The average Spanish Moor would have been slightly lighter in complexion the the average modern day Palestinian or Berber. IOW they were white. Sure, there were much more dark skinned Moors, just as there are occasional Palestinians who are dark skinned. And there would have been more blonde-haired, blue eyed, pale skinned Spanish Moors than there are amongst modern Palestinians, and it’s not exactly outrageous there.
Anyone saying that they can’t believe a white man singing about being a Moor either doesn’t know what a Moor was or has a bizarre standard of what a white man is. Saddam Hussein was a white man. Muamar Ghaddafi was a white man. Therefore the vast, vast majority of Moors were white men. Even if Orlando Bloom were cast as Othello, it would be perfectly in keeping with his Moorish roots.
It would be consistent with him being a Moor, but not with him being the particular Moor described by Shakespeare. The language used to insult Othello and that he uses as self-descriptors preclude him being a blue-eyed-blonde-haired Moor.
Bear in mind that what Shakespeare (who probably never met a non-white person in his life, or a non-Christian) called a “Moor” is not necessarily the same thing as an actual Moor.
You probably don’t have nearly as much exposure to Shakespeare as Anglophones do, so it’s understandable that you wouldn’t realize this, but Much Ado about Nothing isn’t actually set in Aragon, any more than The Merchant of Venice was set in Venice, or Hamlet was set in Denmark. There are only two places where Shakespeare’s plays are set: Around Here, and Foreign Parts (and even those two are often hard to distinguish). Ado is set in Foreign Parts. The specific Foreign Part is given a name because it has to be, but all that’s important is that it not be Around Here. Picture Shakespeare, whenever he’s writing a new play, throwing darts at a map of Europe to determine where it’s set, and then never doing any research whatsoever on that location.
Also, the Moors were white, and Othello was a Moor, but Othello was not white. The word as used by Shakespeare doesn’t mean the same thing as the word used historically for the actual group of people. Remember that Othello won his fame and glory in the first place by fighting against the Muslims, which the play seems to regard as a distinct group from the Moors.
But, again, this particular Moor is definitely meant to be dark skinned and it’s an important facet of his character. For a play the part could be adapted so that Othello’s an outsider in some other way, but for the opera the words can’t really be changed due to rhythm, etc (it’s not just a line or two).
I’m pretty sure there were people like Jews in London during Shakespeare’s time, and there were also some people of African descent in Britain as well at that time, albeit most of them (or their parents) arrived involuntarily.
The notion that someone living in London during Shakespeare’s time had NEVER met a non-Christian or NEVER met a non-white person is possible but not certain, and as the years went by more and more unlikely that such meetings had never occurred.
Yet, character recasting is not unheard of, either in television or movies. They are never mentioned in Batman or James Bond. They are practically routine in soap operas. Audiences get used to it.
For you, right now, it does. That doesn’t mean it must do so, unalterably, now and forever. You can get used to it in the same way that live theater audiences get used to it or that soap opera fans get used to it.
What’s more important: Preserving your entirely malleable and unnecessary boundary on suspension or disbelief—one that affects your quality of life at about zero and will be inconsequential once you stop being part of the audience—or giving more flexibility to producers and creators and a fairer job market for actors?
Movies certainly can be filmed plays. For many years, they were almost nothing but filmed plays. Of course, they don’t have to be; they can also be a lot more. They can play with the conventions of performance with almost an infinite range of variations.
They can show almost any kind of reality with or without explanation. The only thing they are (usually) not are fictional documentaries. They can be that, as well, but even then they don’t have to be set in a world that is exactly like ours, down to the detail.
Movies deviate in all kinds of ways from literal realities, such as messing around with time (go into a tunnel at midday and emerge seconds later at night) or location (turn a corner in New York and end up blocks away) and audiences don’t notice these and all kinds of other deviations from reality—such as family members generally not looking anything alike.
It’s a very tiny step from these kinds of things to skin color variations among relatives. It’s just one that audiences aren’t used to right now. There’s no reason they can’t get used to it. Indeed, the traditions of stage plays proves that they can get used to it.
And on top of that, it is perfectly possible for actual siblings to be of different races, either through adoption or through various genetic means, technologically sophisticated or not. For example, a woman with multiple sexual partners can give birth to twins of different races. It happens in real life, even.
