The Jamie Lloyd Company has hit back after its production of Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” has been the subject of what they call a “barrage of deplorable racial abuse” aimed at an unnamed cast member.

The play, directed by Jamie Lloyd (“Sunset Boulevard”), stars “Spider-Man: No Way Home” star Tom Holland as Romeo and Francesca Amewaduh-Rivers (“Sex Education”) as Juliet.

On Friday, the Jamie Lloyd Company issued a statement, saying: “Following the announcement of our ‘Romeo & Juliet’ cast, there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online directed towards a member of our company. This must stop.”

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    Honestly, we do see a lot of this casting in the 21st century. A familiar character becomes black, whether it’s Annie or The Little Mermaid, and it leaves me ambivalent. However, in the case of Romeo and Juliet, it actually makes sense to have a racial component injected into the story. They are from warring families, correct? Race could be another point of conflict for them.

    (Besides, Shakespeare has been famously open to interpretation. Is Shylock a villain, comic relief, or a tragic victim of prejudice in his own time? That’s up to the director of the play, or the film.)

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      You are thinking way too hard about this. The character isn’t becoming black. The characters the same, she’s just played by a black actress. That doesn’t change the character. That’s why we call it acting. She’s just playing a role. Tom Holland isn’t Italian, but I noticed you didn’t bring up him changing the character.

      • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Honestly, I think the play would gain if they added racism as additional reason for the enmity between the 2 families. I’d be astonished if this hasn’t happened before.

          • hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’d be astonished if this hasn’t happened before.

            I’d be even more astonished if that was the only piece inspired by Romeo & Juliet.

            Also I would be totally floored if the story of Romeo & Juliet was inspired by an older predecessor or predecessors going back at least to Ancient Greece.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Do you feel equally uneasy when you watch old movies in which white actors portray non-white characters?

      Or what about fiction, like “The Hunger Games,” in which Katniss is described as “olive-skninned” in the book, but was played by Jennifer Lawrence?

      Have you ever expressed your discomfort at the portrayals of Jesus as a white dude with blue eyes all over the place?

      I’m not addressing you personally. But those who are vocal about stuff like this are sheer hypocrites.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Personally,

        Do you feel equally uneasy when you watch old movies in which white actors portray non-white characters?

        Holy shit, yes. I don’t always notice it, but when I do, it absolutely makes me uncomfortable.

        Or what about fiction, like “The Hunger Games,” in which Katniss is described as “olive-skninned” in the book, but was played by Jennifer Lawrence?

        I’ve always understood “olive-skinned” to refer to people from the European Mediterranean area, which, from an American perspective, are often considered white. As such, it doesn’t really bother me that much. However, if the author meant for her to be middle-eastern or northern African, then yeah, that does kinda make me a bit uncomfortable.

        Have you ever expressed your discomfort at the portrayals of Jesus as a white dude with blue eyes all over the place?

        I grew up with blue-eyed Jesus so it doesn’t bother me because I’m used to it. If I was used to seeing black or middle-eastern Jesus, then yeah, I’d be uncomfortable with it. As it is, I’m more amused by the fact that Christians can’t get it right than I am uncomfortable with it.

        Tbh when it comes to this specific example, I don’t really care. I generally think it’s better to cast characters as they were originally intended (black characters should be black people, queer characters should be queer people, etc), though I also understand that sometimes exceptions have to be made. I’m mainly replying because I wanted to chime in and say, “hey, not everyone who thinks characters should be cast in accordance with their original race, sex, gender, etc, is a bigot.”

        Or at least I don’t think of myself as one. Maybe I still have things to work on though.

        Edit: tbh I think a lot of these kinds of casting choices are rage-bait. They’re not doing it because they want to give minorities more opportunities to perform, they’re doing it because it generates free advertising. Because of that, I honestly wonder if it’s doing more harm than good.

        • ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I generally think it’s better to cast characters as they were originally intende

          The little mermaid wasn’t written as a particular race from what I know.

            • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I mean, I would suggest she’d be like green or blue or something, like regular fish. You know, camouflage for being underwater. Something down there in the briny deep has got to have a taste for mermaids.

              (For top accuracy, all Little Mermaids from this point forward must have a strong resemblance to a manatee. Is Kathy Bates from Misery available?)

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          You’re alright. We’re not all-evil or all-saints. I’m not perfect either.

          One thing about “casting as rage-bait,” hmmm, I think it’s a bit more positive than that. It’s probably a “what-if” scenario, rather than “let’s generate some rage!”

          Like that time they did Ghostbusters with an all-female cast, or when they kill Hitler in movies.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Edit: tbh I think a lot of these kinds of casting choices are rage-bait. They’re not doing it because they want to give minorities more opportunities to perform, they’re doing it because it generates free advertising. Because of that, I honestly wonder if it’s doing more harm than good.

