leading up to seeing eclectic films with the aforementioned friend and others in my group of regular film-goers back in the 80s. Some of the films were transformative, provocative, creative, illuminating and/or mind-bending. We felt somewhat in the backwater, so college campus screenings of film classics and, in later years, screenings at a small screening room in Oklahoma City that showed foreign and indie films — Night of the Shooting Stars, Das Boot and Liquid Sky — were special.
Love of film carried through to when I was one of the “dueling film critics” for a short time (when all the releases seemed to be duds) at a local Oklahoma weekly newspaper and in more recent years when I had the opportunity to write film reviews again for a period, and times in between and after those writing adventures — so many memorable and distinctive films that also became part of memories of special times with friends. And in years where time has allowed, I’ve tried to catch all the films nominated in the “Best Picture” category of Oscar (not so easy since the Academy extended the number nominated, throwing in everything but the kitchen sink). Then, watching the Academy Awards has been my “guilty pleasure” — a few hours to “ooh & ah” over glitz and glamor with pals.
One can argue that Hollywood always has had its vocal political views (think 1973 when Marlon Brando boycotted the Academy Awards and sent Sacheen Littlefeather in his stead), but since President Trump’s election the views are increasingly politicized, polarizing, extreme and just outright nasty. So my interest in seeing Hollywood output has dropped to almost zero.
But when there was a pre-release of Mary Queen of Scots in my Santa Monica neighborhood in December, being a bit of an Anglophile for British historical pieces, I thought escape to the 16th century would be fun, a much-needed break from three years of ugly and incessant political division.
Little did I know that the current cultural and political landscape would follow me into the film screening.
“Based on the untold true story” was how Mary Queen of Scots was advertised. So it would not be unreasonable to expect an accurate historical drama along the lines of some of the great British historical retellings on my favorite PBS stations. But this film is definitely not the historian’s Mary Queen of Scots.
After leaving the screening, I was a bit baffled about some of the film. So I started reading about Mary Queen of Scots, the first film directed by Josie Rourke, a theater director. She said, “I was not going to direct an all-white period drama … It’s just not a thing I was going to do. It’s not a thing that I do in theater, and I don’t want to do it in film.” From a tweet, I learned this is “color-blind casting.” According to the L.A. Times, “It was paramount to Rourke that she cast her historical drama with diversity in mind.”
Ah, Diversity. The word — the philosophy — that’s part of the mantra now for corporate entities, and a mainstay of today’s media, punditry and politics. And Hollywood too, of course — we heard it on the Grammys the other night — “diversity and inclusion.”
Okay. So Rourke was making a historical film about Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth I, but not aiming for historical authenticity — she was “seeking to tell a better truth about them and a modern truth about them.” Sure. Makes perfect sense. Diversity trumps accuracy in 21st century filmmaking. So with that information, it becomes clear why the Queen’s Lady in Waiting was Asian (actress Gemma Chan), and why a key character in marriage negotiations (Thomas Randolph in real life) was black (actor Adrian Lester).
For some historical factual accuracy, note that in the 16th century British Isles there were not large numbers of blacks, and those in the country held no key negotiating roles in the Royal Court. And there were not Chinese in the lands until the 17th century, namely the very first Chinese in Britain was a Jesuit scholar named Shen Fu Tsong, according to Wikipedia.
If a film is billed as the “untold true story,” shouldn’t those involved work towards accuracy? Or is it irrelevant that an audience might be led to believe that England and Scotland in the 16th century were diverse? It’s one thing to have, for example, Romeo & Juliet set in contemporary times, per the Baz Luhrmann film. I get that. It’s another thing to present history that’s not quite history.
Rourke took other license that goes more to her stage background than to today’s hyper-charged climate that dictates the “correct” view on diversity, gender, etc. Namely, there’s a very stage-like scene including gauzy drapes of a meeting between Mary and Queen Elizabeth that never occurred and a costume stunner that’s very stage-crafty at film end — the Woman in Red.
Besides historically inaccurate casting, I was struck by role preparation — or lack thereof. Both actresses — Saoirse Ronan as Mary and Margot Robbie as Elizabeth — perform their roles well. But in an L.A. Times interview — and this again goes to historical accuracy — there seemed little interest in a deep dive of the historical figures in preparing for the roles. Certainly no immersion in the characters per the style of, say, Daniel Day Lewis. Their preparation seemed to be more along the lines of imagining the two queens at a coffee klatch: “If they just called out for coffee … it would have been so different!”
Yes, if only 16th century England had been home to Starbucks, everything might have worked out differently! Shucks! Why wasn’t Howard Schultz born earlier?!!!
But returning to the idea of diversity in film, it seems not a two-way Hollywood street. So what are the rules? If you’re black or Asian, you can play a 16th century white Englishman or English woman. But if you’re a white actress, you can’t play a black or Asian woman, and you certainly can’t play a transgender man. Actress Scarlett Johansson dropped out of a film last year when controversy arose that she’d be playing a transgender man. According to one news report, “Many transgender actors and advocates publicly criticized the casting, suggesting that greater diversity on screen would be achieved by casting a trans actor — rather than Johansson, a woman who is cis, or born female.”
