Is ‘colour-blind’ casting the best way to ensure onscreen diversity?

In the past couple of years, British-Indian actor Dev Patel began and started what looks like a new trend for actors of color by playing lead parts usually essayed by Caucasian actors. 

This year he was King Arthur's nephew, Sir Gawain in David Lowery’s The Green Knight. Last year, he played the title role in Armando Iannucci’s The Personal History of David Copperfield. In addition to Patel, the supporting cast for both of these films had actors of color cast in parts traditionally played by Caucasian actors.

The makers say that they had brought a new verve to these works of literature and history by 'colour-blind' casting i.e. casting with no consideration for a character’s racial ethnicity. They claimed it would ensure diversity on screen.

Is this a step in the right direction?

Decades ago it was common practice for Caucasian actors to play people of color. 

To be Indian, for instance, Caucasian actors had a generous amount of tan lotion smeared on their faces, a caricature of the Indian accent with the headshake, and an obsequious smile. As an Indian, it seemed highly inauthentic and comical, it was a distraction and harmed the films telling serious stories. I was emphatically was not offensive.

It worked when Peter Sellers did it because The Party was a comedy.

But certainly harmed a serious film such as A Passage to India when Alec Guinness played Professor Godbole. Guinness is one of the finest screen actors in the history of cinema but was handicapped by the layers of makeup and the accent. Unlike caricatures of the past, Guinness did a respectable job but obviously lacked authenticity.

Funnily enough, Dev Patel himself did a version of this with a caricature of an Indian accent, a servile smile, and the headshake in The Best Exotic Indian Hotel and its sequel.

There was also Laurence Olivier as Othello and as the Muhammad Ahmed, the Mahdi, Mickey Rooney as a Japanese landlord, Charlton Heston as a Mexican prosecutor, John Wayne as Genghis Khan, and several more. The same tools were applied i.e. an odd accent with tan lotion or face prosthetics.

Sean Connery retained his Scottish accent when he played the Raisoulli in The Wind and the Lion. There was probably a slight hint of a generic Middle Eastern type accent but it wasn't overwhelming. He also didn't resort to tan lotion. Consequently, it worked rather well and didn't seem like the usual caricature.

Those, always looking to be offended, will claim that it is proof that Hollywood was blatantly racist and that they wanted to ensure White supremacy.

The truth is that John Wayne or Charlton Heston or Sean Connery were global box office draws, hence casting them in a big-budget epic provided some guarantee of return on investment. Casting an unknown actor of the same ethnic origin as that of the character would be a much riskier proposition. Hollywood, when you ignore all the facade, is a business, if they cannot make money, their existence is futile.

It is also true that back in those days, there were no major non-American characters created by screenwriters Hence, the question of casting actors of that racial ethnicity never even arose. 

Omar Sharif was probably the exception to this rule, he was often cast in Caucasian films such as Dr. Zhivago and Tamarind Seed.

Is the casting of non-Caucasians in Caucasian parts an effective way to counter the wrongs of the past where Caucasians were cast in non-Caucasian roles?

Certainly not, for a historical film to be authentic, every conceivable element in it has to be factual, that includes the race of the actors.

King Arthur was white and hence must be played by a white actor. Obama is black and hence must be played by a black actor. Kim Jong-un is East-Asian and must be played by an East Asian actor. Shivaji was Indian and must be played by an Indian actor. If you alter that, the film becomes a work of fiction.

Back in 1982, Richard Attenborough did well on this front in Gandhi. He cast actors not just based on their acting abilities but also on the racial ethnicity of their characters. The film was a big-budget epic but it worked wonders both critically and commercially. But the film was financed by myriad sources and hence Attenborough had the liberty of casting. Had this been strictly a Hollywood production we would probably have Sean Connery playing Gandhi. I would have watched that film.

What about fictitious characters?

Can actors of colour play Sherlock Holmes or James Bond. Of course, they can, but the authors of these characters always envisioned them as Caucasian. However, since the character is fictional, an artistic license can be taken.

But that would still seem like the hijacking of a character. The faces may be different, but the culture may be altered a bit, but the backdrop and the manner of telling the story remain the same.

The makers should rather look for diverse stories to tell. For instance, instead of casting a brown actor to play Sherlock Holmes, why not make a film or a TV Series about popular Indian fictional detective Byomkesh Bakshi. Why not just create a contemporary brown ace detective or a brown super spy.

The same applies to other actors of color, instead of casting them in Caucasian parts, why not look for ethnic literature and history so that they can play parts congruent to their race and ethnicity.

‘Colour-blind’ casting is analogous to old wine in a new bottle and the change is merely cosmetic and superficial.

Real diversity and inclusiveness can only be achieved by telling diverse stories from diverse sources. This should broaden the horizon of audiences and make them more understanding of other cultures.