Is the BBC and other channels WOKE.

[LaBlonde]

Would you not agree that to choose a POC to play James Bond would actually encourage the idea of woke casting ? Taking woke to this level just seems so trivial to me. To most of the population the character is white. It is when ideas go too far, that there is a backlash, no matter the good intent. POC have been treated abominably over the centuries, this just does not seem the way to improve matters.

i would disagree and i’m not sure what you mean by “to this level” and “too far”. it’s literally just casting a fictional character. this really just proves my earlier point that any type of minority casting gets downplayed and invalidated as “woke”.

if rege-jean page is cast (going from the bookies odds) it will be because he’s handsome, has a bond-ish vibe, and has a decent amount of hype behind him. likewise with henry golding (to pick another from the list). the fact that you would already believe that casting to be “trivial” is the other side of the woke agenda tbh. to blindly believe all poc casting is “woke” is to completely discount that casting. and, especially in a bond context, i don’t get it. it’s possible for poc to be cast on their own merits.

james bond has stayed the same age for about 60 years so i don’t think he can even be claimed to be the same character at this point. the theory that it’s just a code name makes the most sense. likewise, sticking to white actors because all the actors before have been white makes little sense.

 

[Blueblue123]

It's very funny when people question whether the few people from minority groups are truly "the best person for the job" but have no thoughts on why the "best person" has historically and predominantly been white, straight abled bodied men.

Now that the playing field is levelling out and we can all get similar access to the same resources, the better person is STILL the straight, white, abled bodied man? How convincing and convenient.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

A response in general, not against you or your post.

I get sick and tired of demands for 'evidence' from those that don't agree with others.

Especially when those that demand 'evidence' aren't so forthcoming with it themselves.

Oh, me too, this was my response to someone who asked me for evidence.

 

[greenvelvet]

I don't know why you bothered to react to that dimwit trope.

What do you mean by dimwit trope? You can have any set of beliefs you want but if you don’t bother to counter an argument and just insult people/say their idea is stupid, it’s often you that ends up looking stupid. It makes it look as if you can’t come up with a proper response so resort to mud-slinging. At least be civil.

 

[IngressUK]

Do you have counter evidence? Do you know for a fact that there are not people sitting in boardrooms looking at a list of names to choose from, going back and forward making sure that every aspect of inclusion is covered ? Or is that your subjective opinion ?

A response in general, not against you or your post.

I get sick and tired of demands for 'evidence' from those that don't agree with others.

Especially when those that demand 'evidence' aren't so forthcoming with it themselves.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

Ah yeah, I was recently reading up on AAVE (African-American Vernacular English to those who aren't aware) and was surprised at some of the words on there, which I had no idea were AAVE.

I remember the "stay woke" phrase was probably the first time I heard it. Now, as you say, it's mostly used in a derogatory fashion - especially in the overused (and, in my opinion, silly) quote: "Go woke, go broke!"

Yes, when I complain about ‘woke’ , I have to admit, it is rarely, I’d ever about colour. It is more about being ‘inclusive at all costs’. I know it was originally about racial discrimination, and surely no-one could find fault with that.

 

[wibble]

Can you at least try to explain how it’s mental gymnastics? :/ Come on, you clearly have a strong viewpoint you care about. Try to do it justice.

Quoting ethnic demographics is pointless because it ignores the obvious point, that not all people crammed into that bureaucratic box are alike.

However, television, and the media more generally, does force people into a box, in the name of "authenticity" (and quotas).
(The quotas being a new version of the production game from the Mary Whitehouse days of script editors haggling over whether "two bloodys can be traded for a bugger" but played with people)
As pointed to by linking to Amazon's casting requirements (all companies have them).

Ergo, (and this is something one hears often from "minority" (of all kinds) critics of "woke"), what is produced reflects not "authenticity": but a new stereotype.
And that stereotype is something both created by and reinforced by arguments such as Manchester has xx% whatever therefore y... particularly with the advent of "cultural sensitivity checkers" (or the "woke" version of Viewers and Listeners Association) - (the difference being that they are inside the building rather than sending letters in green ink from outside).

