Casting director of "The Hobbit" dismisses Pakistani actor for being too dark

[Broken Parachute]

JRR Tolkien never really described the color of the hobbits, but Middle Earth and it's stories are derived entirely of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Norse lore which were all of the white race... Is this racism, or should a production be allowed to cast actors based on the color of their skin?

This has caused quite a bit of controversy, with both sides of the issue giving their reasons for why the decision is right and wrong. While some see no problem whatsoever with casting according to what has come before in the franchise, [the dismissed actor] stated, "It's 2010 and I still can't believe I'm being discriminated against because I have brown skin."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/In-Middle-Earth-Must-All-Hobbits-Be-White-5974

I don't understand what the fuss is about. The first quote makes a lot of sense. Is this racist in any way?

[Simulcast]

No.

[J.C.]

No.

[<*)))><]

Nope

[Wasupi]

... waaaaaaaaah...

[x togepi x]

i can see how it would be, but whatever.

[pleasedontpanic]

Not racism.

[Juan Jose]

definitely not racism. I don't even remember any non-white people in the LOTR trilogy, unless you count the Easterlings who are supposed to be oriental or something like that

[roche]

Absolutely not racist.

[loveisdead]

Not racist.

[x togepi x]

Here's the logic for it being racist or why that actor would feel discriminated against:

He didn't get a job because he was too dark. This is historically racism.

I realize that LOTR is based on European mythology to an extent but it's also a fantasy world with fictional characters. It doesn't really matter if random hobbit is white or black or whatever. It would matter if you were casting for someone like Robert E. Lee, who was white, but hobbits aren't described as anything. When you can't really make an argument for why the race of a specific character would matter, then not casting someone b/c of skin color can be seen as racist.

There is a grey area that you guys are all missing, I don't see how you all can say "definitely not racism." I'm not going to say it is 100% without a doubt racist, but the tendency of you guys to just dismiss outright is dumb, especially given minority views on how they are portrayed in media.

[Love As Arson]

I mean, movies aren't very diverse as it is, so this isn't particularly surprising.

[jwicklun]

So what if there aren't any black hobbits?

[J.C.]

There's no difference between that and not getting cast because you're not thought to be attractive enough, or tall enough, or young enough, or the right gender for the part. You should know you're being judged on every superficial aspect when you audition. You're not owed a movie role. It's not their job to alter what they envisioned in a character to suit you.

[Simulcast]

There's no difference between that and not getting cast because you're not thought to be attractive enough, or tall enough, or young enough, or the right gender for the part. You should know you're being judged on every superficial aspect when you audition. You're not owed a movie role. It's not their job to alter what they envisioned in a character to suit you.

Well said.

[Love As Arson]

What people envision is related to the ideas they hold and a society's standards, is it not? If there is a Eurocentric standard, then you'll have a lot of white actors portraying particular archetypes.

[x togepi x]

There's no difference between that and not getting cast because you're not thought to be attractive enough, or tall enough, or young enough, or the right gender for the part. You should know you're being judged on every superficial aspect when you audition. You're not owed a movie role. It's not their job to alter what they envisioned in a character to suit you.

There's actually a huge difference because (outside of gender), there aren't really historical cases of people being routinely and extremely discriminated against because of the factors you're talking about.

I mean, we never saw "you're too ugly to vote"

I'm not saying it's racism but I'm just trying to point out how there's a valid perspective saying it is that people who are more privileged or whatever might not necessarily see without it being pointed out to them.

[roche]

Here's the logic for it being racist or why that actor would feel discriminated against:

He didn't get a job because he was too dark. This is historically racism.

I realize that LOTR is based on European mythology to an extent but it's also a fantasy world with fictional characters. It doesn't really matter if random hobbit is white or black or whatever. It would matter if you were casting for someone like Robert E. Lee, who was white, but hobbits aren't described as anything. When you can't really make an argument for why the race of a specific character would matter, then not casting someone b/c of skin color can be seen as racist.

There is a grey area that you guys are all missing, I don't see how you all can say "definitely not racism." I'm not going to say it is 100% without a doubt racist, but the tendency of you guys to just dismiss outright is dumb, especially given minority views on how they are portrayed in media.

Interesting, I suppose because this is work of pure fiction (and not historical fiction) there aren't any connections between race and geography to look at to support claims that all the characters have to be European. I can see your point. But if a Director has a specific vision for how his characters should look and behave, does he really have to compromise his art because someone's feelings may get hurt?

