Netflix causes international uproar over Cleopatra

Post Reply New Topic

Netflix is facing a law suite from an Egyptian lawyer for its "documentary" directed by Jada Pinkett Smith called Cleopatra.
https://www.jpost.com/omg/article-739745

According to the Egyptian lawsuit states that “most of what Netflix platform displays do not conform to Islamic and societal values." Lawyer Mahmoud al-Semary filed the lawsuit with a public prosecutor with the intention of having Netflix banned in Egypt for what he claimed was a distortion of history.

Background on the issue
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... na-gharavi

This is why I'm uncomfortable with turning non-white characters black. Fan art is fine imo, but like, at some point it becomes Asian, Native, etc erasure.

The specific issue stems from Jada Pinkett Smith going beyond creative license and calling "Cleopatra" an "educational documentary" and second getting approval from Netflix to call it a documentary.

This goes above and beyond anything before. If you have black characters in a work of fiction nobody cares if its mean't to be "art"

Netflix have done this before with Queen Charlotte and Anne Boylen casting black actressses to play real historical characters. Quite clearly this time the Egyptian government and Egyptian people will not allow Jada's "fantasy work" to pushed into the living rooms of Egyptian households as historical fact.

I was actually mostly referring to people who turn canonically Asian anime characters black for "diversity" points..... like, the characters being Asian wasn't diverse enough? (Yes, I'm aware that it's hardly diverse to be light skinned Asian in Asia, esp Japan. I'm also aware that dark skinned Asians exist.)
Idk. A pet peeve, mainly.

But yeah. I actually have run into stuff before where black people wish to claim Egyptian stuff as black history? Idk. Someone clarify things for me ig.

I think there's a significant difference between race-swapping a fictional character in comparison to a real historical figure. When presenting a documentary, the director should aim to be as accurate as possible.

Now, regarding fictional characters, I think it depends. For instance, there's a Netflix adaption of a book I'm reading at the moment. The actor of one of the characters is a different race than what is described in the book. However, it doesn't really make much of a difference. The adaptation is excellent because it captures the tone of the book perfectly.

I've also noticed that the dialogue is almost word for word, there are some changes where scenes are switched around, but it's pretty consistent with the source material. The character still feels in line with the character in the book, he still has the same personality, mannerisms and speech style. You can tell who he is right from the moment he's introduced, partly due to how word for word the scenes play out.

However, there are times when a character is race-swapped and it hurts a story. Either through unfortunate implications, or sometimes when a character's race was a fundamental aspect, then making this change can backfire.

Ironically Cleopatra had no non-white ancestry that we know of, although one can never know for certain, but I can see how in modern-day Egypt her dynasty might not be viewed favorably due to their "European-ness" sort of like some people get into a snit over the German/Greek whatever origins of the "Windsor" dynasty.

I doubt most modern-day Egyptians care very much about the details but their reaction to this drama might not be what was intended for Eurocentric audiences.

So here's a different sort of example.

Suppose in the mid-20th Century there had been an Afrikaner Rugby player who was well known to have supported Apartheid, but was such a brilliant Rugby player that, at the time, he was renowned throughout the world of Rugby enthusiasts regardless of nationality and little mention was made of his political views (which I suppose would have been typical of an Afrikaner of that era). Suppose Netflix decided to make a documentary about his life and career. Millions of Rugby fans world-wide would likely watch it, but it would not be generally popular in South Africa and it would probably not be unlikely that somebody in the Government would actually protest.

No one complained when Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra, or when an English actor played Julius Caesar. How about when Charlton Heston played Moses and Yul Brynner played a Pharaoh? The contemporary descriptions of these historical figures appearance are scant and race as we would recognize it is only about 500 years old. Also, no one complained when Egyptologists into the 20th century claimed that the inhabitants of Pharaohnic Egypt were of European extraction, as Saharan ethnic groups and Sub-Saharans (look into the origins of that term ) could not possibly have built pyramids or charted stars.