That said, I'm rather baffled as to why you quoted those figures for Manchester and Leeds.
Since the point is, and always has been, one of class not race.
As it is rather pointless decentralising to make television less Londoncentric, if the exact same type of person - regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc - is employed as would have been employed in London.

 

[thegirlscout]

I don't know why you bothered to react to that dimwit trope.

What dimwit trope?

 

[LaBlonde]

It is trivial, and too far because it is unnecessary and is going to do nothing for the cause of POC. It is not going to change the world. It is piffle. Like throwing a crumb to a starving man. Let’s make Othello white, and gay, that might bring in a new audience. And why not go further with Bond, make him gay too. It’s perhaps time that the Bond Girls made way for the Bond Boys.
However, if Rege-Jene Page is cast as Bond, then, personally I will be thrilled, it might make me watch the films again he is very handsome, and a talented actor. I am of an age that Sean Connery is Bond, and even he didn’t do it for me.
I really cannot see where you get the idea that I think all POC casting as woke, the idea is utterly preposterous. Possibly, most of the leading men I rank highly are black, and I have never dreamt that they were chosen for roles because of their colour. Where woke raises it’s head is where a traditionally white role is changed suddenly to a black one, or a historically straight role is suddenly gay. I will stick to my guns in believing this is a deliberate ploy to be inclusive. POC, I am sure , have no difficulty finding parts they can play. Excellent parts.
Anyway, let’s go back to Strictly for a moment, and mention the beautiful Hamza. Posters were complaining that he was overmarked, I agreed, and offered an explanation. Personally I wouldn’t care if every contestant was black, gay or had a disability. I have only just realise that Molly is mixed race. Does it stop me from giving her my vote? No. I have been voting for Hamza, Molly and Kym from the start. What I object to, on principal , is being manipulated by the media. But there is one contestant who I really objected to, and that was Jayde. She was kept in the show because of no other reason that she was very overweight. Doing it for the big girls ? Is little Helen doing it for the petite girls ? And Shirley with her “You are an outstanding dancer “. If anything shone a big light on wokery, it was that. She went home because viewers realised just how far she was up her own backside, and stopped voting for her. And eventually the judges had to send her home.
Woke is not just about colour, I think that is where you are off kilter with my opinions. If Ellie had been voted off in week one, do you seriously believe the BBC would not have received criticism? Especially with the footballer, sorry his name escapes me, was pretty poor, and stayed in.
The posts I have made have been aimed at the general ‘inclusion at all costs’ attitude, and are not indicative of my own personal feelings. But obviously theoretical debate is off the cards. I saw that someone had queried if a poster had said there should be no disabled people, and less black people. I am really tempted by an eye roll emoji here, but it is rude. I would like to say ffs, but I may do that if I am represented wrongly again.
I wonder what minority will arrive in Strictly next. Perhaps we will have a contestant who is trans. They will dance the male part one week, and the female part the week after. They will be given two professional partners, otherwise it would be unfair. And before you accuse me of being against trans people, can I say loud and clear, I don’t care if someone is trans , that is their business and nothing to do with me.

i don’t think i’m ever going to change your mind on this (or that you will change mine) - but i do appreciate you always giving civil and detailed responses, and always being polite. for that reason though, and because i don’t want you to feel like you’re being misrepresented if we continue (or for me to start nitpicking), i’ll bow out of the conversation. just didn’t want to ignore your post!

 

[LaBlonde]

To be honest, I don't think the variety of contestants on Strictly is down to the BBC being woke. I think it's done to be appealing to the widest audience.

If it was an all-white, able-bodied, straight line up that'd be pretty boring. Just as it'd be boring if all the contestants were either brilliant or bad.

