‘Romeo & Juliet’ Play Starring Tom Holland and Francesca Amewaduh-Rivers Faces ‘Barrage of Racial Abuse,’ Producer Says ‘This Must Stop’
‘Romeo & Juliet’ Play Starring Tom Holland and Francesca Amewaduh-Rivers Faces ‘Barrage of Racial Abuse,’ Producer Says ‘This Must Stop’
The Jamie Lloyd Company has hit back after its 'Romeo & Juliet' play has been the subject of racial abuse aimed at an unnamed cast member.
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.”
You're viewing a single thread.
"Unnamed cast member"? Is it that they think we're really stupid, or that it's actually not people complaining about the black Juliet, and they want to make it look like it is?
How bizarre...
Spoiler alert, Tom Holland is actually playing Juliet.
tbf he's pretty cute
"towards a member of our company"
This is the actual quote, not from Variety.
I know, the "they" in my comment is the Jamie Lloyd Company. Super weird to be willing to say the nature/motivation of the abuse is racism, but then be unwilling to name which cast member it is, if it is in fact Amewaduh-Rivers.
Something is not adding up.
No, this is how you properly show solidarity.
An attack against a single cast member is an attack against the entire company.
They are saying "it doesn't matter who they attacked. Racism against our cast member is racism against us all because we are a family that stands with a single purpose, speaks with a single voice."
And if it only redirects 1% of the aggression away from the intended target and towards the white cast members instead, then it is worth it.
That's how you be a good ally
No, this is how you properly show solidarity.
An attack against a single cast member is an attack against the entire company.
This would hold water if they didn't go out of their way to say it was race-motivated abuse.
They did, so it doesn't.
if it only redirects 1% of the aggression away from the intended target and towards the white cast members instead, then it is worth it.
lmao, this sentiment is the exact opposite of solidarity, and invokes the fundamentally-racist 'white savior' trope, to boot.
white savior trope
I and other white allies literally stood in front of police with crowd control weapons when my black friends yelled 'white shield' during the BLM protests in Seattle but tell me more 🤣 I'm nobody's savior but I do know how to use my privilege for the benefit of others
This would hold water if they didn't go out of their way to say it was race-motivated abuse.
So the options are "don't reference the racism at all" or "name the victim"? Fuck outta here with that shit.
I and other white allies literally stood in front of police with crowd control weapons when my black friends yelled 'white shield' during the BLM protests in Seattle but tell me more
Apparently, I do need to tell you more, since you clearly don't understand that the fact that your black friends were literally verbally encouraging you, makes the above the literal opposite of "white savior".
So the options are "don't reference the racism at all" or "name the victim"?
No, the point is that those are effectively identical (since she is the only known black cast member), so why would you do one and not the other? Either do both, or neither. They also went out of their way to say there was exactly one victim. Why? Why do that, if their goal is not to clearly identify the one and only person who fits all of the criteria they put out?
That's weird, bottom line. If you asked me what 2 + 2 is and I was willing to tell you it was "the number that's half of 8", but I refused to say "4", wouldn't you think that was weird of me?
Your mental gymnastics are astounding. Done with you. Waste of my time 👋
lol, I was perfectly clear, even gave you a simple analogy, but I guess that was just beyond you.
Transparent move to preserve your ego by convincing yourself of my "mental gymnastics", giving yourself an excuse for why you had no response.
This would hold water if they didn’t go out of their way to say it was race-motivated abuse.
Why would they ignore what it is? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
It adds up to me. It doesn't matter which cast member it is; it's deplorable regardless.
It also doesn't matter what kind of abuse it is, all abuse is deplorable regardless.
But they made a point of saying it was racial abuse. And they also made a point of not naming the one being abused, which is basically unheard of in an article like this.
Come on. It's weird.
Naming abuse victims enables further abuse.
Not naming them was the correct thing to do, unless it is your goal to get them abused even more.
I'm not talking about whether you should or shouldn't, just noticing that every single other time there's a situation like this, the victim IS named. This is definitely a pretty unique circumstance.
But the point stands--if indeed their aim was to keep attention off the abused, why even put out a public statement about it at all, given the fact that this cast has a headlining member that is very conspicuously of a different race than what the average schmoe would expect? Isn't that antithetical to that goal, then?
'We don't want to bring any negative attention to this victim of racial abuse by naming them--this victim of racial abuse in this run of Romeo & Juliet where Juliet is played by a black woman.'
I mean, come on, lol.
Usage of language is important. As has been mentioned, it doesn't repeatedly mention her name as it isn't necessary.
Naming abuse victims enables further abuse.
So....like....you think racists are reading this article chomping at the bit to find out who is black so they can attack them but since there is no name that has kept them safe? The people who WOULD have attacked based on this article don't bother to just google the cast?
It's to point the attention at the abuse rather than the abused. Much like in cases which go to court, victims aren't often explicitly named to protect them unless they volunteer to make themselves public so that others will come forward.
The people who WOULD have attacked based on this article don't bother to just google the cast?
Why bother? Every single article I've seen after some quick googling, 4 out of 4, has a huge pic of Holland and Amewaduh-Rivers front and center on the page.
Even the densest racist can glean the information, it's being handed to them, lol.
Which is why this is so confusing. Imagine one random article during all the black Ariel drama saying 'there have been racial comments but for safety reasons we will not say against who'
Brah we know.
It didn't say that.
Maybe someone is Scottish, and Scottish people are made at him for beign Scottish.
"You Scots sure are a contentious people."
YOU JUST MADE AN ENEMY FOR LIFE!
Why does she have to be highlighted when you already know who it is?
They already DID highlight her! That's my point--they put a massive spotlight on her, by both going out of their way to specify the particular type of abuse, and also going out of their way to say that one and only one cast member was receiving the abuse. They've directly contradicted their own ridiculous pretense of 'not naming names' by doing literally everything they can to clearly identify her as the victim, and then bizarrely refusing to plainly say she's the victim.
All of the people in this chain saying "why does she have to be named": why aren't any of you asking "why does the fact that it's exactly one victim need to be specified" or "why does the fact that the online abuse was racially motivated"? None of these three DON'T act to identify the victim. You clearly don't mind if the victim is identified since you don't have a problem with those other two. So why are people biting my head off simply for pointing out it's weird that they did the latter two and not the former?
It's like if someone asked how many of something you have, and your answer is "the amount is an odd integer between 4 and 6" instead of "5". It'd be perfectly reasonable to ask in response "why the hell didn't you just say 5?"
lol
You are focused on entirely the wrong point. Why are you attempting to distract from the issue?
If you read an article about a guy who murdered his wife that had a timeline, and it read 'he woke up, took a shower, ate 23 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and then he shot his wife'--would it be "distracting from the issue" to comment about the obvious bizarre element there? To comment on that is not equivalent to trivializing the murder. Weird thing sticks out, someone who noticed points it out. That's all, it ain't that deep.
I'm not trying to distract from anything, holy shit. All I did was point out a strange element I identified in the article. The top level comment in this chain is mine, so you can't even accuse me of derailing someone else's, lol. If you don't want to talk about this particular bit, post your own top-level comment and move on. Don't whine at me here about it.
I'm the one whining after you wrote yet more paragraphs about everything but the issue? I said distracting, not derailing.
They're trying to minimise the additional abuse she will get because of this story.