In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

We got your shibboleths right here

Sadly, No! roasts some douchebag pontificating about the death of integrity in casting, or the death of racism in Dickens, or some such, over at Breitbart’s Hollywood site. The complaint? Masterpiece Theater’s Classic’s new production of Oliver Twist cast a black woman as Nancy!

No, really:

The story and characterizations, unfortunately, don’t match the faithful and evocative visuals. One of the first and most jarring notes is the appearance of actress Sophie Okonedo as Nancy, Oliver’s protector in Fagin’s den of thieves. Okonedo was born of a Jewish mother and black father and looks very African in descent.

Now, it’s just plausible that Twist’s villain, the violent and vulgar Bill Sykes, would have an African-English girlfriend, but there’s not a hint of that in Dickens’s novel. Clearly the producers are imposing an ideal of a colorblind society on a story where it adds nothing, is unnecessary, and is quite a distraction for those who know the original novel. The character, however, is as complex and benevolent as in the original story, which is all to the good.

Thus, while being somewhat distracting, the transformation of Nancy into a black woman does no major damage to the story. Other changes, however, do, and some are really contemptible, all pushing in the same direction.

No word on whether it’s a travesty to cast a bunch of tall, fit celebrities with working teeth as Dickensian Londoners, or to cast that guy from Harry Potter as Fagin, or to cast Alec Guinness as Fagin, but then, Alec Guinness was an actor, and that’s what actors do and…wait, where was I? Oh, right: actors should only play parts originally written for people exactly like them. And when we as a society stop being racist, then our creative entertainment will stop being racist, and we’ll have a canon where everybody can come play, and then puppies will play puppies and rainbows will play rainbows and it won’t matter that Billie Piper should never, ever, ever have been allowed off of the TARDIS.

But there’s another thing.

Sophie Okonedo.

Not that the selection of an unknown would have made the complaint any less racist, but this isn’t just any actor he’s complaining about. It’s Sophie Okonedo. Dirty Pretty Things Sophie Okonedo. Hotel Rwanda Sophie Okonedo. Oscar nominee Sophie Okonedo!

This is not a problem for Masterpiece. This is a coup. It’s like if they’d gotten Emma Thompson for their version of Sense and Sensibility.

So it’s super-racism! Her skin color is not only more important than her ability to act Nancy, her career is beneath his notice because she’s a black woman.

Dickens was a social reformer; hypocrisy for the sake of moral comfort is a thread running through all of his books. If he saw injustice, he probably wouldn’t insist that it be preserved for its own sake. I don’t know whether Dickens had any awareness of racism on this level; I suppose I would assume not. But we are reading and performing his works in a different era, and with decades of history between us. With Sophie Okonedo’s career between us.

There is nothing special, either in terms of fidelity or artistry, in an all-white Dickens adaptation. There’s no preservation ethos here. There never has been an audience whose agreement was based on the actual face of history, and there haven’t been many writers whose work reflected it. Accuracy is objective; belief is not. Acting is about belief, and belief is the story you tell. Belief is Nancy waking up in London. Belief is performance, and we know the woman can handle that, because we’re a film critic.

Performance is adaptation: the new use of older material for the sake of a new audience. Trojan women in America. King Lear in Bosnia. (Yes, and it was awesome.) A Merchant of Venice reference in Oliver Twist! Even if racism weren’t hateful, even if it could be seen as a simple aesthetic, it’s a dull, unfeasible, and sterile aesthetic. It’s an aesthetic that just happens to limit a multitude of actors to a tiny number of roles–and stories, therefore, to a tiny set of readings.

I want to see Chiwetel Ejiofor as Andrew Clennam. And I am overjoyed that Sophie Okonedo is playing opposite Bill Sykes.


37 thoughts on We got your shibboleths right here

  1. That article is utterly ridiculous. He complains that it’s enforcing “Men bad, women good,” and then complains that the male villains aren’t evil enough.

    The courtroom scene, with the judge telling Fagin to accept Jesus, sounds a bit weird, but I haven’t seen it. I’m not sure how he interprets that as “a slam on Christianity,” though — I mean, every other character, with the exception of Fagin, is Christian.

    The comments section of that article also features one of my favorite comments ever:

    I was offended by Fagin’s being played as being Jewish. I didn’t remember that from the book – neither did my friends. I consider this anti-Semitism rather than anti-Christian. As a member of the Judeo-Christian faith, I was thoroughly offended and tried to make my opinion known to PBS.

