Online controversy: why do blacks have the right to play English aristocrats?

A new scandal heated up on social networks after the publication by the writer Tatyana Tolstoy of a review of the new American series.

“What not to watch.

Bridgerton: American TV series from the life of English high society 1813 goals.

1813, I emphasize. The ladies of high society are black, the ladies-in-waiting too. You might think they were all born from Othello.

Are they fu**** out of their minds? Yes. BLM, yeah.

At the 15th minute, she turned it off. Black English nobles are still small spits in the face of the viewer; much worse - senseless tightening of corsets when fashionable for Empire dresses (small boobs are in fashion, hello! And curls with spiral temples, a la sideways. And not the waist!). And inhuman American swagger: brothels of Alabama, Mississippi, Carolina. Such rural, steppe, with a toilet in the yard. Horror and shame..."

This post collected several thousand responses and comments, and, unfortunately, the majority supported the writer's indignation, so the professionals had to get involved. For example, the famous film critic Maria Kuvshinova published Tolstoy's answer in the form of an article, which, in particular, says:

“A simple rapid test for racism. If you are outraged / upset that in a historical film a black actor plays someone who could not be black (the Queen of England, aristocrats, the Little Mermaid), ask yourself the question: "Why is the color parameter so important to me?"

Because historicism has nothing to do with it - it is not achievable, even if you deliberately sew uncomfortable 1940s panties for the entire cast (I hope cotton was also grown for them according to the 1940s method). Actors eat different food, they are several centimeters taller than their ancestors, they move like people of the 21st century, they speak a different language, because even removing modern slang from dialogues, you still do not communicate like a hundred or two hundred years ago ... So why is skin color so important?

(...)

The idea that people with dark skin are fundamentally different from people with white skin arises in the late Middle Ages (Hippocrates believed that the color of a baby's skin is determined by the climate). But the main reason for its spread in its present form is the transatlantic slave trade, which began in the middle of the 16th century and continued until the beginning of the 19th. Compassion for one's own kind is a predetermined property of any human being, therefore, in order to transform another person into an object, it was necessary to turn him into a subordinate being with the help of an intellectual effort and attribute his insignificance to objective natural factors. Skin color is the most visible and obvious such factor; it was he who became a lifesaver in dehumanization. The African slave trade has been legitimized by the idea that blacks are human to a lesser or lesser extent, and dark skin indicates impurities that should be dealt with through hygiene. After the Holocaust, they don't like to remember this, but in the same United States, the idea of Jews (as well as Italians and Irish) as whites is a social contract “gradually achieved in the 20th century within the framework of social and political progress and inclusion..."

The writer Natasha Kiselyova drew attention to another, purely aesthetic aspect of the problem:

“Of course, sow sorry, but I'm not kicking, why is everyone so outraged by Netflix's Bridgerton? Are you out of your mind at all, dear experts? My standard question is why so serious?

Well, wow, black actors play in a costume film about England in the 19th century! And there are also Chinese ladies-in-waiting. Well, fucking now. In fact, we piled ourselves a bowl of Olivier and got ready for historical accuracy, now our green peas will not be overcooked. You will also make Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostov Ukrainians for us. Shaw? What is postmodernism? Who is this, the new precinct, or what?

If you are so color-sensitive, why weren't you confused by the acid colors of dresses and jewelry? At the beginning of the 19th century, there were no such dyes and fabrics. Why weren't you embarrassed by the covers of modern tracks on harps and pianos, no thought was hammered in your neurons? Why weren't you embarrassed by the evenly cut bangs on the eyebrow of the emancipated girl? So, stop, stop, who? What are the emancipated girls in England in 1813? Not allowed.

Why weren't you embarrassed that girls are choosing whom to marry? After all, in fact, they did not choose. Parents came to you and said, "Daughter, get acquainted, this is Petya Sinitsyn, you are marrying him." You're like, "Well, maaaaam." And the answer to you is: "So, chick, at Petenka's, eat and eat a bun, boy, parents are well-off, and we are beggars, so don’t mum, wedding the day after tomorrow, go comb your hair." Well, well, in England there would not be Petya Sinitsyn, but Sir Peter Bird Chikadi. The girls ran away from home or threw themselves into the river, but more often they lived with their unloved petya all their lives. And here in the series, the girls swipe "Nope" from morning to night. Not allowed.

And the bed scenes, well, why don’t you howl, that there wasn’t such a thing. The young duchess tumbles with the young duke for three episodes in a row. Although there is such a hot duke that I would not get off him for seven seasons and I would still have enough for a sequel, a prequel and a re-prequel. Wait a minute, I have to go to the bathroom. Came back, ugh, so what am I talking about? Ah, yes, duke. No, it's better not to start about the Duke. The young duchess has sex with him for, oh my God, exclusively for pleasure, and only after the 279th orgasm does she still ask her maid, but how do they make children in general. It turns out that a duke's head under a skirt doesn't lead to conception, oops. The bed scenes were filmed, by the way, very frankly, that for viewers who need "from lunch to the fence", of course, a break in the template, because we wanted about English England, and here they see ***... It turns out a mix of "Jane Austen" and "50 shades of gray". Not all-ow-ed.