Oh, cis!
And … what is that? So much new terminology to keep up with!
“Cis” is “cisgender,” which is a “a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.” Or, in other words, it’s most everyone.
There are a lot of evolving rules in film today, it seems. Probably that classic film, Pootie Tang, could not be made today, nor Tropic Thunder, Tootsie or Mrs. Doubtfire, among a host of others. The sex, gender and other “appropriation,” as well as the comedy, likely would not pass new Hollywood rules, which are reflecting the times, helping create them or both. Maybe we’ll see a film or documentary about the fight for all-gender restrooms across the U.S., the vindication of the transgender student in the firing of a teacher who refused to use the student’s preferred pronoun, the movement to end the racism of single-family housing and a biopic of the first transgender Miss Universe contestant.
Hair-on-fire fringe characters who believe that candy canes are coded messages for Jesus and who find injustice under every toilet lid, or restroom not marked “all gender,” and film directors who seek better and more truths than the truth (yes, that’s totally confusing) by color-blind casting now have a tremendous voice in popular culture and the media, meaning traditional norms and commonsense are sidelined, if not ridiculed, as opinionators masquerade as truth-tellers, and journalism becomes a lost trade.
With that backdrop of just a few of myriad shifts in reality we’re now experiencing — in life and film — it’s no surprise that a film billed as historical is really a 21st century riff on 16th century England through the lens of #metoo, #webelieveher, diversity and inclusion. Mary Queen of Scots is the perfect film for our time of worshipping at the altar of diversity, inclusion, intersectionality and woo-woo thinking.
Read more about the various takes on the historical Mary here.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Agreed. Kind of why I favor documentaries, but only when they take historical accuracy seriously.
But, even the more modern docu’s are getting influenced by some individual or group with a PC narrative.
Here, it would be good if readers weigh in with their experience and reco’s of worthwhile historical
films that were produced with strict adherence to historical facts, especially with the character portrayals.
Socialists want Communism to destroy Capitalism, but what if the elites are pushing Socialism to kill off the 99%?
In Oceania, there is MiniTru, whose happy OuterParty workers make sure we get the correct reading of it; history that is. Wasn’t Oliver Cromwell from Somalia?; Nelson a Sikh? Hengist and Horsa Muslims? I damn well know that King Edward was from Papua New Guinea! Well, whatever, they are going to be.
In the U.S.S.A we have Hollyweird, whose happy InnerParty workers ensure we get the correct reading over here. Thomas Jefferson was Kenyan before Barry Soetoro ever was; U.S. Grant a Shiite from Lebanon; and Eleanor Roosevelt a Communist lesbian Satanist (hmmm).
So don’t be casting aspersions on the casting, production, and final products of the hallowed Infotainment Industries. They are doing their very best to get the word out and what they tell you is what you had better fucking believe. At 15 bucks a ticket. Plus popcorn. And don’t forget the $5 soda water.
As an aside; where will you be watching The Academy Awards from, Lumpen?
I tried to watch a TV series on Netflix about Troy, but Africans played most of the important roles, including nearly all of the Greek gods. The cultural appropriation was unbearable and I stopped watching. Don’t Sub-Saharan Africans have their own mythological stories they can make a TV series about?
And according to the TV series Britannia, about 50% of the Roman army in 43 AD was black.
Isn’t this just a form of bizarre blackface without the makeup? It might be politically correct, but more often enough with some hysterically bad acting. Apparently black actors can’t find motivation in being white Brits. Who knew?
Sorry – that link from Google search goes who-knows-where. Admin, if you can pls delete that link/post.
How does one upload an image here?
FUCK YOU Jewish scriptwriters
FUCK YOU Jewish producers
FUCK YOU Jewish actors
FUCK YOU Jewish directors
FUCK YOU you get the idea
Do not watch. Do not subsidize those who wish you and your loved ones “gone”.
And yet you will never see Colin Firth cast as Nelson Mandela.
Sometimes, not as Colin Firth. Are you a Bridget Jones fan, Holly?
I can recall select moments from the first film that I did not find entirely cringeable—one or two at any rate—though the standout was the bitch-slapping modern-man fight scene alluded to above. That’s the moment I realised the feminist agenda had almost destroyed Western Manhood.
Propaganda writ large…the winners always recreate history to suit their purposes. What is the agenda? Figure that out and you’ll understand the script. Of late the agenda is ‘get whitey’ and all movies and television ‘entertainment’ will mirror and support said agenda. Nothing new here, Mr. Hearst was really good at creating news that would take a country to war and Uncle Tom brought the country to another war.
Well thats a shame. I like historically accurate drama.
But i also like “double down” by neil breen. So check out that hollywood alternative. Have few drinks first.
Maybe she should have hired the best actor available and had him do the part in black face. Win-win.
saw the movie and thought the same thing as the writer of this article. Most disturbing is that many people watching these historical movies “based upon a true story” come to believe what is in the movie as being the truth. White is the new black, people.
Where do I sign up for the SAG card? I have some Kiwi boot polish. I could be the next black megastar, or at least a porter in another Tarzan movie. I am glad Gene Wilder has passed on. Today he would be pilloried for his blackface in Silver Streak.