Uncategorized
https://www.themarysue.com/1917-diversity-history/
Sam Mendes’ World War I masterpiece 1917 is a frontrunner for the Best Picture Oscar, so I guess now is the time for people to come out of the woodwork with very bad opinions about it.
One such stupid opinion is that of Laurence Fox. Fox is an English actor you’ve likely never heard of (his credits include Victoria), son of another obscure actor, James Fox. The younger Fox appeared on the James Delingpole podcast (I don’t think I could make up a more British name) to whine about a scene in 1917 that included a Sikh soldier.
In the scene, traumatized and solitary soldier Schofield (George MacKay) finds himself on a transport with several other soldiers, including a Sikh soldier, Sepoy Jondalar, played by Nabhaan Rizwan. The moment isn’t emphasized, with the focus of the scene staying on Schofield, but it is noticeable and welcome to see a non-white soldier there.
For Laurence Fox, however, it was distracting and that’s where we come to his tone-deaf comments on diversity: “Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier, which is great, it’s brilliant,” he said, “but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like ‘OK, you’re now diverting me away from what the story is’.” Apparently this guy can’t concentrate on a scene if there aren’t just white people in it. How terrible for him.
He went on to agree with the asshole host about “shoehorning” in diversity: “It is kind of racist—if you talk about institutional racism, which is what everyone loves to go on about, which I’m not a believer in, there is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way. You don’t want to think about [that].”
Fox is wrong on so many levels here: Institutional racism is a thing—and a very real and big problem in both the UK and America—but even more pressing, the diversity in 1917 is not forced. It’s accurate and important. Sikh soldiers were a real and important part of World War I.
Thankfully, The MAMA Project, a UK organization dedicated to stopping Anti-Muslim violence, took time to educate yet another ignorant white guy.
History lesson for Laurence Fox:
Every sixth British soldier serving in WW1 was from the Indian subcontinent, Sikhs made up more than 20% of the volunteer army (close to 1.5m served).
74,187 Indian soldiers died and a comparable number were wounded.
Photos: UKPHA Archive. pic.twitter.com/NtCRd6mpQs
— TellMAMAUK (@TellMamaUK) January 21, 2020
Laurence Fox’s comments show the pervasive ignorance that comes from white privilege and living inside a bubble where white stories and people are the default and all that matter. It can be argued that 1917 does not go far enough in terms of diversity. The whole film could have been about a Sikh as easily as it was about a white man, but it is also a story based on Mendes’ own grandfather, so some of the whiteness of the film can be explained. What can’t be said is that the diversity in the film is too much. It’s a subtle, great addition to the film. It makes the movie better and it matters to audiences.
Rahul Kohli, who we loved on iZombie, tweeted about the impact of the moment.
1917 moved me in many ways. One way I wasn’t expecting was the inclusion of Indian soldiers, something many war films seem to neglect. I sat in the theatre with tears in my eyes at the mere sight of a Sikh soldier. I knew representation mattered, I just didn’t know how much. pic.twitter.com/t3oZv1FL2c
— Rahul Kohli (@RahulKohli13) January 11, 2020
1917 is not just an incredible film because it’s about war, but because it is a film about humanity. It follows a single person relentlessly and painstakingly through the hellscape of World War I and recognized that it wasn’t an all-white world. In doing so it shed light not just on the horrors of the war, but the people who fought in it, Sikhs included.
Fox, for his part, has been educated on this and actually apologized, even if it was wishy-washy.
Fellow humans who are #Sikhs
I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.
Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.
L
— LAURENCE FOX (@LozzaFox) January 23, 2020
Hopefully, he won’t be the last person that learns from this film.
(via: Yahoo entertainment, image: Universal)
Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!
—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—
Sam Mendes’ World War I masterpiece 1917 is a frontrunner for the Best Picture Oscar, so I guess now is the time for people to come out of the woodwork with very bad opinions about it.
One such stupid opinion is that of Laurence Fox. Fox is an English actor you’ve likely never heard of (his credits include Victoria), son of another obscure actor, James Fox. The younger Fox appeared on the James Delingpole podcast (I don’t think I could make up a more British name) to whine about a scene in 1917 that included a Sikh soldier.
In the scene, traumatized and solitary soldier Schofield (George MacKay) finds himself on a transport with several other soldiers, including a Sikh soldier, Sepoy Jondalar, played by Nabhaan Rizwan. The moment isn’t emphasized, with the focus of the scene staying on Schofield, but it is noticeable and welcome to see a non-white soldier there.
For Laurence Fox, however, it was distracting and that’s where we come to his tone-deaf comments on diversity: “Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier, which is great, it’s brilliant,” he said, “but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like ‘OK, you’re now diverting me away from what the story is’.” Apparently this guy can’t concentrate on a scene if there aren’t just white people in it. How terrible for him.
He went on to agree with the asshole host about “shoehorning” in diversity: “It is kind of racist—if you talk about institutional racism, which is what everyone loves to go on about, which I’m not a believer in, there is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way. You don’t want to think about [that].”