They want to get as many people watching the show as possible, so I think that's why there's a large range of people and abilities.

exactly. and i think it’s really the same on any of these reality competition shows - there has to be variety, because they want each contestant to be individual and have their own journey, and to have someone for everyone. strictly in particular follows the same pattern: there’s always an older man and woman, maybe two or three young pop star styles, a soap actor or two, an athlete… they want someone for each member of the audience to get attached to and for the show to not be boring. if the line-up is all white then it’s dull, but i think that’s true if the line- up is all anything.

 

[Ensay]

The thing is is that if you pick one thing to focus on it disadvantages another. For positive discrimination if you picked a middle class POC woman over a working class white man you’re lacking working class voices, and vice versa. People aren’t defined by one box anyway, they have many facets- even a gay POC (not saying EITHER of those things are bad, they’re just positive discrimination characteristics) is talking representation away from say a disabled person. Can’t we just make good content with good actors without all of this?

I think - on the whole - we do make good content with good actors, though. And that's with the so-called woke casting or representation.

For example, I'm enjoying Strictly this year as much as I have any other year - even back in the days when there were no same sex couples or disabled contestants. I don't think including those makes it any worse, just different. Plus some people who were initially opposed to same sex couples have changed their minds now they've actually appeared in the show. Often it's just about giving things a try. No harm done after all.

I appreciate it's all down to personal opinion, though.

 

[LaBlonde]

So do you think that would happen if the best person for playing Martin Luther King was white?

i mean, i said that in my post:

“sometimes that person may not be white (obviously this is restrictions permitting if they’re playing a real person)”

when actual historical inaccuracy comes into play (in something that claims to be an accurate retelling of events) or that casting someone of a different race completely changes the whole “story” of that person (such as casting mlk as white) then restrictions have to come into play. this isn’t the same as casting doctor who/james bond etc.

 

[wibble]

What do you mean by dimwit trope? You can have any set of beliefs you want but if you don’t bother to counter an argument and just insult people/say their idea is stupid, it’s often you that ends up looking stupid. It makes it look as if you can’t come up with a proper response so resort to mud-slinging.

Quoting the demographics of London, when the stated the reason the BBC set up the studios in Manchester (in addition to previous establishment of S4C and BBC Scotland) and Channel 4 is moving to Leeds is to make programming less Londoncentric.
Pitching the only alternative as "white", "christian", "British" ....
That sort of thing.

Oh and well done for doing the "if you don’t bother to counter an argument" routine...
That never gets old.

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

What do you mean by dimwit trope? You can have any set of beliefs you want but if you don’t bother to counter an argument and just insult people/say their idea is stupid, it’s often you that ends up looking stupid. It makes it look as if you can’t come up with a proper response so resort to mud-slinging.

Oh, how I sympathise with you, because on the Strictly thread, when I disagreed, that is exactly how I was treated. Not very nice , is it ? I think you will find that if you read through the posts, you will find that Wibble did, in fact, provide an example that shows producers’ manipulation. I include extracts from an interview of a journalist who worked at the BBC. He sums up my thoughts very well.

 

[wibble]

Certainly, It feels silly now to call POC a minority. They are where I live, but I’m not in a city. I can remember when I lived in London in the seventies, I could be the only white person in a very large tube compartment. I still believe though, that the programme planners would go to great lengths not to have an all white line up. Because there would be criticism from pressure groups.

I don't know why you bothered to react to that dimwit trope.

