Historical roles : most important factor?

[Endur]

My favorite ethnic miscasting ever: In the movie The Conquerer, John Wayne plays Genghis Khan.

John Wayne could play any conqueror or general out there. Ethnicity didn't matter.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

In addition to billd91 post, there was a brouhaha over the casting of a Puerto Rican to portray a late Tejano singer Selena.

Also over Antonio Banderas as Pancho Villa.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I want to see characters that have been researched and a screenplay that is informed as to the subject. (Two movies that ticked me off in that regard - the Three Musketeers killin of Richelieu (sp?) a man who died at a great old age for the time, and Name of the Rose, where they killed off Inquisitor Gui. Apparently neither screenwriter could be bothered to find out that these were actual people...)

Or how about Commodus being slain in the arena in Gladiator. Ugh.

It's as if the writers (and producers, directors, etc. who get caught up in all the changes) decide that history isn't interesting enough as it actually played out. I love historical fiction, but when it deviates into counterfactual history, unless you've made it plain that that's what I'm viewing, I feel cheated.

 

[shilsen]

Or how about Commodus being slain in the arena in Gladiator. Ugh.

It's as if the writers (and producers, directors, etc. who get caught up in all the changes) decide that history isn't interesting enough as it actually played out. I love historical fiction, but when it deviates into counterfactual history, unless you've made it plain that that's what I'm viewing, I feel cheated.

I'm betting you really hate Shakespeare.

I may be in the minority, but accuracy with regard to physical appearance and/or historical events is basically irrelevant to me. I think the way these affect (or don't) people is a good example of the importance of convention in film (or drama, for that matter). People can sit down at a movie knowing full well that (usually) the character is being played by someone else, that there is background music, that the time which passes on screen doesn't match real time, etc. But since those are standard conventions, most people in the audience don't think about them. Things like having accuracy in appearance and historical accuracy aren't as conventionalized, and so people notice them a lot more.

 

[BrooklynKnight]

I guess some of you guys didnt agree with Robin Williams playing Peter Pan? I mean the role is traditionally played by a woman, no?

 

[Rackhir]

I guess some of you guys didnt agree with Robin Williams playing Peter Pan? I mean the role is traditionally played by a woman, no?

After Mrs. Doubtfire how can you question his ability to play a woman?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I guess some of you guys didnt agree with Robin Williams playing Peter Pan? I mean the role is traditionally played by a woman, no?

but the character is male. I don't see any connection.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Things like having accuracy in appearance and historical accuracy aren't as conventionalized, and so people notice them a lot more.

or alterations there are unconventional because they matter more to most people.

I'm not sure its some sort of "suspension of disbelief" issue when something is billed as historical and then, well, isn't. Or when a real person is portrayed badly - why not just not use the real person's name at all?

 

[BrooklynKnight]

but the character is male. I don't see any connection.

Its just the character was nearly always played by a female. Its sort of a tradition.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Its just the character was nearly always played by a female. Its sort of a tradition.

Yeah, but I don't think that idea has any direct relevance to the ideas on this thread, is all I'm saying. (also the "boy" peter pan was usually portrayed by a woman, there is no precedent for who should play a grown up semi-amnesiatic peter pan.)