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

Aren’t We Glad We Didn’t Join The Euro?

It's possible to argue that this following is projecting a little too much onto just the monetary system of the remnant European Union. It's...

If Only The Media Understood The Economics Of The Media

Of course a newspaper will be all in favour of the antitrust dunning of Google. They see the search company as a competitor and...

The BBC Isn’t Grasping This Economics Stuff

True, the World Economic Forum isn't grasping this economics stuff either but that's no excuse. The BBC's remit is to explain to us proles...

This Just In From An Economics Professor

It's all terrible that we measure the economy by what is actually produced, consumed, in the economy. We must, of course, start to measure...

What’s Wrong With Modern Monetary Theory?

Richard Murphy, he of the three professorial positions, asks us what is wrong with his exposition of Modern Monetary Theory. First, in a country...

Recent comments