Hugh Grant’s Wonka casting renews a conversation about dwarfism in film
Wonka turning Hugh Grant into a CGI Oompa Loompa is a step back for little people performers, says actor George Coppen
Aux News Dwarfism
There’s a lot that’s eyebrow-raising in the new trailer for Wonka starring Timothée Chalamet, including the big reveal of Hugh Grant as a CGI Oompa Loompa. “So you’re the funny little man who’s been following me,” Wonka says after having presumably trapped Grant’s character in a glass jar. “I will have you know that I am a perfectly respectful size for an Oompa-Loompa,” Grant replies.
This casting is the cause of consternation for at least one little person in show business. George Coppen (The School For Good And Evil, Willow) told the BBC, “A lot of actors [with dwarfism] feel like we are being pushed out of the industry we love.” Coppen observed that the CGI design seems to be modeled after the effects of dwarfism: “They’ve enlarged his head so his head looks bigger. [I thought] what the hell have you done to him?”
Hollywood’s history with little people is typically problematic. One of the most famous casts of little people, in The Wizard Of Oz, were the subject of degrading rumors (of constant drinking and other lewd behavior) and were reportedly paid less than Dorothy’s dog Toto (per The Hollywood Reporter). In recent years, there’s been a greater awareness around stereotypical casting. Peter Dinklage, perhaps the most famous actor with dwarfism currently working, condemned Disney last year for engaging in negative stereotypes with its remake of Snow White. In response, Disney pledged to replace the seven dwarves with a diverse group of characters, not all of whom are little people.
While the instinct to move away from negative stereotypes may be well-intentioned, it also has the unintended side effect of pushing little people out of the industry. “A lot of people, myself included, argue that dwarfs should be offered everyday roles in dramas and soaps, but we aren’t getting offered those roles,” Coppen said in his BBC interview. “One door is being closed but they have forgotten to open the next one.”
Similarly, Terra Jolé, star of Little Women: LA, felt that Disney was too hasty in recalibrating its approach based on the criticism of one actor. She noted that there are adverse consequences of dwindling roles for little people. “Five years ago, there were constant commercial auditions,” she told The Wrap in 2022. “Because of equality, and voices stating that they weren’t okay with things like elf roles, or dwarf roles, or leprechaun roles, they’ve been eliminated. And not only are you not seeing a lot of little people in the acting industry anymore, but you’re not seeing productions being created to give little people an actual role, either.”
This is an issue for the community that has persisted for years. “Every time a part comes up for a little person, the competition is fierce because they just don’t write enough roles for us. It’s terrible. And the roles are not good at all,” lamented Bad Santa star Tony Cox to The Hollywood Reporter in 2016. “People don’t realize what we go through.”
Warwick Davis, the renowned actor from Willow and the Harry Potter movies who also co-founded a theatrical agency (Willow Management) that specializes in little people actors, also pondered the problem in the same THR piece. “There’s been a lot of talk recently about, is it right to shrink an average-size actor [with digital effects] to fulfill a little-person role? On one side, I could say, yeah, you should never do that, you’re taking work away from a short actor. Would you cast an average-size actor to pay a disabled character in a wheelchair?” He pondered. (This is something that happens quite frequently in Hollywood, although disability rights activists have taken up this issue in recent years as well.) “But at the same time, I understand that within the community of short actors, there might not be a performer with the right capabilities, the right attributes.”
Hugh Grant may be the performer everyone wants nowadays—in a long career of hits, he’s had recent franchise success in films like Paddington 2 and Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves—but it cannot be argued that he has the right attributes to play Wonka’s Oompa Loompa. Sure, part of movie magic is that actors can transform into entirely new characters and creatures before our eyes. But if that creature is specifically designed to look similar to real people with dwarfism, as Coppen observed, it seems entirely inappropriate that the character should be played by someone who doesn’t have those attributes.
93 Comments
There’s been a lot of talk recently about, is it right to shrink an average-size actor [with digital effects] to fulfill a little-person role?You’d have to shrink a little person for this role as well, he looks to be about 12″ tall.
They are screwed either way. If they cast a little person they will be accused of demeaning little people. If they cast hugh grant they will be accused of casting someone who slept with Divine Brown.
….I don’t think he *slept* with her.
They were awake the whole time.
People who look abnormal in an industry largely based on looking traditionally attractive aren’t “equally represented”? No way! Let actors act.
You sound like you’re upset that blackface isn’t acceptable anymore.
You sound like you spend a lot of time on social media being offended on behalf of people who couldn’t care less.
Guess I got it right.
Brah, I don’t think implying that black people look “abnormal” is exactly a good look on your part.I’m not wading in generally except to say that Oompah Loompas aren’t people with dwarfism. They’re a mythical creature that doesn’t actually exist in the real world.
