The Jamie Lloyd Company has hit back after its production of Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” has been the subject of what they call a “barrage of deplorable racial abuse” aimed at an unnamed cast member.

The play, directed by Jamie Lloyd (“Sunset Boulevard”), stars “Spider-Man: No Way Home” star Tom Holland as Romeo and Francesca Amewaduh-Rivers (“Sex Education”) as Juliet.

On Friday, the Jamie Lloyd Company issued a statement, saying: “Following the announcement of our ‘Romeo & Juliet’ cast, there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online directed towards a member of our company. This must stop.”

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Honestly, we do see a lot of this casting in the 21st century. A familiar character becomes black, whether it’s Annie or The Little Mermaid, and it leaves me ambivalent. However, in the case of Romeo and Juliet, it actually makes sense to have a racial component injected into the story. They are from warring families, correct? Race could be another point of conflict for them.

    (Besides, Shakespeare has been famously open to interpretation. Is Shylock a villain, comic relief, or a tragic victim of prejudice in his own time? That’s up to the director of the play, or the film.)

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Lol didn’t they even try casting James Bond as a black woman

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        No? You’re thinking of No Time To Die where they replace Bond with someone else (who happens to be a black woman) in the movie. She’s not Bond, but she’s the new 007.

        Or you could be thinking of when they were considering recasting the role with Idris Elba?

        Either way you’re wrong.

    • Breezy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The little mermaid one didn’t make sense to me, they’re under water probably 95% of their lives getting no sun. They all were definitely pale.

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Existing circumstancial evidence suggests that if you give them somewhat around forty to eighty thousand years they might lose at least some of it, depending on how much exposure to solar radiation they get… though interbreeding with Neanderthals and/or Denisovans might also help, too.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        The “underwater therefore white” doesn’t hold much water, in my opinion.

        What about all those dark-colored creatures? Tuna, whales, squids?

        • Breezy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Fish colors have nothing to do with melanin which determines human skin tone.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            So what?

            Bro, we’re talking about a fictional creature.

            Plus “fish color” is just one attribute. I also mentioned whales and squids.

            And we don’t even know how humans would evolve to live underwater.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Why do mermaids have to follow human skin tone rules instead of other aquatic mammals? Even if they’re humans who evolved a fish tail, they’ve been underwater long enough for melanin to not be the deciding color…