Do the non-white actors in “A Gentleman in Moscow” signify/symbolize anything?

Question

In A Gentleman in Moscow (2024), many Russian characters are (very confusingly) played by non-white (specifically black and Indian) actors.

Do they signify/symbolize anything?

Or was the casting random? Was there any point to it? Or was this just simply some politically correct thing that happens to be fashionable nowadays? Are they simply trying to signal that they are "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues—especially issues of racial and social justice" (four-letter w word censored here)?

Answer 1

One reason is the same reason why the main character is named “Count Alexander Rostov” when there never was a count by that name. It is fiction.

Another reason is that there have been non-white native-born Russian people going back at least as far as 1696. There’s no reason why a fictional Russian count in the early 1900s could not be associated with fictional non-white Russians.

The casting was certainly not random. It was certainly done with the goal of making a marketable and successful TV show. Casting Ewan McGregor in the lead is proof of this: he is a very capable actor and a popular star. It’s reasonable to expect everyone else was cast because of a combination of likability and acting ability designed to encourage the greatest number of people in the target audience to watch and keep watching.

After looking through IMDB, I can confirm the that cast of Gentleman… is largely made of actors with notable credentials, including prestigious education, previous roles in successful productions, and industry awards. No one stands out to me as unqualified to act in a major production.

Answer 2

Its probably a deliberate exercise in color-blind casting - the practice of ignoring ethnicity and race when making casting decisions. A practice that has gone on for at least decades if not centuries in Theatre.

People don't blink twice when there is a casting decision in a Shakespeare play that casts someone of a different ethnicity than the written character, as it is an opportunity to see an actor take on one of the classic archetypal roles in literature.

It has become somewhat more common in movies and TV in recent years, the most obvious being:

• Bridgerton. I believe here it is written into the plot so it is somewhat an aspect of it being an 'alternative' history.

• Persuasion. An adaptation of the Jane Austen novel.

• The Personal History of David Copperfield. An adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel.

Armando Ianucci the director and writer of The Personal History is quoted in Indiewire as saying:

"When I knew I was making the film, I could only think of Dev playing David,” he said. “I just thought, that’s how I must cast the whole film, cast who you think is the best person for that role."

He has also made similar (but not color-blind) choices in previous movies which go against historical 'accuracy' to create the right character, for example having Jason Isaacs (Hello Jason!) play Georgy Zhukov with a strong Yorkshire accent in The Death of Stalin

I'm going to resist commenting on whether this is a good or bad way of casting. It is just an approach to casting, and anything I say here would be personal preference. It unlocks roles that would otherwise not be available to some actors, and it downgrades the importance of a single attribute of that actor.