Brah, in the 1920s they absolutely were considered “abnormal.” I’m not implying that, I’m making a point that Hollywood using stock-standard dime-a-d0zen white people made up to look like others is some bullshit. This jackass implying that people with dwarfism are “abnormal” is exactly the thing you’re trying to dunk on me over.
And yeah no shit Ooompa Loompas aren’t real, thanks for the tip. Really good work there. Now kindly refer to every motion picture depiction of them to know that they have always been represented by little people, at least until now. I mean holy shit that Depp piece of shit movie even got that right, even if they did the bare minimum of only hiring one actor to play all of them.
Originally in the books they were African pygmies which are very real. But an outcry even when Dahl was alive made him revise that in a later edition, but there was no suggestion that they weren’t human. It’s the 1970s movie that made them mythical beings.
ok peter dinklage calm down
“Let actors act.”That’s what the little people actors want. They want to be able to act.
The real answer here is to cast a little person, then CGI them into normal-sized proportions, then shrink them down to oompa-loompa size, then digitally add Hugh Grants facial mo-cap performance. Win-win lose-lose for everyone!
No, the real answer is to have Hugh Grant be his normal size in the movie, but just say he’s got Oompa Loompa gigantism.
Well, that would require some sort of a “rebigulator,” which is a concept so ridiculous it makes me want to laugh out loud and chortle.
Maybe he puts those KFC hormones in the chocolate that overdrives their pituitary glands?
This reminds me of the gag in The Phantom Tollbooth where Milo meets, in rapid succession, the Smallest Giant, Tallest Midget, Thinnest Fat Man and Fattest Thin Man in the World (they’re all the same guy).
Dunno, I always felt casing little people in the role of dwarves and creatures was a no go cause heck, they are called dwarves, but it seems I was mistaken
As the article explains, there’s a sizable chunk of the community that feels it is demeaning to cast little people in these roles, because they feel the roles THEMSELVES are demeaning. But that doesn’t mean little people don’t want to work in the industry, and the response from Hollywood is largely “okay, we won’t cast little people in these roles, but we’ll still have these characters that are stereotyped and comical little people roles, and just CGI normal-sized people into them, and also not write any other roles for little people” which solves nothing.Little people don’t want to be shoehorned into roles like elves and dwarves and munchkins, but they’d probably prefer that to being entirely shoved out of the industry.
This, exactly!
It feels like a tough needle to thread. I think most little people trying to make it as actors would prefer more meaningful roles that aren’t centered on their size, but without the dwarf/creature/elf roles they don’t often get the chance to even break into the industry.
It feels like a tough needle to thread.Yes, you’re right, on all counts. It also feels like insanity to me. An understandable and sympathetic insanity, perhaps? But look: my brother has Down syndrome, and he’s a part-time actor. He performs regularly in a troupe of special-needs actors, but he’s also had occasional mainstream bits in movies, television shows, music videos, etc. All things considered, he’s been very successful.But if anyone were to suggest that he should be up for casting in projects where his Down syndrome isn’t considered or even referenced — that Hollywood should consider him, you know, for the lead in their next romcom or whatever — that’s just not in touch with reality. The (mainstream) parts he has and the parts he will ever get will always be written as “guy with Down syndrome.” He will never be considered for a project unless that’s what they were looking for originally.And unless it is a very particular project, with a very specific, Down syndrome-focused storyline, those roles will never be as rich or fulfilling as he might like, as other actors receive, and whatever opportunity comes up, he will always be competing with just about everyone in his community, because the parts are exceedingly few and far between, let alone the good ones.Does that situation suck for my brother? Absolutely. Down syndrome sucks, a lot. But what are we expecting here, exactly? That the film industry, and moviegoing audiences, are going to remake their expectations and processes to accommodate my brother and his community? (At the same time, presumably, as they do for little people, and every other underrepresented minority population.) And what are we advocating? That people not “see” his disability? Treat him like everyone else? But isn’t that the critique we now offer up for the now-discredited color-blindness approach to racism?Maybe it’s my middle-aged cynicism talking, but if there’s any satisfactory solution to all of this, I don’t see it. More and more, I think there isn’t one.
And like it or not, Dwarfism is a medical disorder that results from a genetic mutation that impacts physical health and mobility. It’s disingenuous to compare it to race, ethnicity or sexual orientation because simply existing requires modifications. It reminds me of when folks were complaining that a 600lb person wasn’t cast in The Whale: A 600lb actor could never survive a 14 hour shoot, and the set modifications, constant stops, through the roof insurance costs, and necessity for extra medical personnel on staff would have made life significantly more difficult for everyone EXCEPT that actor.So, you either typecast and risk being accused of pigeonholing a person based on factors they can’t control, or you do what the filmmakers did here and then get chewed out for not typecasting.
