APurchasedSpiritLedSurvivor

Given that there were only a few thousand Black individuals in all of France by the 18th century, casting multiple Black actors to represent 17th-century France is a deliberate misrepresentation. Introducing multicultural love angles in this context is not only historically inaccurate but also deeply offensive. It's comparable to casting an American Black man as a 1960s Jewish rabbi. Or a white actor from Texas as a 1990s Saudi Arabian businessman, while he falls in love with the locals. Or like casting a South Asian actor as a 1950s Irish Catholic priest or a Scandinavian actress as an 1800s Chinese cook, or a Caribbean actor as a 19th-century Russian aristocrat, or a Latin American actress as a 1970s Japanese business executive, all searching for love with the locals. These examples should prove to anyone how such casting decisions can be seen as both disrespectful and culturally insensitive, no matter the current perception of social acceptance.

Current social acceptance doesn't equate to long-term cultural judgment. The film is rife with cultural violations, and as moviegoers reflect, many will come to realize that what we're witnessing is a modern form of blackface-non-white actors being cast in roles meant to portray historical Europeans.

This film is an abysmal and offensive musical. It not only miscasts and appropriates historical cultures but also neglects the crucial need for a lead who can actually sing. Many of the actors, including the lead, were painfully off-key, which made most musical numbers a cringe-worthy disaster. That was bad enough but doesn't compare with the offensive cultural appropriation, blatantly disrespecting the very cultures it attempted to portray. It was a painful combination of unlistenable performances and egregious misrepresentation that left me feeling both frustrated and insulted. This film was a complete train wreck from start to finish, and it's a shameful example of how not to make a musical.

The cultural appropriation makes this film very difficult to watch. The film is set in 19th-century England, a time when Englishmen were 99% white. Historical records show that even London had a 97% Caucasian population until 1961. Given this historical context, casting Ben Bailey Smith, whose background reflects contemporary English society, in the role of a historical Englishman is the definition of cultural appropriation. This situation is akin to casting Matt Damon as a Native American chief, merely due to his current American residency.

Given the historical context, the portrayal of a mixed-race marriage in England during this time is so unlikely that each scene involving it becomes increasingly absurd and offensive. Who thought this was a good idea? If the goal was simply to promote modern diversity narratives, it falls short because misrepresenting cultural history is both offensive and poor entertainment.

Similarly, it would be inappropriate to cast an Arab-Israeli as a historical Jewish figure from 1950s Israel, a modern Japanese actor residing in Russia as a Soviet spy from the 1920s, or a contemporary Caucasian from South Africa as a historical Black African tribal leader. Such casting choices distort the historical and cultural authenticity of the roles and support cultural misappropriation, undermining the respect and accuracy that should be given to these identities.

Enduring the rest of the story becomes nearly impossible amidst such rampant cultural misrepresentation. The pervasive cultural appropriation throughout this historical costume drama is like trying to read a gardening book in a library while a group of disruptive children bang drums and tambourines around you.

I can hardly believe I made it through this film. While European cultural appropriation by individuals from other cultures has gained some moderate social acceptance due to a few popular shows, people will eventually recognize this as a serious cultural violation. It will become the new blackface. Misrepresenting cultural history in this way is not only offensive but also undermines the authenticity and respect that should be integral to historical storytelling. This type of writing and casting, which distorts historical realities and misrepresents cultures, should never be tolerated.

I wanted to immerse myself in the story of the Elliots and connect with the other characters, but I found it nearly impossible. There were issues with the Elliot's story too. However the pervasive cultural inaccuracies and misrepresentations overshadowed any potential enjoyment, leaving me constantly distracted and disheartened. Each scene containing cultural appropriation was tainted by the glaring anachronisms, preventing me from fully engaging with the narrative and the characters' development.

The film is extremely difficult to watch due to Malachi Pullar-Latchman's portrayal of D'Artagnan, a 17th-century French character, which is a glaring undeniable case of cultural appropriation. His casting undermines the movie's credibility for anyone who values cultural integrity. It would be equally inappropriate to cast an African actor as a Jewish character from Israel, a white Canadian actor as a 17th-century African king, an Australian actor as a Chinese warrior, a Japanese actor as Romeo, or a southern American to play a North Korean soldier. Anyone with a basic understanding of 17th-century France would have recognized that this casting choice was misguided. Social integrity is truly tested when people begin to feel it's acceptable to appropriate other cultures. Clearly the filmmakers and actor felt this cultural violation is socially acceptable, so why not? While some may tolerate such decisions in the short term, roles filled by cultural appropriators will eventually be regarded with the same revulsion as blackface. Poor acting, poor writing, subpar cinematography, this film is a flat out disappointing and frustrating experience. Its lack of cultural authenticity and quality makes it not worth the time.