Alam wrote:MasileinDE wrote:
well to be fair, that is an issue too, though as someone super uninformed, seeing skin colour is easier than pinpointing out costume mistakes because of the wrong cut or stitch method
so, yeah, it's a valid point, if you want to be historically accurate, don't just fight about the racial issue
but considering the political climate and how most people have no idea what they are talking about, it makes sense that this is the most "easy to converse upon controversial topic" when it comes to historical movies for people who don't know much stuff
See, I think racial representation is a bigger issue right now than historical accuracy, but in the future, looking back at what is now looked at as a necessary step towards racial integration and pluralism is just gonna be looked at as weird old timey pandering and yes, inaccuracy. The solution to me is obvious, make more historical films that necessitate black, Asian, Latin, Jewish, middle eastern etc etc actors, like, I don't know, telling stories that don't all take place in Europe? But, if I'm being honest, I don't think it matters that much, integration of so called people of colour into pop culture is a massive, important step towards racism dying out so it matters less in the long haul if a film is historically accurate than if it helped forward a cause. All that being said, seeing an Asian person walking around medieval Europe in a film would be fucking weird and make me raise an eyebrow. It's kind of shallow and pandering in a very unsubtle and borderline offensive way. I'm sorry, this is all over the place and barely understandable but yeah, here are some thoughts from my brain.Â
maybe hollywood should try to make more movies which have the possiblities of having a wide representation in the main cast instead of making so many movies where they just put a black person here and an asian person here just to silence the critics