That is, wait, the 19th century, where women choose men, fuck for pleasure and the head of state is also a woman, hmm, what is this being done, comrades? This is feminism or what? Oh, priests! That is, oh, my mothers! But what about the historical accuracy! Burn the writers at the stake! What other Tarantino burned Hitler in Inglourious Basterds? Who is this Tarantinov? The new head of the housing office, right?

And what kind of reasoning about accept me for who I am and I love you with all your shortcomings, such topics were not then at all. Although, what this duchess is, what the duke's flaws are, he's just a porn king. So everyone, lead me this duke here, to my chambers. Natasha, calm down already, but, firstly, you again confuse the film and real life, and secondly, no one is allowed into the emergency room, especially imaginary dukes, calm down and finish the post.

Dear experts, how to put it more literally, I am a writer after all, relax these like them, well, relax in general, let all the flowers grow, there will be different genres, formats and forms, otherwise it will be very, very, very boring. No, seriously, well, you can't even call the duke for a minute, right?

Update: I don't know why everyone decided that I recommend this series, I do not recommend it. But what I definitely recommend to everyone, regardless of gender, is to sleep with Duke Simon Bassett, at least in dreams. Grrrrrrrr..."

***

Social psychologist and popular blogger Alexey Roshchin agrees with both Kuvshinova and Kiseleva:

“For myself, in order to understand all this invasion of blacks into serials on historical and fairy-tale themes, I have long ago composed such a game model. Imagine some Norilsk city theater (or a zekov theater group), some 1949 or 1953 there. It is clear that all of Norilsk was then a city of convicts. And in the local theater, convicts Smoktunovsky and Zhzhenov began to play (in fact, I thought about them at first, that's why Norilsk). But can you imagine that Stalin's satraps sent another hundred or two blacks to the same Norilsk? It is possible - after all, they all shook everyone. Blacks could also. And so, for example, the negroes got to Norilsk, they cannot get out back; some of them would probably come to try their luck and unwind in the theater club. Let’s even assume that a lot of Negroes would have come - about 10 people. Well, don’t drive them out? I would not have kicked out the circle in the place of leadership, all the same, my brother is a prisoner. Let them play too!

But the question is - what? I would, like Evstigneev in Beware of the Automobile, also want to stage Hamlet. In general, why play in an amateur club in Norlag? Of course, the world classics are better! But the question is - what to do with our black members of the circle ?! We are all there together, comrades in misfortune! Well - to leave them outside the repertoire, just because in the world classics, except for the role of Othello, there are absolutely no "black" roles? !!

But this is unfair! I think any kind and uninhibited person would agree to include our negroids in productions on a general basis, even in Hamlet, even in The Seagull. And the audience - also from former or current convicts - would certainly not whistle, they would understand the situation. Well, there are 5 or 10 blacks in the troupe! Well, don't give roles at all? They play, and not passers-by are slaughtered in the evenings! This should be encouraged, not turned into outcasts. Indeed, in all honesty: only the first 5 minutes are dumb, then (if they play well, of course) - you get used to it and no longer pay attention to the color.

That is - from some aesthetic considerations, from the point of view of "familiarity" - maybe it would be better in the old way, "only from whites." But the point is that today we are all convicts in big Norilsk, and this, by and large, cannot be changed. Means, than to fight in an evil hysterics - blacks should be taken on roles. And nothing can be done about it. Three conditions: a) if they want b) if they can c) if they try.

That is, in general, the conditions are the same as for ALL. Whatever skin color. I understand that almost no one will agree with me in the comments - but among the readers, I think, many will agree. The world is big Norilsk, and if Negroes appeared among the convicts, let them come to our theatrical circle. And the Asians too. It is only important to keep the line - not to do it by order, such as the introduction of "quotas", as it is now in Hollywood. How to avoid quotas and not put a barrier?

Perhaps there should be two theater groups in Norilsk. One is racist, the other is led by Kuvshinova and, for example, me. In one - performances with blacks, tolerant, in the other - authentic "historical", only with whites. And let the good Russian convicts walk, look, choose ... The truth must win in the end.

And, by the way, why should we pretend to be some kind of virgin and incredible adherents of "historical truth." Tatyana Tolstoy should certainly be ashamed. Our dear and at the same time completely outrageous BLM is, for example, the popularly adored Bronevoy as the chief of the Gestapo (!) Müller. And nobody writes obscene comments. For some reason.

- Yes, yes, according to this "logic of authenticity", black actors have the right to play only slaves and servants in all costume historical films. No discrimination, yeah. For some reason, Freundlich, with her appearance, played the Queen of France with Spanish roots and everything is ok, and for black actresses the baroness of English nizya-nizya. Bravo. Well, I’m already generally silent that this is a fictional plot, in fact a drama about gossip, about the alleged 19th century, supposedly England. And the sense of irony seems to have broken in principle for many..."