In response to fan criticism of diverse casting decisions in productions like Amazon Prime’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power and HBO’s House of the Dragon, it was suggested by the hosts of a prominent network morning show that the reason a group of fans are criticizing the casting of people of color in these popular productions is because this group doesn’t like people of color. While that could be possible for a few misguided individuals, it’s also possible that the morning show watchdogs are barking up the wrong tree. A problem is being revealed here, but there might be more to it than simply dismissing these vocal fans as racist.
The fans who are getting upset over diverse casting decisions are also making this sound like a simple issue. The core of their complaint is that instead of honoring the source material, studio heads are prioritizing personal agendas and current cultural values over the timeless integrity of beloved franchises. But is that accusation any more thoughtful, objective, and accurate than assuming that fans who are critical of diverse casting decisions must be racists?
The Lasting Effects of Casting Success
Casting is a challenging task that’s easy to overlook. It can help a film or series rise to the heights of a timeless classic, or sink to the depths of a forgettable failure. Consider HBO’s Game of Thrones. The star power of Sean Bean was an important part of getting the series off the ground, but it was carried by a large cast of relative unknowns, led by Emilia Clarke and Kit Harington. The writing, directing, production, and casting all came together to make Game of Thrones a special series.
Star power is just one of a number of factors that have guided casting decisions since the earliest years of film and television. The other primary considerations are style, talent, marketing, and budget. But in recent years, another factor has begun to vie for primary consideration: representation.
Representation in Film
Representation in film is not a new concept. A good screenplay has always had to keep a film’s story, audience, and message in mind. And because movies and shows are ultimately part of an artistic medium — confined by the limits of time as much as a great painting is confined by the edges of its canvas — even scripts based on true stories often use artistic representation to capture the story’s essence and enhance its emotional impact.
A great example of artistic representation can be found in one of the most popular based-on-a-true-story sports movies of all time, Rudy. One of the things that makes David Anspaugh’s 1993 film so appealing is the idea that it really happened. But the real-life story and the film story aren’t exactly the same. Three very key characters in the film were invented for the sake of artistic representation.
One fictional character in Rudy was an older brother who represented all the real people in Rudy’s life who tried to discourage his dreams. Two others, a groundskeeper and priest that never existed, represented all the real people in Rudy’s life who tried to encourage his dreams. Is the film true to the real-life story? Not with characters who never existed and were included for the sake of artistic representation. But is it possible that it honors the real-life story, and that the invented characters made it a better film, a better work of art? Yes, and yes.
So, if artistic representation decisions are acceptable even when telling stories of fact-based, historical drama, why are fans now getting upset at casting decisions guided by representation in works like House of the Dragon, which aren’t bound to historical facts in any way? The distinction might be that the representation that has recently been happening in diverse casting decisions has nothing to do with the art of storytelling or filmmaking, and may even run contrary to artistic excellence.
Cultural Representation and Artistic Representation are Two Different Things
Representation has become a focus of the entertainment industry. But when producers, directors and actors are promoting representation in interviews and acceptance speeches these days, they’re not referring to artistic representation. They’re talking about cultural representation. A great example of cultural representation — a filmmaking decision made for cultural reasons rather than artistic reasons — can be found in the 2019 film, The Aeronauts.
Like Rudy, the story of The Aeronauts is based on an amazing, real-life accomplishment. James Glaisher and Henry Coxwell were scientists and balloon pilots who broke the world altitude record in 1862 by ascending to over 31,000 feet in a hot-air balloon. Mechanical problems made them continue rising, and the 53-year-old Glaisher lost consciousness. Fighting the cold and lack of oxygen, Coxwell heroically climbed the balloon’s rigging to free a tangled valve line so that they could descend, and survive.
For the 2019 film, director Tom Harper made the writing and casting decision to replace the part of Henry Coxwell with that of a female, who was played by Felicity Jones. His artistic reason was to create the most interesting character dynamic, but his cultural reason — that he believes there has been a gender bias against women in both film and science — looms much, much larger, mostly because the reasoning behind his artistic representation falls apart under close examination.
The Aeronauts had many instances of pure artistic representation as well — decisions to borrow, invent, or alter parts of the story, such as Glaisher’s age — and the director was frustrated that no one questioned those decisions at all, while nearly everyone asked about his decision to change one of the heroes from male to female. But it shows that there’s a very real difference in people’s minds between decisions of artistic representation and decisions of cultural representation, and that they can tell when something is done for cultural rather than artistic reasons. It stands out.
The Difficulty with Cultural Representation
The real difficulty with cultural representation might be that, regardless of what the decision is, pure cultural representation opens the door to the possibility that a decision was made in spite of the art, not for it.
This is a legitimate concern in a world where people hold the things they love as sacred. Whether great works of art, or historical fact, or philosophical truth, the fans are naturally and rightly protecting the things they love. Filmmakers and storytellers need to understand a line is being crossed when they decide to paint the expression they’d rather see on the face of the Mona Lisa.
But at the same time, the people who hold great works of art sacred need to understand that not all cultural representation is profane. How much can a Game of Thrones fan object to the culturally representative casting in House of the Dragon to make the Velaryons a house of color, when the original creator himself, George R.R. Martin, happily approved of the decision? J.R.R Tolkien was a compassionate man who had a great love for language and myth because he had a great love for people. Knowing that, it’s hard to imagine him agreeing that the diverse casting decisions in Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power are crossing a sacred line.
Handling Cultural Representation With Care
There are times that cultural representation will dishonor something held sacred, but there are times when it won't, and it may even have a kind of honor of its own. Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13 took great care to stay historically accurate, and probably wouldn’t have considered replacing one of its white male astronauts with a person of color or a female. Can anyone really say they should have? In Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 film Much Ado About Nothing, Denzel Washington was cast as an Italian prince and the brother of a character played by Keanu Reeves. Would Shakespeare have objected? Both were excellent films.
Perhaps the uproar about diverse casting decisions is, like so many things these days, being taken too far on both sides. Everyone who objects to diverse casting decisions isn’t racist or sexist, and everyone who's making diverse casting decisions isn’t out to ruin something for the sake of their own cultural agendas. Rather than trying to win extreme arguments at all costs, it may be better for all concerned to try listening to one other, and learning from one another. That kind of respect and collaboration might just result in the highest level of excellence when bringing great works of art to the screen.