Home Media Amusing Nonsense About Gal Gadot And Cleopatra

Amusing Nonsense About Gal Gadot And Cleopatra

Author

Comments

Apparently Gal Gadot is pulling together a remake of Cleopatra. Or, as it is obviously put, a more modern retelling of the story from a female perspective. Presumably lots of close ups of the grunting faces of Roman generals.

This has caused the usual shouting as how dare an Israeli portray an African. Or an Arab. Or an Egyptian. That there is a substantial portion of the Israeli population with a few thousand years of Middle Eastern genetic inheritance is true but Gadot is of Ashkenazi background so that doesn’t really apply here. People are still being very stupid about this though:

Kalogridis declared herself “incredibly excited to get the chance to tell the story of Cleopatra, my favourite Ptolemaic pharoah and arguably the most famous Macedonian Greek woman in history”. She added: “Never thought I’d have the opportunity to tell a story like this, with women who have inspired me beyond words.”

OK, they’ve got that right. She was indeed Macedonian Greek by genetics even if not by upbringing or at least parts of culture. She most certainly was not – as all too much Ebonic nonsense in the US has it – Black African. The Kushite Pharaohs might well have been and wasn’t there a Nubian lot? But the Ptolemies simply weren’t sub-Saharan in any form at all.

So, basically a Greek and that’s fine. But then we’ve got this idiocy:

But almost immediately, there was a revolt. Why had they not cast an Egyptian woman, some asked. The journalist Sameera Khan held that Cleopatra was Greek and Berber, but lamented that an Arab actress had not been cast. She accused Gadot of cultural imperialism. “Your country steals Arab land & you’re stealing their movie roles,” she wrote. Soon the argument devolved into a debate over the precise ethnicity of Cleopatra, the ruler of ancient Egypt, and whether there was anyone at all who was qualified to play her in a film.

Arabs? What are you talking about? In Cleopatra’s time Arabs were the people bothering camels in, err, Arabia. The irruption across North Africa and the Middle East happened 6 centuries later. It’s simply not true that there was anything at all Arabic about Pharaonic Egypt. It’s not true that there’s all that much Arab about modern Egypt either. That irruption changed the ruling class, sure, the language of government, partially the religion and not all that much else. In terms of genetics it had about as much influence as the Norman invasion of Britain. A replacement of that ruling class, language etc, but not all that much change in the people.

To argue over who should play Cleo based upon race or birthplace is silly enough because the whole thing is about dress up anyway. But to start talking about Arabs is simple idiocy.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

9 COMMENTS

  1. Sounds like Sameera Khan is guilty of cultural imperialism.

    But I have to agree. Acting is about faking it, so to complain that a fake is a fake is just nonsense.

  2. If one of my favourite actors Omar Sharif was alive he’d have a great role in this film. Omar aptly once said, one can’t have democracy in an Arab country because they’re tribal people.

  3. Jews (to the extent they haven’t interbred with locals) are Arabs, though nether side will thank you for pointing this out. Even the languages are close enough to be mutually comprehensible, just different alphabets.

  4. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt, it was a favored refuge from the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans. You think they didn’t leave a genetic mark there?

  5. genetically Ancient Egyptians were of Mesopotamian origin. As for Jewish genetic legacies, (whatever that actually means in terms of genetics) since the 400 years in Egypt was during the Semitic Hyksos rule it is more likely the genetic inheritance went the other way, where it vanished as both groups were originally from the same area. But the issue is not really about culture, its about claiming victimhood, thus virtue. As for Cleo, I am baffled why a probable psychopathic murderess is of interest, other than hatred of her disturbed the Roman mobs, affecting their fratricides.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

So Bjorn Lomborg Is Proven Right Once Again

Back when Bjorn Lomborg brought out the Sceptical Environmentalist my word how people laughed. He pointed out that well, actually, solar power had been...

So, That Answers The Question About Arun Advani Then

Arun Advani was on that Wealth Tax Commission. You know, the one that ended up saying that it would be just fine to have...

An Entirely Absurd Insistence About Oil Company Pay

The claim is that as oil company CEOs are paid with stock therefore they conspire to boil the planet. That is, no really, what...

Big Meat Is The Next Enemy After Big Oil

We would, perhaps, hope for a little more logical ability among those who write the newspapers and news sites for us. Take this example...

In Praise Of Benign, Even Helpful, Beneficial, Tax Competition

Richard Murphy tells us that it is not possible for there to be anything other than harmful tax competition. All such competition must, by...

Recent comments