Fox is wrong on so many levels here: Institutional racism is a thing—and a very real and big problem in both the UK and America—but even more pressing, the diversity in 1917 is not forced. It’s accurate and important. Sikh soldiers were a real and important part of World War I.
Thankfully, The MAMA Project, a UK organization dedicated to stopping Anti-Muslim violence, took time to educate yet another ignorant white guy.
History lesson for Laurence Fox:
Every sixth British soldier serving in WW1 was from the Indian subcontinent, Sikhs made up more than 20% of the volunteer army (close to 1.5m served).
74,187 Indian soldiers died and a comparable number were wounded.
Photos: UKPHA Archive. pic.twitter.com/NtCRd6mpQs
— TellMAMAUK (@TellMamaUK) January 21, 2020
Laurence Fox’s comments show the pervasive ignorance that comes from white privilege and living inside a bubble where white stories and people are the default and all that matter. It can be argued that 1917 does not go far enough in terms of diversity. The whole film could have been about a Sikh as easily as it was about a white man, but it is also a story based on Mendes’ own grandfather, so some of the whiteness of the film can be explained. What can’t be said is that the diversity in the film is too much. It’s a subtle, great addition to the film. It makes the movie better and it matters to audiences.
Rahul Kohli, who we loved on iZombie, tweeted about the impact of the moment.
1917 moved me in many ways. One way I wasn’t expecting was the inclusion of Indian soldiers, something many war films seem to neglect. I sat in the theatre with tears in my eyes at the mere sight of a Sikh soldier. I knew representation mattered, I just didn’t know how much. pic.twitter.com/t3oZv1FL2c
— Rahul Kohli (@RahulKohli13) January 11, 2020
1917 is not just an incredible film because it’s about war, but because it is a film about humanity. It follows a single person relentlessly and painstakingly through the hellscape of World War I and recognized that it wasn’t an all-white world. In doing so it shed light not just on the horrors of the war, but the people who fought in it, Sikhs included.
Fox, for his part, has been educated on this and actually apologized, even if it was wishy-washy.
Fellow humans who are #Sikhs
I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.
Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.
L
— LAURENCE FOX (@LozzaFox) January 23, 2020
Hopefully, he won’t be the last person that learns from this film.
(via: Yahoo entertainment, image: Universal)
Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!
—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—
Last week, rumors swirled that Disney+ cancelled its recently announced Obi-Wan Kenobi series starring Ewan McGregor. Fans panicked, but evidence indicated those reports were untrue. According to a report Thursday on Collider, the Obi-Wan series was delayed indefinitely, although it is not outright cancelled. Ewan McGregor and Lucasfilm seemingly remain committed to making this series a reality.
Lucasfilm
The report says that producers for the show, set to begin shooting at Pinewood Studios in London, sent the crew home. The hope is that the show could start gearing up again to start shooting as soon as this coming summer. Why the reason for the delay? Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy evidently reacted unhappy to the scripts. As they get reworked, it’s unclear whether or not screenwriter Hossein Amini (Drive) and director Deborah Chow (The Mandalorian) will stay on board. Another story in The Hollywood Reporter added that the feeling was that the current scripts were too similar to The Mandalorian, and had Obi-Wan protecting a young Luke (and possibly Leia?!?) from hostile forces. They also said the project had gone from six episodes down to four.
As most Star Wars fans know, Lucasfilm originally conceived the Obi-Wan series as a feature film. But after Solo flopped at the box office, the studio decided to take all of those “A Star Wars Story” side movies and transform them into Disney+ series. Rumor has it that the Josh Trank Boba Fett movie simply morphed into The Mandalorian. And thus, the Obi-Wan movie became a series as well. Rumors became fact when Ewan McGregor finally confirmed the series on stage last summer at the D23 Expo. He even admitted he’d kept it a secret for nearly five years.
Lucasfilm
So what becomes of the Obi-Wan Kenobi series now? As long as Ewan McGregor remains committed to the role, I don’t think Disney+ will cancel it outright. Fans have been clamoring for years to see something new with McGregor’s Obi-Wan ever since he last wielded a lightsaber in Revenge of the Sith, and it’s exciting to imagine him playing a version of the legendary Jedi Knight that hues closer to Alec Guinness’ portrayal in A New Hope. If nothing else, Lucasfilm probably doesn’t want to dodge questions for the next decade or more about how they dropped the ball on a potential Obi-Wan show.
If Lucasfilm is unsure of the creative direction of the potential Obi-Wan show, it’s probably better to hit pause on production until they get their ducks in a row. There’s no firm release date to meet (as with The Rise of Skywalker), and no one wants another situation like what happened behind-the-scenes with Rogue One and Solo. With the level of anticipation that the Kenobi show has, this is a show people want to see come together harmoniously. Here’s hoping this all gets sorted out soon, and we see Ewan McGregor swinging his lightsaber on set very soon.
Featured Image: Lucasfilm
The post Disney+ OBI-WAN KENOBI Series Put On Hold appeared first on Nerdist.