I love this one: it involves one of my favorite actors and one of my favorite historical figures.

Denzel Washington has lapped Sydney Poitier as the most successful and, in my view, most versatile and best black Hollywood star in film history, so one would think his casting to portray any historical figure would be seen as a boon to that figure’s fans. In this case, you would be wrong. Denzel is playing the Carthaginian general Hannibal in a Netflix historical epic, and Le Monde reports that in Tunisia, Hannibal’s old stomping ground, Hannibal’s admirers are furious. The casting has even been debated in the Tunisian parliament. Tunisian MP Yassine Mami railed about “the risk of falsification of history” while calling on members to join him in “defending Tunisian identity”.

The main problem is that Hannibal, while African, was not a black African; this controversy echoes the Cleopatra controversy earlier this year, also involving a Netflix production. (Cleo was mostly Greek like me, but has become black to assuage the sensitivities of the Race-Obsessed of Color.) There has also been some grumbling about Washington’s age. Hannibal’s most famous exploits (like taking the elephants across the Alps) occurred during the Second Punic War, begun when the Carthage general was barely 30. Denzel is 68, older than Hannibal was when he died.

In the old days before streaming and the huge international film market, a foreign national hero’s portrayal in a Hollywood film wouldn’t cause a problem because Hollywood’s attitude would be “Bite us.” Now, however, many films make their profits overseas. As one UK critic notes,”stories [Hollywood] tells are subject to greater scrutiny and varied interpretations. This situation with Denzel Washington’s casting in a historical epic about Hannibal is a microcosm of this larger shift, reflecting the growing pains of an industry grappling with its role in a rapidly changing world.”

Predictably, social justice warriors are rallying to the Tunisians’ side, with a Change.org petition claiming that “this miscasting and falsifying History is unacceptable and unethical” and urging “Netflix to either cancel their so called ‘documentary’ or ‘fact-based film.'”

Morons.

I think this one is easy:

1. Nobody really knows what Hannibal looked like. All representations seem to be based on a single bust.

2. His biographers say that the identity (and race, presumably) of his mother is “unknown.”

3. The age issue is silly. Denzel isn’t quite as ageless as Tom Cruise, but I bought him in the Yul Brenner role in the remake of “The Magnificent Seven,” and he was over 60 then. (The movie was crummy, but Denzel, as always, was fine.)

4. What Washington brings to all of his movies is keen intelligence and instant likability as well as a magic screen presence. Those factors should matter more than his skin shade.

5. When I was in Mongolia, it was clear that the horrible Howard Hughes movie about Genghis Kahn (the low point in John Wayne’s career) hadn’t hurt Genghis’s standing one iota, and the Hannibal project can’t possibly be as bad as “The Conquerer.”

6. What will matter in the end is whether it is an entertaining movie. To repeat the obvious, nothing obligates artists portraying historical figures and events to be accurate and bound by facts. Such projects only become unethical when a film falsely suggests that it is factual, like Oliver Stone’s unforgivable “JFK.”

What I’m curious about is whether the film will show Hannibal missing an eye, which he lost while taking his troops over the Alps. I bet Denzel looks cool with an eye patch.

___________________

Pointer: JutGory