  2. Thank you for the Billie Piper reference. If you ever want to get me going on a feminist rant, just mention the character of Rose Tyler in Doctor Who. Such a long history of strong female characters in that show, and they bring in a character who can’t build her own life once she separates from the man she loves and spends all her time pining for him and finding a way back to him instead of moving on like every other character who’s fallen in love with him. I need to write a feminist/queer analysis of that show.

    Sorry for getting so off topic.

  3. Wait a minute, aren’t people always complaining whenenver critiques of whitewashing movies shows up that skin color shouldn’t matter and they should just get the best actor/actress for the job? Looks like that’s exactly what they did here.

    Excuse me while I go stare at puppy pics for a while to cleanse me of the stupid.

  4. I do think that having a black Nancy makes the story less of Dickens’, but that’s not really important–there have been other adaptations. What bothers me is that once again a black woman is playing a prostitute. Why Nancy, of all characters?

  5. This is reminding me so much of recent happenings in West Virginia. The mascot for WVU is the Mountaineer, and the person chosen to be the new Mountaineer this year is a woman. She isn’t the first woman to be the mascot, another woman was the mascot in the 1980s, but some people are still very much up in arms that a woman was chosen, nevermind the fact that the selection process is actually fairly involved. There’s a review of their academic record, an interview, and then a “cheer off”. (BTW, I don’t go to WVU, nor am I an alum, just an interested observer of the outcry from some when a woman was chosen.)

    Anyway, the common argument for why the mascot shouldn’t be a woman is: “It’s against tradition!” They argued that the Mountaineer is supposed to be a rugged, white, male, gun-toting individual. Really, people just come right out and say that, and then turn around and get pissed when you tell them they’re being sexist (and racist). So, yeah, this is very much the same thing. In both cases, they can say that they object because a black person/woman doesn’t match the character they are supposed to be portraying, but it’s just the same old sexism/racism with a poorly-disguised excuse wrapped around it.

  6. How much do you want to bet that these same people would respond to criticisms of the Avatar movie casting with, “Best actor for the part! Noticing race is racist! Not integral to the character!” And then accuse us of having a double standard for objecting to one and not the other.

    (Note: hell yes I have a double standard, because increasing representation of underrepresented groups =/= as defaulting to white.)

  7. I read a book in which I keep envisioning Lenny Henry as one character. The author gives no indication of the character’s race, which many people would interpret as “the author gives no indication that the character is black” — which isn’t the same thing.

  8. Until the Harry Potter movies started coming out, I assumed the character of Hermione Granger was meant to be black. I was mega disappointed when she wasn’t.

  9. I call it blind-casting – casting the best actor for a role regardless of appearance. I still recall the joy I felt watching Peter Brook’s The Mahabbharata (the title translates to the great story of mankind) with a cast from all over the world portraying characters from one of India’s great epics. Also back story’s like the one about Outland where the Lazarus/Frances Sternhagen character was originally meant to be male. And in “I’m Not There” Bob Dylan was portrayed by a young black actor and Cate depicting various times in his career. Slowly things are changing – after all we are finally in the 21st century.

  10. Besides which, it’s perfectly plausible that Dickensian characters may be black. The British did indeed have an African slave trade, and African descendants from their colonies did indeed immigrate to London. It is not at all farfetched that some of them fell into the London underworld depicted in OT.

    When I saw the Masterpiece production, I thought: Oh! Sophie Okonedo! How perfect!

  11. Sophie Okonedo is a fantastic actress. Maybe they hired her because she was the best they could get? Just throwing that out there to the insane Karnick.
    Also, may I just say the comments on the article sicken me. What a bunch of paranoid conservatives, like this gem: “I refuse to watch the British programming, which are made entirely with fees extracted from UK tv-owners whether they watch BBC or not. At least PBS’s original programming is mostly supported by actual PBS viewers. If it was British programming other than BBC (i.e. commercial television), that would be different, but since Socialism is incapable of producing anything of value…”
    Government supported television is equated with SOCIALISM? Um, dude, have you heard of Canada? We have a Conservative government and STILL have government supported tv and radio stations. But I guess real world examples don’t impact on his insane troll logic.

