The issue with Cleopatra is she was Macedonian Greek (not really Egyptian). We know a semblance of how she looked based on her image which she would have had to have approved (particularly on coins). The closest we could get today would be Greek or Semitic.
Well, we do know two things about what are often called "
The Black Pharaohs" A term professional historians coined.
1.) There was a period of Nubian conquerors of Egypt who were black and set themselves up as the Pharaohs of Egypt.
2.) This was/is a sore spot for national ethnic Egyptians. (Or at least some of them)
I don't know if this is in any was part of what motivates this
particular lawyer (for all I know he's just a racist jerk)... But, it could be, even on a subconscious level.
Put differently, I don't think any Egyptian would be offended by Gal Gadot, Elizabeth Taylor, or even say Selma Hayek playing Cleopatra
if they can pull of the look.
I'd argue any of them could. But an obviously Black actress can't pull off the look easily.
I'd submit that James Earl Jones (an incredible actor) wouldn't make a good James Bond either.
Just let it be a good actor.
That isn't good enough when portraying an historical figure.
I'd argue Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson are the best actresses in the world today...but, I wouldn't cast them to play Cleopatra.
I think Warwick Davis is a brilliant actor: I wouldn't cast him to play Abraham Lincoln.
It breaks immersion.
You have now broken "kayfabe" and that is a sin.
What does bother me is the idea of "black washing" based on political agendas. The reason it is concerning is too much effort has gone into creating false histories in order to support agendas barely hidden just beneath the surface.
Agreed. It's also a betrayal of your audience.
Your audience needs to feel immersion in your story. This means not constantly reminding your audience that the actor on the screen is clearly NOT the person they are portraying.
If audiences have (and they do) a mental image of Cleopatra in their head, then a good film-maker would show them the picture they expect in order to achieve believability.
We enjoy fictions because we "suspend disbelief". We somewhat buy into the lie we are being told in order to enjoy it. A good film maker makes that as easy as possible on his audience. But an historical fiction has automatic limitations placed upon it.
Paul Giamatti was fantastic as John Adams....He is, after all, a fantastic actor.
I would not cast him to play George Washington, because we have a really good idea of what Washington looked like, and Paul Giamatti ain't it.
When Gal Gadot was chosen to play Cleopatra there was an uproar about how we are moving backwards as a culture with the charge of "white washing". The idea is Cleopatra's mother could have been at least partially Egyptian. BUT historically Gadot would be a racially appropriate choice (even if Cleopatra had a mother who was at least part Egyptian).
Gal Gadot is a perfectly good choice because she can believably be made to imitate the image in our heads of what Cleopatra looked like. Ditto Elizabeth Taylor.
The same people, however, did not complain when a Black woman was chosen to play Cleopatra for Netflix (that came from an Egyptian lawyer).
Of course not.
I suppose what I am complaining about is that the woke trend of race-swapping in order to check boxes is not
merely hypocritical....
It's also unfair to your audience. It is making films altogether worse. It's simply BAD filmmaking.
I just finished the first season of Netflix's historical drama "Medici". As expected... a story about Rennaisance era florentines was portrayed by either Italians or someone believably Italian. Ironically, the only actor I found a little distracting was Dustin Hoffman, and that is not due to his not being talented. He was no doubt hired because of star-power, but, I didn't like the decision. In other words....Italian actors make really good casting choices to play Italians.
This actress playing Cleopatra may be the most talented actress that has ever lived.
She is still not a good casting choice to play Cleopatra if your goal is to tell a good story, and convince the audience to suspend the disbelief that this is not Cleopatra but is, indeed, who she is pretending to be.
Pure fiction and Historical fiction are not the same thing in this since.
I must admit, I found Nonso Anozie a little distracting when he portrayed Sampson, but not terribly so, because we have no
clue what he looked like...Why, after all, do we even assume he was muscular? There's no good reason to assume he was actually.
Nonetheless, I
would cast someone muscular because it fits the
mental image we have of Sampson.
Furthermore, Sampson could, indeed, theoretically, have been black!
What we do know
for certain is that he was of the Jewish nation which, apart from proselytes, are Semitic, not African. Thus, I would have chosen someone believably Semitic. Sampson is an historical figure, not a fictional character and it is unlikely (but not impossible) that he was black.
An actor playing a known historical figure cannot look however you want them to look.
I'd force the issue because he was that super-cool.