MovieChat Forums > Death on the Nile (2022) Discussion > Do trolls realize the movie is set in Nu...

Do trolls realize the movie is set in Nubia 1930s, Egypt/Sudan?

posted 4 years ago by Satan2016 (25525)
6 replies | jump to latest

Nubians are mixed Arab/African race dating back thousands of years. They were the last ones in the Arab Slave Trade, raiding south Sudan until 2005. The main problem with the trailer is the black people were NOT slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_on_the_Nile: While on holiday in Cairo to board the steamer Karnak, set to tour along the Nile from Shellal to Wadi Halfa, Hercule Poirot is approached by successful socialite Linnet Doyle.
___

Viewpoint from Sudan - where black people are called slaves https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53147864

Slave traders 'glorified':
The racism goes back to the founding of Khartoum in 1821 as a marketplace for slaves.

By the second half of the century about two-thirds of the city's population was enslaved.

Sudan became one of the most active slave-raiding zones in Africa, with slaves transported from the south to the north, and to Egypt, the Middle East and the Mediterranean regions.

Slave traders are still glorified - a street in the heart of the capital is named after al-Zubair Pasha Rahma, whose 19th Century trading empire stretched to parts of what is now the Central African Republic and Chad.

21st Century slave raids:
The superiority complex of many members of the Arab elite lies at the heart of some of the worst conflicts to hit Sudan since independence, as black people either demand equality or their own homeland.

The southern slave raids were widely reported to have continued until the end of the civil war in 2005, which led to the mainly black African South Sudan seceding from Arabic-speaking Sudan five years later.

The women and children abducted by Arab groups to work for a "master" for free often never saw their families again, though in some cases their freedom was controversially bought by aid groups such as Christian Solidarity International.

And since the Darfur conflict started in the early 2000s, the pro-government Arab Janjaweed militias have repeatedly been accused of arriving on horseback in black African villages, killing the men and raping the women.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Nubians are a black African ethnic group of Sub-Saharan origin. They have long been marginalized in Egypt. And many (probably most) North Sudanese who consider themselves Arab (and insist that they are not African or black) are dark enough to be perceived as black and subjected to anti-black racism if they move to a Middle Eastern Arab country.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

1. In the novel it mentions that a couple of boat crew members were Nubian. By default, the rest of the crew were Arabs or Copts, which are the main ethnic groups in Egypt. Agatha Christie wouldn't refer to some Nubian crew member as such if the whole crew was Nubian.

2. And that's the crew. The passengers weren't Nubian. The characters were in a steamer aimed to white tourists and maybe some rich or high class Arab locals.

3. Regarding the alleged "Nubian" passengers in the trailer... they don't even look like Nubians (who are a mix of Arabs and blacks). Having black skin doesn't mean Nubians and black Americans look the same, the same way Russians and Italians don't look the same even though both are white. They didn't hire Nubian actors. What they show in the movie is the standard black Americans diversity quota.

This is just more woke diversity shit. Don't try to excuse it with fake pretenses.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 4 years ago

I agree with you, largely, but it seems that there are only one (or at best two) characters who aren't "the help" that are black. You're right that it's woke diversity bullshit, but Ken Branagh is good people. Casting a couple of black folks who may be period-inauthentic is annoying for a story like this, but it's not a capital offense and I wouldn't let myself be so put off by it that I didn't allow myself to go and enjoy the movie.

I'll still see it.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

Actually, I agree with you. Brannagh's Much Ado About Nothing (1993) is one of my all-time favorite movies, a movie I use to watch in xmas (because of a personal story). There you have Denzel Washington playing an historical white character. However, it doesn't feel political or a diversity quota. And it's hard to imagine an actor who had played the role better than him, he's just brilliant.

No movie can be perfect. The problem with modern Hollywood movie is that it's not about a couple of actors that are period-inauthentic, it's that you can't shake off the feeling that you're being indoctrinated in some True Faith (because probably in most cases you are).

Regarding Brannah, I don't think he actually agrees with it, but he has no choice unless he wants to become some pariah. This is how it goes now. That's why you won't see directors like Paul Verhoeven or McTiernan in modern Hollywood: you can't control them. My (personal) theory is that the lack of creativity in modern Hollywood is due to it: in first place, quota hirings are not very skilled and creative, in second place, it has destroyed the motivation in those people who were creative and bowed (like Brannagh). There's a gulf between the quality and creativity in Brannagh's old movies and modern ones, and I think that's the reason.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 4 years ago

As someone who tends to lean hard-right politically on MOST issues, I get what you're saying and I agree. Hollywood, I think, is fueled by a combination of genuine Leftist zeal and also a willingness to bow to the mob.

Regarding the latter, this article is pretty telling:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8513727/Actors-writers-producers-warn-reverse-racism-film-industry.html

You're right about indoctrination. It's undeniable that Hollywood uses the film industry to preach to the world, utilizing films as vessels for their messages. This isn't true, of course, for literally every producer or director or even studio, but overall there is definitely a lot of that shit going on. Films are definitely a lot more preachy now than they used to be.

In regard to Branagh, my first exposure to his work was as a teenager, when I rented his 1996 four-hour rendition of Hamlet. Pretty sure I got it from Blockbuster and it came on two cassettes. I can't even remember what it was that inspired me to pick it up, but I did and enjoyed it and it's always stuck with me.

Looking at his filmography now I realize that I haven't seen nearly as many of his films as I thought I had. I guess I need to do a Ken Branagh marathon. Perhaps I'll check out Much Ado About nothing since you recommend it.

But back to Death on the Nile, since I am an Agatha Christie fan, and I do like Branagh, and I did think that Murder on the Orient Express was pretty good (even though it had some of its own wokery with the character of Arbuthnot), I am going to put aside any misgivings I may have with the casting and just go and enjoy this one when it comes out.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

Quite agreed.

If I had to recommend movies from Brannagh, I'd recommend his early movies: Much Ado About Nothing, Peter's Friends, Henry V and Hamlet. I haven't watched Brannagh's Sleuth, but I only heard good things about it, its main flaw being that it was compared with the previous adaptation which was an absolute masterpiece (if you haven't watched that 1972's version, watch it).

I read almost every Agatha Christie's novel when I was a teen (my father had the complete collection). To be honest, I don't know if I'll end up watching this movie, any case, talking about it has made me to start to read them again, which is a good thing.