  12. Bizarre. Also, I guess the guy is just missing some British context – this Oliver Twist is not making some brave new political gesture, it is perfectly mainstream and unremarking for a drama in which the BBC has any involvement to include a multicultural cast. Presumably on the basis that race matters to the story only when race matters to the story; Nancy’s story isn’t about race, so she can be whatever colour the best actress for the part happens to be.

    Thank God for Socialism.

  13. Besides which, it’s perfectly plausible that Dickensian characters may be black. The British did indeed have an African slave trade, and African descendants from their colonies did indeed immigrate to London. It is not at all farfetched that some of them fell into the London underworld depicted in OT.

    Yes. This. In fact, I think this reality is ultimately what all the outrage is about. The prevailing conservative belief re race, ethnicity, and religion is that the UK was lily white until the postwar era, and all non-Anglo Brits are recent immigrants with little or no real stake in the country. When in fact this couldn’t be further from the truth.

    A related question – just this past week half-assedly watching Masterpiece’s take on Little Dorrit, I noticed Freema Agyeman playing Tattycoram. The subplot works very well with racial issues, and having never read the book I just assumed the Dickens had written the character as a black woman. Googling around, I’m now pretty sure the character wasn’t necessarily written that way. If this is true, BRILLIANT casting on the part of the BBC – they added an interesting angle to a story that is, to be honest, pretty boring. I was way more interested in the life of a black girl adopted by a wealthy white family in 19th century Britain than whether so and so and such and such would find true love.

  14. I have been in the casting phase of an off-Broadway production of Annie, starring Michael Clarke Duncan as Annie, the lovable orphan on her way into high society. You would not believe the downright racist reactions I have been getting for my casting choice – I simply think that he is the best choice for the role, naturally.

  15. The Opoponax:

    Until the Harry Potter movies started coming out, I assumed the character of Hermione Granger was meant to be black.

    Thanks to you, I’ll never read the Harry Potter books the same way again. **off to read….yay!

  16. I’ve seen so many shameless cases of whitewashing lately—white actors being cast to play originally non-white characters—that I can’t help but applaud a reversal. It would be nice to see this practice in major roles, as well…there were rumours that we were getting a black Doctor (the guy from The History Boys, I think?), but instead we’ve got some David Tennant look-alike.

  17. Featherstone – those kinds of casting choices can be really interesting, actually. Annie with a lead with a look opposite from the cliche could highlight a lot of interesting ideas that the viewer hadn’t really thought of before. Which is pretty much what art is about – getting people to think about things in new and interesting ways.

    The other bottom line is that, if Duncan can bring out the aspects of the character that the production team are looking for, why not cast him? Nobody cares whether Eric McCormack is actually gay, why blonde Reese Witherspoon should have been cast to play brunette June Carter, or whether it’s OK for Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, or Kenneth Branagh to play Nazis.

    True Fact: Grace Park, Tricia Helfer, and Lucy Lawless are not actually sentient humanoid-resembling cyborgs! Leonard Nimoy? TOTALLY NOT VULCAN!1!1!!11! There are not a dozen-odd retired Time Lords roaming around the UK!

  18. “The other bottom line is that, if Duncan can bring out the aspects of the character that the production team are looking for, why not cast him?”

    My sentiments exactly.

    Wait until they hear him belt out “The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow.”

  19. The courtroom scene, with the judge telling Fagin to accept Jesus, sounds a bit weird, but I haven’t seen it. I’m not sure how he interprets that as “a slam on Christianity,” though — I mean, every other character, with the exception of Fagin, is Christian.

    Sure, but Dickens himself thoroughly demonizes Fagin as a Jew throughout the entire book. I mean, he’s repeatedly called “the Jew” and is described in intensely anti-Semitic terms: greedy, hooked nose, the whole 9 yards. I haven’t seen this scene either, but it makes sense to me that there’s a character hammering home on a theme that runs throughout the book.

    The comments section of that article also features one of my favorite comments ever:

    I was offended by Fagin’s being played as being Jewish. I didn’t remember that from the book – neither did my friends. I consider this anti-Semitism rather than anti-Christian. As a member of the Judeo-Christian faith, I was thoroughly offended and tried to make my opinion known to PBS.

    This really made me laugh because (a) what on earth is the Judeo-Christian faith and (b) Oliver Twist is incredibly anti-Semitic. It’s not some sort of artistic invention.

  20. How much do you want to bet that these same people would respond to criticisms of the Avatar movie casting with, “Best actor for the part! Noticing race is racist! Not integral to the character!” And then accuse us of having a double standard for objecting to one and not the other.

