Harry potter British preference=discrimination?

Because all of the people who attend seem to be Slavic?

edited 8th Dec '11 1:28:03 PM by ohsointocats

How is quarter French technically French?

^ If a school's name was Yamamoto, but you knew of three Indian kids attending it, what would you assume? Anyway, they said it was in the North, and very cold. The Ukraine is not "very cold," except maybe by tropical standards.

edited 8th Dec '11 1:33:40 PM by kashchei

Some of the coldest temperatures in the world have been measured in the Ukraine, and in the Winter, at least in the Northern parts of the country, the temperatures are comparable to those of Russia.

But it's not "very cold" in the sense that, say, Norway is.

I would assume that it was an Indian school founded by a Japanese guy.

Then again this may be stupid American logic.

^^^^she was a born in paris, that's pretty French.

Richard Dawkins was born in Kenya, yet the only reason that he considers himself African is that Homo sapiens is an African ape.

There are better ways to determine a person's nationality than place of birth.

German (and Germanic) minorities have been dispersed all over Eastern and Central Europe. Austria-Hungary once ruled over vast swaths of Central Europe. Minor German dynasties were imported to rule in places like Bulgaria. Is that enough?

Only if you could find an eleven year old Lithuanian-South African actress who was capable of doing a red-hot British accent. British people have a very sensitive ear for accents - it's a big class difference thing, so they really listen out for how someone speaks. Overseas actors who manage a perfect British accent are usually referred to by Brits with awed respect.

I honestly don't think an eleven year old could manage it unless she'd arrived in the UK at age five? Or younger?

I'd also point out that a number of the actors were Irish (which is actually a different country and different nationality), and that nobody gave a flying fig about the actors' ethnicity as long as they could speak with a British or Irish accent.

I really do not get the OP's point. It's racist for a film-of-the-book set in a school in Britain to only use overseas actors for the overseas parts? Do you realise how irritating it is for Brits to constantly watch films in which Americans (usually) are shoehorned in as 'British' characters with (often) the worst accents ever? Or even worse, discover that important events in our history are being re-written so that Americans (usually) can take the starring role?

Rowling had the clout to say 'for once, can we watch a big budget adaptation of a British book, set in a British (and Irish) school, in Britain, that has actual British (and Irish) actors?' And make it stick.

The rumour was that if she hadn't got sticky about it, Hogwarts would have been moved bodily to the US. The likely reason for NO non-British/Irish actors is that they were going to shoehorn in Brad Pitt (or similar) if they hadn't stuck firmly to the 'must be British/Irish' rule.

Zoe Wanamaker, incidentally, is American-born. But she's worked here so long her accent is perfect.

edited 8th Dec '11 3:11:32 PM by Bluesqueak

I gotta admit, Brad Pitt in Harry Potter would have been pretty hilarious.

Admittedly, that one might have been in the So Bad, It's Good category.

Who would he have played?

Mad Eye Moody? But I bet they'd have cast him as Dumbledore.

edited 8th Dec '11 3:17:46 PM by Bluesqueak

Mad Eye Moody the MIA (Magical Intelligence Agency) operative, seconded to Hogwarts to protect Harry Potter. Because of course, the Brits wouldn't be up to the job... yes, I can see it now.

goes off to apply Brain Bleach

:

113 posts? Why?

edited 8th Dec '11 3:30:18 PM by Erock

I was thinking probably someone like Sirius, but Moody is funnier.

Because Harry Potter.

edited 8th Dec '11 3:58:31 PM by ohsointocats

What a sad thread.

Is my family racist for keeping our Frankenstein-ed Asian name?

edited 8th Dec '11 4:40:21 PM by DisasterGrind

Well, fortunately enough, this thread has run on a lot of tangents, so it's not as if we really talked about the topic for that many posts.

(This, of course, raises the question of the use of continuing to have the thread.)

Only if they were too lazy to do any research and just wanted something stereotypically Asian and exotic.

Which seems unlikely.

Add me to the pile of people who think this is bull.

Really, the only thing producers, directors and casting agencies should be worried about when picking roles is how good and faithfully would the actor portray the role in question. That means that an actor with a similar ethnic background to the role would probably bring the best results, but that doesn't always have to be the case.

The first thing that falls to mind are the actors who voiced Niko and Roman in Grand Theft Auto IV. The Serbian they're speaking is, in a strictly technical sense, flawless, but the horrid accent makes it almost unrecognizable. I would have much prefered if they could've hired Serbian actors, who actually knew what the language sounds like, but wouldn't have any complaints if the voiceovers were done by non-Serbs who could pull off a convincing accent. It's not racism, just a casting disaster.

This is about as stupid as the people that cried "racist!" when LOTR didn't have any black people in it.

@OP The movies and books are ABOUT British people. Why is it discrimination to HAVE British people play British people? Besides, there were tons of other nations around for the Quidditch cup game. Africans, Americans. Others too, those are just the ones I remember.

"Why is it discrimination to HAVE British people play British people?"

Because the whole point of acting is that you're not playing your fucking self. And that you're not a miniature ethnically homogenous country, but one that has a violent history of colonizing everyone and everything.

I also don't remember any African nationals. Do you mean people who are ethnically African but are British by nationality? Because that isn't a counterexample at all.

edited 9th Dec '11 2:16:21 PM by kashchei

But whats wrong with it? They're in Great Britain, and they needed child actors. It's a lot easier to act like you actually are. If they went to, say, Asia, and still hired English actors, then it would be bad. But there's nothing wrong with hiring people from the country your based in to do the acting.

But the point of most acting is to serve the work, not to go "Oh, look at me! see what I'm able to do? Isn't it wonderful? Aren't I great?"

It's not discrimination to cast British actors to play British characters, as long as they serve the work well.

No, there's nothing wrong with that, nor is that discrimination. But that isn't the OP's complaint. The OP's complaint is that they said "If you're not British, you're not getting a part in the movie."

Hiring British people because they can do accents better, or are better people for the parts in general, is perfectly fine. But not even giving people from other nations a shot at obtaining a part is discriminatory.

edited 9th Dec '11 4:42:09 PM by Swish