 

[Ensay]

i agree with jayde but not really with ellie.

to focus on ellie is to ignore all of the other contestants with disabilities that strictly have had over the years - a lot of whom received criticism and went home early. jonny peacock got told to work on flexing his ankles, a thing that he physically cannot do! so i don’t entirely agree that they wouldn’t give a low mark to a less able bodied contestant, it’s happened before and they weren’t always glowing about ellie either. i give them credit for that. when jonny p left he specially said “thank you for judging me as an equal” to len.

however, i do agree with you on jayde. the borderline patronising praise she received for apparently even setting a toe on the dance floor was ridiculous. in terms of her casting, she was a competitive jazz dancer in her youth and so it is likely that they were expecting her to be better than she was when she was chosen. they’ve had “bigger” contestants previously who have been good and bad and always marked fairly. it did, i agree, feel very different with her though and her behaviour afterwards where she implied people were fatphobic did her no favours.

i think you and i (and most of us here!) are agreeing with each other, albeit in circles sometimes the bottom line for me though is that, historical accuracy or vital ness to the plot aside, the best person should always be cast. i agree with you that that doesn’t always happen. but i equally feel that it does mean that some castings get immediately criticised as having nefarious motives before people have even seen the end product.

there’s a big fuss in theatreland at the moment re the stage production of a little life. people who have read the book will know that the lead character is not white. this is vital to his story and the subject of many discussions between him and other characters. the stage production has cast james norton in this role. two other cast members in the main cast of four are black (in line with the book). people on twitter are saying this is woke casting, in an attempt to keep the cast diverse, but because norton is white it seems to have opened up a whole load of discussion that i find interesting in the context of this thread. like you and others have rightly pointed out, there’s a lot of focus on casting poc when we say “woke”. but it can work all ways.

Agree with you here. I thought Ellie got judged fairly and wasn't pandered to at all. And I'm sure she appreciated that.

She wouldn't have wanted the judges to patronise her and treat her differently. After all, if she thought she might get upset by that kind of criticism she wouldn't have signed up to do the show in the first place.

I thought she was good, but it was right that she went when she did.

 

[soph30]

The thing is is that if you pick one thing to focus on it disadvantages another. For positive discrimination if you picked a middle class POC woman over a working class white man you’re lacking working class voices, and vice versa. People aren’t defined by one box anyway, they have many facets- even a gay POC (not saying EITHER of those things are bad, they’re just positive discrimination characteristics) is talking representation away from say a disabled person. Can’t we just make good content with good actors without all of this?

 

[HairyWeeTerrier]

What concerns me about the recent use of the word 'woke' is how this powerful word has become so misappropriated from its original meaning. How can being 'woke' in its true sense be a bad thing - if it means you are anti-all forms of racial injustice and pro-equality? To say it's lost credibility is one thing, but then it's important for the media and individuals not to add to that by trivialising it further (eg using woke in the context of reality tv) or using it pejoratively in any context.
This gives some interesting background on the word's meaning. Quote: 'This framing of “woke” is bipartisan: It’s used as a shorthand for political progressiveness by the left, and as a denigration of leftist culture by the right.'

How being “woke” lost its meaning

Stay woke: How a Black activist watchword got co-opted in the culture war.

www.vox.com

I will most certainly read that thoroughly when I have more time. You have said more succinctly what I have been trying to say all along. Thank you. When this discussion started on the Strictly thread, I used the term ‘box ticking’ , and sadly, I think this is what woke has come to mean.

 

[Whatevesmate]

Do you have counter evidence? Do you know for a fact that there are not people sitting in boardrooms looking at a list of names to choose from, going back and forward making sure that every aspect of inclusion is covered ? Or is that your subjective opinion ?

I haven't offered an opinion. I asked for clarification about how information was being presented. Tbh I rarely watch TV but I am interested in politics.

 

[wibble]

there genuinely isn’t any need to be so dismissive here. the original replier responded politely and raised their own points. this is intended to be a discussion topic. you’re obviously very well read up on it - a lot of posters may not be aware of some of the sources you’re quoting and you could have replied with that, rather than implying the op was a dimwit.

Yes thanks for the homily.
But putting the words "dimwit" and "trope" together implies something about the trope, not the person repeating it.
Although maybe it does...
But then so does making reference to "white", "christian" and " British", which rather implies racism: wouldn't you say?
Which btw is another rather tired shorthand way of dismissing an argument.