          Intentionally doing it because of race is far more likely to be a positive thing than fishing for rage bait, even if the positive thing is getting more money because people like the increased diversity. Fishing for rage bait is way too risky for Hollywood.

          • ArcoIris@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            People like increased diversity when it’s tasteful and meaningful and adds value to the finished product. Unfortunately, I keep seeing examples of people associated with movies continually adding distasteful and meaningless pandering instead, continually dangling rage bait by insulting men (especially white men) on camera, then continually acting surprised when their movies continually make no money because people won’t watch a movie if you continually tell them it’s “not for them”. So no, I would argue that it’s not “too risky”, because if it wasn’t, they wouldn’t keep doing it.

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          tbh I think a lot of these kinds of casting choices are rage-bait. They’re not doing it because they want to give minorities more opportunities to perform, they’re doing it because it generates free advertising. Because of that, I honestly wonder if it’s doing more harm than good.

          Yep, it’s sad to see how people fall for it. At least don’t go see any play or movie if it’s bad, regardless of controversy.

      • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        I see your point, but it is also a little weird when a previously established black character is made white, or at least less black, in the casting. Apparently during TMNT’s grimdark period, before the cartoon, their April O’Neil was bi-racial. Baxter Stockman was black, but when the TMNT cartoon came out in 1987, both were white.

        I wasn’t familiar with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles until the very kid-friendly cartoon, so it didn’t bother me. I mean, this was my first introduction to these characters, right? I had no idea. But fast forward to now, when it’s very strongly canon that Baxter Stockman is black, and the 1987 Baxter Stockman, who’s a hybrid of Dr. Brown from Back to the Future and Jeff Goldblum’s bug in The Fly, does seem a little… off.

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I hear you, man. In the end, works of fiction are just that. Something somebody came up with. Imagine a five year old telling you a story, something completely made up. Would you pay too much attention to that? What’s the difference between a kid and an adult coming up with something they pulled out of their imagination?

          Not too different, really. And yes, I know the adult has studied and have way more experience. But ultimately, he or she wrote down something they made up.

          So what does it matter if a character is black, red or white?

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Do you feel equally uneasy when you watch old movies in which white actors portray non-white characters?

        I am not aware of anyone close to my age bracket that watches old movies like that, and I am not young. I would imagine a good chunk of us would avoid them all together, considering that we know that the movies were racist. I know I do, at least.

        Like, I don’t care if anyone says Othello is worth watching, I would simply refuse to give it a chance.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Lol didn’t they even try casting James Bond as a black woman

    • Breezy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      The little mermaid one didn’t make sense to me, they’re under water probably 95% of their lives getting no sun. They all were definitely pale.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        The “underwater therefore white” doesn’t hold much water, in my opinion.

        What about all those dark-colored creatures? Tuna, whales, squids?

        • Breezy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          7 months ago

          Fish colors have nothing to do with melanin which determines human skin tone.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            7 months ago

            Why do mermaids have to follow human skin tone rules instead of other aquatic mammals? Even if they’re humans who evolved a fish tail, they’ve been underwater long enough for melanin to not be the deciding color…

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            7 months ago

            So what?

            Bro, we’re talking about a fictional creature.

            Plus “fish color” is just one attribute. I also mentioned whales and squids.

            And we don’t even know how humans would evolve to live underwater.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        They weren’t “definitely” anything. They’re fictional creatures.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        they’re under water probably 95% of their lives getting no sun. They all were definitely pale.

        You’re applying scientific principles to human skin and UV exposure response with regards to evolution and calling into question the scientific accuracy of the portrayal in the mermaid, and that leads you to disagreeing with the skin color of the actor.

        With your scientific explanation you missed a couple key points if your goal is accuracy to the biological world:

        • Why does she have a full head of hair? Scientifically, hair’s purpose is thermal regulation. There would be no need for hair when the entire mermaid body is immersed in water all the time.
        • How the hell is Ariel breathing underwater? Fish do this by having gills for the gas exchange in the water. Whales and dolphins are air breathers, but have to go to the surface to get a breath. We don’t see Ariel going to the surface to do this.

        You didn’t call either of these out as scientifically inaccurate.

        Can I ask why your scientific explanation of the mermaid was only skin color?

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Do black people lose their pigmentation completely if they stay indoors?

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Existing circumstancial evidence suggests that if you give them somewhat around forty to eighty thousand years they might lose at least some of it, depending on how much exposure to solar radiation they get… though interbreeding with Neanderthals and/or Denisovans might also help, too.

          • Breezy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I read somewhere else that a Japanese study suggests 500 years is enough for skin tone to change.

            • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I would question the validity of that research; the Japanese still have a lot invested in the idea they are somehow different from other people, nearby East Asians particularly. They literally think they have a lower body temperature, for example.

              • Breezy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                To my understanding, the study only focused on the natives of Japan that stayed secular in comparison to the rest of their population. I do not remember their name, but the Japanese version of native americans.