[x togepi x]

Interesting, I suppose because this is work of pure fiction (and not historical fiction) there aren't any connections between race and geography to look at to support claims that all the characters have to be European. I can see your point. But if a Director has a specific vision for how his characters should look and behave, does he really have to compromise his art because someone's feelings may get hurt?

I'm not saying the director has to do that at all. I'm saying: here's an alternative perspective, it's a valid one that shouldn't be readily discounted. that's all.

[roche]

I'm not saying the director has to do that at all. I'm saying: here's an alternative perspective, it's a valid one that shouldn't be readily discounted. that's all.

Fair enough, there are always two sides to every argument.

[JordanBuell]

its not. people should chill

[J.C.]

What people envision is related to the ideas they hold and a society's standards, is it not? If there is a Eurocentric standard, then you'll have a lot of white actors portraying particular archetypes.

There's actually a huge difference because (outside of gender), there aren't really historical cases of people being routinely and extremely discriminated against because of the factors you're talking about.

I mean, we never saw "you're too ugly to vote"

I'm not saying it's racism but I'm just trying to point out how there's a valid perspective saying it is that people who are more privileged or whatever might not necessarily see without it being pointed out to them.

In the context of our own society and past, yes, there's a clear difference between being discriminated against based on your skin tone and being discriminated against because you're too ugly/short/whatever. I just have a tough time viewing something like casting decisions, a process that is layered with superficial criterion that you willingly subject yourself to, through that same prism of discrimination.

[Clark]

There's no difference between that and not getting cast because you're not thought to be attractive enough, or tall enough, or young enough, or the right gender for the part. You should know you're being judged on every superficial aspect when you audition. You're not owed a movie role. It's not their job to alter what they envisioned in a character to suit you.

Exactly. If you really want to move forward and play the "it's 2010" card, then disassociate from the past.

[x togepi x]

In the context of our own society and past, yes, there's a clear difference between being discriminated against based on your skin tone and being discriminated against because you're too ugly/short/whatever. I just have a tough time viewing something like casting decisions, a process that is layered with superficial criterion that you willingly subject yourself to, through that same prism of discrimination.

right, but if you're talking about within the context of casting, there's a history of actors being casted for racial stereotypes or not casted because of race, so I can see why someone would say it's racial. I mean, i realize, as some other poster pointed out, that it's 2010, but i would not be surprised in the least, given media representations, to find out that this sort of thing still goes on.

that's why i'm saying this is a grey area and not black/white

[andburnedit]

I'm too white to play Kobe Bryant in a movie.

RACIST.

[deFobbed14yrs]

The controversy was because that casting director never had instructions to omit dark colored people.

[bandnamexmyname]

It could be taken as such, but when the part calls for it, you can't cast somebody in a role that simply doesn't fit them.

Unlike the guys who casted Dragonball fucking Evolution. Fuck them.

[Kozzy333]

It's kind of racist. I don't see why there can't be a brown hobbit.

[Manicapathy]

It could be taken as such, but when the part calls for it, you can't cast somebody in a role that simply doesn't fit them.

Unlike the guys who casted Dragonball fucking Evolution. Fuck them.

Quoted for truth.

[PaulPelc5]

I completely understand where he's coming from. I was DEVASTATED when I wasn't chosen to portray John Coffey in The Green Mile. My audition was solid....

[Matt Chylak]

ain't never gonna be a black spiderman

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

ain't never gonna be a black spiderman

I was rooting for a Donald Glover/Alison Brie to be cast as Peter Parker and Mary Jane.

[Alou]

I was rooting for a Donald Glover/Alison Brie to be cast as Peter Parker and Mary Jane.

Oh. I love you for this. :)

[caveBEAR]

Were there Hobbits of different races in the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit books?

[GuitarR0cker1]

LOTR and the Hobbit are based in a fantasy world modeled after Anglo-Saxon and Celtic society. Everyone already associates northern Europe with "fantasy" anyways. It's only natural that a director would want actors to fit this preconceived notion that white people = everybody that lives in worlds with dragons n shit.

It's not as if the society or bro with dark skin are ever cast as the good guys anyways.

[anthony_kid]

They should omit this issue entirely by having the actor painted a different color. Hobbits aren't really humans, so who says that the director is limited to only shades of black and white?

[yves.]

The controversy was because that casting director never had instructions to omit dark colored people.

This, and the casting director set out an ad that stated they were looking for extras with light skin tones. It was posted on ONTD last week, I'd get the article but I'm on my phone.