Wasn’t there a headline a while back about a biracial man and a biracial woman who had a kid that just so happened to get pretty much nothing but white genes, plus a kid that just so happened to get pretty much nothing but black genes?
Patrick Stewart played Othello against an all black cast in 1997. That’s the first example I thought of when it comes to a need for consistency either way in casting.
Regarding, say, Bond, I think it’s funny that while the recasting of Bond may not be mentioned in the movies the recasting of M has been mentioned at least once. I think the line was something along the lines of “Your predecessor kept a bottle in that drawer” to Judi Dench as M in Goldeneye. And while the recasting hasn’t been mentioned, the passage of time sure has. I personally think that the plot of Goldfinger doesn’t make a lot of sense to people who don’t remember a Bretton Woods world, for instance.
Yep, like I said, for a play you can change some of the wording and have Othello be an outsider in some other way. The Stewart one is an excellent example.
In the opera changing the words to Othello being working-class or of a different religion or something would change the meter too much for it to be feasible; it’s not just one or two words but numerous entire lines and images that are extremely important to the story. Changing him to white and the rest of the cast to black could possibly work, as not so many changes would be needed, but if there were that many black opera singers available for a production (that is, I’m sure there are enough worldwide, but not enough able to perform in the same production in the same place) then it wouldn’t be necessary to have a white Othello in the first place.
Here’s why I don’t like the idea of a black Bond: A well-established character has certain defining characteristics and if you change too many, it stops being the same character. A black actor could easily play 008, a different MI-5 operative with similar duties and abilities, and why not? Have that guy from the Tanqueray ads play him. Part of Bond’s characterization is that he’s vested in Britain’s class system to a degree that I just don’t think it’s possible for a black Briton to be. Change that about him, and he just isn’t Bond any longer.
There are so many ways to re-envision a character that I don’t accept that any particular defining characteristic is essential. Look at how many different ways that the DC Comics characters have been re-envisioned on an almost yearly basis.
As to the particular point about the British class system, it’s perfectly possible to keep that exactly the same and simply ignore the race issue, or just not explain it.
There are so many things that movies do that are completely unrealistic. There’s absolutely no reason for skin color to be an impassable barrier. Audiences can become accustomed to ignore it, just like the thousands of others things that they are ignoring.
Hooray, I’m a cite! Also I studied Shakespeare and Post-Colonialism many, many years ago, but I took that reference from Peter Ackroyd’s London: The Biography
Bond is usually upper-class, but that doesn’t preclude a black man playing him. There are black students even at Eton. Not many, but some.
Felix Leiter has switched from white to black and back again and, of course, the new Miss Moneypenny is mixed race, so yeah, agreed, secondary characters can change race without much comment.
Interesting - I had no idea. Were they mostly slaves or free?
Incidentally, there were no Jews living in England during Shakespeare’s time, at least not openly. The expulsion order issued by Edward I was only rescinded in 1655 by Oliver Cromwell.
A major difference between British and American class systems is, the British class system is based on genetics–how closely are you related to royalty?–while America’s is primarily based on how much money you have. Moneyed blacks, Arabs and Indians in the UK, at heart, want to do away with a bloodlines-based aristocracy, while white “peers” invariably want to preserve it. The two positions are not interchangeable, and Bond’s is the latter position. He is a snob to the core. A Bond who isn’t vested in the existing class system in Britain would be like a Dracula who stays dead, or a Tarzan who was raised by cows instead of apes. It’s not the character we all know.
Leiter is American, and neither he nor Moneypenny is defined by more than two or three surface traits. They are not iconic characters, and Bond is. You can’t buy a Miss Moneypenny lunchbox.
I don’t think either you or I can say what moneyed non-whites want to do with the aristocracy; I certainly don’t think it’s as obvious as you think. Besides, Bond has always been posh or upper-class (refers to public school in the old Bonds, has a stately home in the Daniel Craig Bonds), not necessarily aristocracy. “Sir James/ Sir James Bond” (which I think I’ve heard Bond referred to as) does not mean he is a member of the aristocracy - that title is often earned through endeavours such as Bond is supposed to have undertaken.
FWIW, Sean Connery’s accent marked him out as not upper class (not because it was Scottish, but because of the type of Scottish; his accent is not upper-class Scottish), so there’s already been at least one non-upper-class Bond. That’s Sir Sean Connery, btw, the factory worker’s son, as an example of Sir not being inherited.