Egyptians, ancient and modern, were of various racial origins. Migrations and invasions. And their ruling elite was sometimes native and sometimes consisted of invading foreign conquerers...and the invaders came from every direction in its long history (from west Asia, from Europe, from deeper into Africa).

In my humble opinion...anyone who looks at the burial sarcophagus of King Tut would conclude that he looked like a American Black (ie someone with west African blood). Full lips, and the right nose type.


https://youtu.be/E0HMPPH9MrY

On the other hand you can see "the Berlin bust" (sculpted Roman portrait) of Cleopatra on Wiki, and can see her profile on any of the over hundred coins that survive from her reign online, and can readily see what she looked like, and can see that she looked like a typical big nosed Arab, or Jewish, lady. Kinda what you would expect a queen of an Eastern Mediterranean state to look like. Not "Black" looking. But "Caucasian", but not "white-White" (ie not WASP north European).

IF Cleopatra had gotten a nose job she might well have looked like Elizabeth Taylor ( who was Jewish).

As it turns out, Elizabeth Taylor was not ethnically (Ashkenazi) Jewish, she was raised Christian Scientist and converted.

So Cleopatra and her forebears were Hellenistic, originating in Macedonia and (I suppose) descended from Alexander. Comparing her appearance to King Tut or Nefertiti is an apples and oranges comparison. Those dynasties had an entirely different origin. Apparently some dynasties were from the upper Nile valley and could have had a darker complexion, however that would be irrelevant as regards Cleopatra, given that those people ruled Egypt centuries before Cleopatra's lot (the Ptolemys) showed up. I will admit the the "purity" of Cleopatra's ancestry might well have diminished over the generations but that is no reason to assume she would have appeared as a black person to a modern-day person (plus a couple of likenesses from the time).

It is actually relevant. One can imagine that the Royal Household at that time was comprised of people with lighter skin that that of the typical Egyptian and if that were to be portrayed it might contribute to the point being made by the TV show. It could also be seen as a harbinger of complete Roman domination.

^ I kept reading and was glad someone finally said it. I thought Cleopatra was a Greek transplant into Egypt, and were they even practicing Islam at that time? Regardless of the color, it's always the women they have a problem with.

My issue with netflix giving the green light as a "documentary", Schools might be tempted to show this during history class for having that simple word in the captions/credits.

Both the experts who were shown in the trailer and the actress who played Cleopatra made inaccurate statements about the authenticity of the portrayal. Whether they did this intentionally is unknown but it does have consequences.

There seems to be two parties to blame for audience dissatisfaction
1. Jada Pinkett Smith. I think she is literally using this production as an opportunity to showcase black actors (she has been vocal about the lack of black talent being cast when she and Will Smith started their hashtag about Oscars being white. The irony is that African American actors have also complained about black British actors being over-represented in Hollywood. I'm not sure if she kept that in mind when she cast a British actress to play Cleopatra (but that's another story)

In the series about African queens Pinkett Smith has chosen a queen who was geographically in Africa to showcase African historical figures but it falls over on several levels. Apart from the obvious one (that Cleopatra was Macedonian), the so called "black" people from the horn of Africa (Nubians, Somali and Ethiopians) who did interact with Egypt and shared culture (Nubia and Punt were contemporaneous with ancient Egypt) did not (and current do not) never affiliated themselves with West Africans from where almost all African Americans descend from. This illustrates a serious cultural faux pas committed by Pinkett Smith that she assumes she can label all of Africa "black" including cultures who want nothing to do with the label or care about Afro-American identity politics. Secondly the horn Africans are phenotypically quite distinct. I have seen videos where another Egyptian Queen Nefertiti has been shown to have similar features to Somali women. Even if there is some element of descent from horn Africans in her bloodline (or the highly unlikely scenario for even Cleopatra) it really doesn't matter since modern Somali don't associate their culture or values with either west Africa or African Americans anymore than Egyptians or north Africans.

2. The second party at fault is Netflix. They have clearly done this because they knew it would be free publicity = advertising $$. Their executives banked on having a highly controversial figure like Pinkett-Smith produce this series + casting characters as "historic" and as an educational documentary would boost ad revenue. It's a no-brainer.