[caveBEAR]

They should omit this issue entirely by having the actor painted a different color. Hobbits aren't really humans, so who says that the director is limited to only shades of black and white?

The fuck? Yeah, the best way to avoid a casting director dismissing Pakastani actors is just to paint them all green and purple and just total say 'fuck off' to the source material. How don't you already have work in Hollywood?

[anthony_kid]

The fuck? Yeah, the best way to avoid a casting director dismissing Pakastani actors is just to paint them all green and purple and just total say 'fuck off' to the source material. How don't you already have work in Hollywood?

Goddammit, it's called sarcasm.

[caveBEAR]

Goddammit, it's called sarcasm.

Ooooh. See, that usually works better when there's implied humor in the post, not just the non-sensical ramblings of a potential 7 year old.

Got it, though. :ok:

[anthony_kid]

Ooooh. See, that usually works better when there's implied humor in the post, not just the non-sensical ramblings of a potential 7 year old.

Got it, though. :ok:

That's one of the most illogical things ever. Just because something isn't initially funny means that it can't be turned into humor? It's not like this is a controversial issue and that my joke offended anyone.

But I guess I forgot that the more you insult someone that didn't even address you the more valid your point is. You're obviously the wiser one here since you called me a 7-year-old.

[caveBEAR]

That's one of the most illogical things ever. Just because something isn't initially funny means that it can't be turned into humor?

Sure it can, unfortunately, even on second reading (with implied humor/sarcasm)...meh.

It's not like this is a controversial issue and that my joke offended anyone.

Didn't say it had to be. Being humorous or witty would have helped in the absence of a /sarcasm key, though.

But I guess I forgot that the more you insult someone that didn't even address you the more valid your point is.

At least you've realized and acknowledged your mistake. I'll give you a moment to learn from it.

...

You good? Great.

You're obviously the wiser one here since you called me a 7-year-old.

Obviously.

[captivewear]

Welcome to the life of an actor in Hollywood...

[anthony_kid]

Sure it can, unfortunately, even on second reading (with implied humor/sarcasm)...meh.



Didn't say it had to be. Being humorous or witty would have helped in the absence of a /sarcasm key, though.



At least you've realized and acknowledged your mistake. I'll give you a moment to learn from it.

...

You good? Great.



Obviously.

Although it was a bad joke, I don't see how that justifies your irrational behavior. But if it makes you feel better, I'll let you have this one since you're obviously willing to say whatever regardless of how dumb it actually is in order to win this one. Congratulations.

[caveBEAR]

Although it was a bad joke, I don't see how that justifies your irrational behavior.

fLrpBLDWyCI

[anthony_kid]

fLrpBLDWyCI

You're an idiot.

[caveBEAR]

You're an idiot.

Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?

[LostAllways]

...What's the issue, exactly?

[JoeLovesMO]

Not racist at all. A black person in a LOTR film would just seem totally out of place. I mean this is written by an Englishman based on northern European lore. They would only fit if they were like a traveller from distant land etc.

EDIT: Oh, and reading this thread I have concluded beerforthebear is a massive cunt.

[caveBEAR]

Not racist at all. A black person in a LOTR film would just seem totally out of place. I mean this is written by an Englishman based on northern European lore. They would only fit if they were like a traveller from distant land etc.

EDIT: Oh, and reading this thread I have concluded beerforthebear is a massive cunt.

No shit? Why do the non-regulars always post this like it's some big secret or something?

[tottivillarossi]

Sounds like a continuity issue more than anything...

[JoeLovesMO]

No shit? Why do the non-regulars always post this like it's some big secret or something?

Just spreading the good news, cunt.

[caveBEAR]

Just spreading the good news, cunt.

:yawn:

[Simulcast]

Sounds like a continuity issue more than anything...

Yeah, that would be the logical conclusion.

[Sunken In]

I don't think it's racist. Despite that hobbits aren't humans, it's well known that they are pretty much just little humans. I'm sure the idea of genetics still applies.

I mean the hobbits live in a tiny little nation, in very family oriented society. Just how would there be one random brown hobbit? There would have to be an entire family of brown hobbits. And they would intermingle with other hobbits, creating a bunch of mildly brown hobbits.

[majinsharingan]

It's racist not to cast a Pakistani actor to play a white guy?
If history is any indicator we have learned that only one man of color is permitted to play a white man...Morgan Freeman. The movie would make 10 times as much money if every single hobbit was Morgan Freeman.