I’m really loving it - the animation is gorgeous and is a great juxtaposition to all the brutality the family is enduring so far, but the dad’s hand flying through the air and landing right in front of the mom was a WTF moment for sure.
2 Likes
Ah, you’re talking about Japan Sinks, I think, which I haven’t yet seen. But I will put it on my list.
Yes… you were replying to my other post, which I should have noted.
Yes. Japan Sinks is great, but also WTF!
I’m generally fine with most gore. The only movie I can’t watch again due to violence was American History X.
2 Likes
American History X was a great film, but yes, gory.
I’m not a fan of gore for it’s own sake, but implied violence, when it imparts a truth, is fine with me.
If you haven’t seen it, then I point you to an old (1979ish) Brit film called Scum.
Uncomfortable at best, but worth a watch.
It’s not the gore, I guess, as much as the context of the gore (the curbing scene specifically).
I have not seen Scum, but it looks interesting.
1 Like
Do try and catch it, it’s brilliant. Also, Ray Winstone’s first appearance.
2 Likes
Seconded. Though I haven’t seen it since I was s kid. I avoid violence on the telly now. I tried watching (American) Utopia and it was just too much for me.
1 Like
I’ve not seen the American version. I assume it’s the same/similar story to the Brit version with the weird comic book?
I’ve not seen the British! But no. But yes. But: no.
2 Likes
Bound to be the same ending, just different route there.
But yeah
And no
And of course yeah
2 Likes
I recently started watching Ratched (a kind of origin story for the villainous nurse from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) on Netflix. It reminds me a bit of Hannibal in that it has a lot of rich visual style and isn’t concerned with being overly realistic, and has a strong cast that includes Vincent D’Onofrio in a supporting role.
One of the weird things about the show that I haven’t yet decided how I feel about is that it’s set in some version of 1947 where being gay can still get you a lobotomy but racism is seemingly nonexistent. For example: one recurring character is a white lesbian who was able to improve her station in society and get a job working directly under the Governor of California after marrying a gay black man for the sake of appearances, even though California still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books until 1948.
In some ways that’s a liberating change because it means the show can have a more diverse cast without forcing characters into the roles that a more realistic version of history would place them in. But it still feels odd that the show would choose to erase one form of historical bigotry but not another.
4 Likes
This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Similar criticism came up around that new Netflix series, “Bridgerton.” That they cast Black actors into a regency era romance without adequately addressing race issues.
I’m neither an actor nor a BIPOC, but I would imagine that for those in the trade, it might be worth some inaccuracies if it means opening up the field to more diverse casts, at least as a first step.
2 Likes
I’m reminded of the 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing where Keanu and Denzel were brothers. If you want to do Shakespeare with a diverse cast you pretty much have to just pretend race isn’t a thing rather than come up with a contrived explanation for casting choices, and sometimes it works fine. Depends on the context.
2 Likes
That makes we wonder how many of the critics actually watched it, because the race issues are explained, at multiple points across different episodes:
5 Likes
Given those characters were half brothers, and there were plenty of non-white people around in Shakespeare’s time, I think people doing the casting just have to stop pretending they weren’t there.
13 Likes
You’re correct that mideval England was a bit more diverse than what people often imagine, but it was nowhere near as diverse as our population of talented actors. Also, per the article you linked to, it’s not like there was a lot of black nobility in England at the time:
I think it’s great and completely appropriate when diverse cast are chosen for all kinds of roles including lords and noblemen in Shakespearian plays, but it would be a stretch to claim that such choices accurately reflected the historical race dynamics of the time.
4 Likes
Here’s where we disagree. I think a diverse cast is more accurate that what was done in the past, but I’m not focusing on roles of lords and noblemen. Shakespeare’s plays are full of characters from all walks of life. Given the perceptions of race, class, and gender have changed a lot since they were written, there are many groups that have been traditionally cast in inaccurate ways. What we are seeing now is just a continuation of art more closely reflecting life, rather than continuing with the artificial limitations placed upon it because of inequality and privilege.
10 Likes
Ok, but the specific example I gave as being historically unlikely, and which you disagreed with, was Denzel Washington playing Don Pedro, prince of Aragon. I’m glad they cast him in that role! I think the movie was the better for it! But you and I aren’t going to agree on the idea that that specific casting example is more historically accurate than past productions. As for casting more “everyman” type roles in Shakespearian productions you’ve got a much stronger argument regarding accuracy in diversity, but then again today’s society really is more diverse than it was in Shakespeare’s time, so a production that takes full advantage of our diverse acting talent will likely be more diverse than a production done centuries ago. (And that’s a good thing)
2 Likes
Shakespeare was writing less than a century after the Reconquista. It seems highly likely, despite the purges of Jews and Muslims from Spain, that everyone there would have been white as we think of it today, given that North Africans had been living in the Iberian peninsula for hundreds of years, if not longer at that point.
Plus, our modern constructs about race was not remotely in place yet. Categories like class or religious affiliation would have been far more important in thinking about inclusion and exclusion within Spanish (or other European) societies.
7 Likes
That’s actually a really good point. (I’m assuming you made a typo when you said “highly likely” and meant to say “unlikely.”)
So yeah, I stand corrected and concede that it’s possible that the character Don Pedro could have been of African descent. I’m still thinking we’ll be better off if we don’t sweat diverse characters playing other roles such as Henry V who we’re relatively certain were of pale complexion.
4 Likes