    I don’t understand. Are you talking about Dragonball? Are they making an Avatar movie? The only Avatar reference I can find on IMDB is James Cameron’s apparently-unrelated-to-the-Nickelodeon-series movie.

  21. Speaking of Dickens, they better find an actual disabled boy to play Tiny Tim this Christmas. And I hope this critic agitates to create more jobs for disabled actors, when the role calls for it. As things are now, able-bodied actors usually play disabled characters. Is he complaining about that, too?

    Hmph.

  22. I’m not sure how he interprets that as “a slam on Christianity,” though — I mean, every other character, with the exception of Fagin, is Christian.

    Having seen a little of the version of Oliver Twist they’re worked up over (but not the courtroom scene in question), one thing I’ll say is that it really doesn’t tiptoe around the fact that the people prancing about demanding everyone give them props for being such kickass pious Christians aren’t exactly Teh Good Guys. I remember a particularly *headdesk*-ish Bible verse painted on the orphanage wall, for instance.

    Then again, I don’t understand how one could really take a self-righteous Christians FTW message from Oliver Twist as a text, anyhow, and would wonder if anyone demanding both slavish adherence to Dickens’s “intent” and a Christian party line can possibly reconcile that.

  23. Sure, but Dickens himself thoroughly demonizes Fagin as a Jew throughout the entire book. I mean, he’s repeatedly called “the Jew” and is described in intensely anti-Semitic terms: greedy, hooked nose, the whole 9 yards. I haven’t seen this scene either, but it makes sense to me that there’s a character hammering home on a theme that runs throughout the book.

    So, I haven’t ever read Oliver Twist (though I was an orphan in my middle school production of the musical), but I did see this production last month on PBS. The scene at the end is played very sympathetically to Fagin (which may be why some viewers saw it as a “slam” on Christianity). The prosecution is completely unwarranted, and Fagin has no ability to defend himself. The judge sentences Fagin to hang, then tells him he can save his life if he renounced his faith. The judge is clearly looking to humiliate Fagin rather than obtain any kind of justice or right outcome (even in the twisted sense that he would be saving Fagin’s soul). And Fagin doesn’t renounce his faith, which fits with the way Fagin is portrayed in this production. He’s greedy and scheming, but he has his own moral code that he does stick with.

    I don’t know if this scene is in the book in any form, but it sounds like this production is, if anything, less anti-Semitic than the book, while still keeping the essential scheming and greedy nature of the Fagin character.

    And Okonedo was excellent. Having her in that role wasn’t disconcerting or distracting in the least.

    What was disconcerting is they used several Coldplay songs in the soundtrack.

    But overall, without being able to speak to its fidelity to the book, it was very good.

  24. Besides which, it’s perfectly plausible that Dickensian characters may be black. The British did indeed have an African slave trade, and African descendants from their colonies did indeed immigrate to London. It is not at all farfetched that some of them fell into the London underworld depicted in OT.

    And I don’t recall the book specifying that Nancy was white. (And if it did, I’m sure the article writer would have said so rather than merely that it failed to point out she was black).

    How much do you want to bet that these same people would respond to criticisms of the Avatar movie casting with, “Best actor for the part! Noticing race is racist! Not integral to the character!”

    I’m not taking that bet. And as for your double standard – see my previous paragraph vs the original Avatar’s visibly nonwhite characters.

    it won’t matter that Billie Piper should never, ever, ever have been allowed off of the TARDIS.

    Without Billie Piper leaving TARDIS we’d never had Freema Agyeman joining it. And you’ll never get me to sign up for that.

  25. Auguste – they’re making an Avatar movie! M. Night Shayamalan is directing. Tragically, it looks like a piece.

    Ruchama, thanks for digging up that gem. Wow.

  26. So here’s the interesting thing about Black people in London.

    In the 18th century, there was a significant and visible Black population, of African descent, in London. We know this from documents of the time. They were mostly men.

    In the 19th century, not so much. We no longer hear of a significant Black population, and when we do it’s of first generation immigrants in the later 19th century.

    So where did these 18th-century Black people go? If they had all died, we would have heard of it. Similarly if there were a mass emigration scheme.

    The prevailing theory now is that the Black population didn’t “go anywhere.” They just got married to white women, and their offspring merged into the general population, and became less and less “visibly black”. So it’s highly plausible, in fact, that there would be 19th century Londoners with African-ish features.

