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.”

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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
      ·
      9 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
          ·
          9 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
      ·
      9 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
      ·
      9 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
        ·
        9 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
      ·
      9 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.