  27. For some reason, “off-color casting” seems to be accepted more in live theater than in TV/movies. (One of many recent examples was the casting of S. Epatha Mekerson as the wife in a Broadway revivial of “Come Back Little Sheba”—for which she got rave reviews, BTW.) Maybe this is because theater audiences are supposed to be more sophisticated than TV viewers. Who knows.

    Anyway, this douche is just using this as a particularly silly way to bash PBS and its support of the arts, which as we all know have a liberal bias.

  28. Having seen a little of the version of Oliver Twist they’re worked up over (but not the courtroom scene in question), one thing I’ll say is that it really doesn’t tiptoe around the fact that the people prancing about demanding everyone give them props for being such kickass pious Christians aren’t exactly Teh Good Guys. I remember a particularly *headdesk*-ish Bible verse painted on the orphanage wall, for instance.

    It’s been a while since I read the book, but I think that was in the original. The people running the workhouse were definitely portrayed as Christians, running the workhouse on “Christian” principles.

  29. This guy is complaining about the “vulgarization” of Oliver Twist. Ok, Ignorant Racist Man — want to go with the “historically faithful” version? First — the original text is a novel. In the nineteenth century the novel was considered to be a low-brow mass-media production that DEFINITELY was not in the category of “literature” much less “classics.” In fact, the same folks who argue that PBS is bringing the masses down today would, in the nineteenth century, be fretting over society’s unhealthy appetite for novels.

    Dickens also took lot of his conventions from melodrama, the 19th century theatrical equivalent of telenovelas — prestige-wise, a notch below a Lifetime Original Movie [TM].

    When he wrote it, Charles Dickens was imitating a sub-genre of novel called Newgate novels, which basically were lurid tales of horrible crime for which criminals were sent to Newgate prison. They were fabulously popular in the early 19th century, and operated much like gangsta rap — valorizing street credibility and the heroism of breaking the law, and leading its mostly young middle-class readers to adopt the slang and postures of the criminalized lower class.

    You can’t vulgarize Dickens because Dickens was vulgar. And if you want to stay “faithful” to Dickens? Um, then don’t make him into a friggin’ television mini-series. Especially one that presents itself under the heading of “Masterpiece Theater.”

    On the other hand, if you’ve already violated the “true” text by putting it into a play, Dickens would have been thrilled to have Sophie Okenodo in the role. He loved good acting. Not that you would know that, because you obviously know nothing about Dickens, Mr. Ignorant Racist Man.

  30. I can’t wait for his review of Branagh’s “Much Ado About Nothing” featuring Denzel Washington as a Italian Renaissance prince and Keanu Reeves as his brother.

    Come to think of it, I’m surprised he’s not against all stagings of “Othello”: “A black man as a general in sixteenth-century Venice? There those liberals go again!”

  31. The prevailing theory now is that the Black population didn’t “go anywhere.” They just got married to white women, and their offspring merged into the general population

    I’m not sure if it’s been conclusively proven in a statistical sense, across an entire population. But I recently read a book about Black and Asian writers in London wherein just about every 17th and 18th century Black writer they discussed who stayed permanently in the UK married a white woman, and their children were accepted into white society. The author of the book even found some of these people’s modern-day descendents, all of whom are white. So I’d say it’s definitely “proven” on an individual or anecdotal level.

  32. You can’t vulgarize Dickens because Dickens was vulgar. And if you want to stay “faithful” to Dickens? Um, then don’t make him into a friggin’ television mini-series. Especially one that presents itself under the heading of “Masterpiece Theater.”

    Though, to give the BBC credit, they’ve been doing a lot of re-imagining works from Teh Canon lately. Especially interpreting them in a way that is darker, grittier, and more cynical than previous adaptations. I don’t know if it’s the vogue for steam punk or the popularity of series like Rome or what, but the new aesthetic is at least a lot more historically accurate (especially in a post-modern ‘call a spade a spade’ sense).

  33. I don’t think Avatar vis-a-vis the Dickens thing is exactly an instance of “best actor for the part.” If the author specifies that the character is white than a dark-skinned actor has one more obstacle to overcome to be thought of as the best for the part (though not, I think, an insurmountable one) — just as, if the author specifies that the character is short, Allison Janney would have to give one hell of an audition. The characters in Avatar are associated with (analogues to) specific ethnicities; Dickens never said either way.

Comments are currently closed.