People with dwarfism are perfectly capable of acting, saying they can’t because of their condition is belied by the many actors who have dwarfism. They even quote the star of an action movie in the article!
I doubt there’s a solution that would serve everyone well. That said, the bar is pretty low at the moment in terms of the things they could do to improve the representation of actors who are other than fully able.We’re watching Superstore now, and in ep 5.19 there’s a scene where several characters are standing around talking. Into the scene rolls the character of Nicki. The actor (Nicole Lynn Evans) is 3’8″, has osteogenesis imperfecta, and is wheelchair-bound. Nicki offers some input, and the other characters respond normally and converse with her in exactly the same way as they would anyone else. Nobody treats her weird or comments on her admittedly unusual appearance. She’s just another person who works at the store. The characters and the show itself treated her with respect. Starting from a place of respect is the low-hanging fruit here.
One of my favorite Peter Dinklage rolls is in The Baxter, where he plays a gay wedding planner. His dwarfism isn’t mentioned once, and isn’t a factor in the role at all. It’s a “normal” role, that could be played by anyone, and in this instance is played by a very talented little person.
I don’t think little people are asking specifically for roles that don’t address their stature AT ALL, they just want something with more nuance than “FANTASY DWARF/ELF/TROLL/LEPRECHAUN”. These roles do exist, but they typically all go to Peter Dinklage. Think Tyrion in Game of Thrones, or his character in the Station Agent, or his children’s book writer in Elf. All these roles ADDRESSED his size, but didn’t make a mockery out of it (it’s actually kind of turned on its head in Elf, where his character gets understandably upset when Buddy won’t stop calling him an elf).Then there’s his role as Bolivar Trask in the X-Men: Days of Future Past film. As far as I can remember, his size wasn’t really brought up at all. He was just a guy.These roles do exist, it’s just that Hollywood would rather make roles where they’re weird little creatures.
I don’t think little people are asking specifically for roles that don’t address their stature AT ALLHmm, well, with respect, I think you’re incorrect. Not that dirtside is some spokesperson for the little people community (nor is anyone, tbh), but just above you, he wrote:The actor (Nicole Lynn Evans) is 3’8″, has osteogenesis imperfecta, and is wheelchair-bound. Nicki offers some input, and the other characters respond normally and converse with her in exactly the same way as they would anyone else. Nobody treats her weird or comments on her admittedly unusual appearance. She’s just another person who works at the store.And I think that’s what most people are looking for, the intended standard. I know that if I had dwarfism, it’s what I’d want: don’t treat me differently, just treat me like a damned person. It’s what I’d want in every event. Just treat me as an individual, just treat me as me. And as an actor, I’d want to be able to play anything — not be bound by my size or shape or apparent disability. I’d want to be Hamlet. I’d want to be James Bond. Why on earth wouldn’t I?I don’t blame anyone for holding that desire. But I don’t think it’s particularly realistic, especially to hold it up as an industry standard. What dirtside described, happening in one episode a hundred episodes deep into a tv series, is fair enough, but it’s one thing with some bit-part walk-on or recurring minor character (which some would decry as “tokenism” or “stunt casting”) and something completely different with a main role or lead. These roles do exist, it’s just that Hollywood would rather make roles where they’re weird little creatures.I don’t think that’s quite it. I think instead it’s… Hollywood isn’t looking at little people at all, unless they’re casting for weird little creatures. If you got rid of those parts, you wouldn’t start seeing little people pop up in other roles: you just wouldn’t see them anymore, period. Just like with my running example of my brother — if it weren’t for roles like “guy with Down syndrome,” it’s not like he would start being cast in better parts. He would no longer be cast in anything. Which seems unfair? It is unfair. But I also think it’s unchangeable.Regarding Peter Dinklage, he’s an exceptional talent. I don’t doubt that roles have been written for him specifically, and maybe it’s even happened that he’s taken roles that were never written with a little person in mind, like, possibly, Trask. Maybe his agent just submitted him, or there were conversations behind closed doors, and his talent is such that he rose to the top. I honestly have no idea. These things do happen, there’s no denying. Down syndrome has had flashes in the sun, too, of course: there’s the actress Jamie Brewer in Ryan Murphy’s various projects, for instance. It happens.But even there, Dinklage was always going to be considered for Tyrion, and never for Eddard Stark or Jamie Lannister. Warwick Davis was going to be Wicket, not Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader. We can perhaps imagine a world where Skywalker or Vader is played by Davis, and “the other characters respond normally and converse with [him] in exactly the same way as they would anyone else,” maybe even a world where audiences accept this, but I honestly don’t think that will ever be this world.
Judge Dinklage by his size would you? And well you should not.But yeah, we interact in the real world every day with people who look differently for whatever reason and generally don’t think twice about it. You can acknowledge it without assuming it’s a person’s defining characteristic. TV and movie casting don’t need to be any different. Reminds me of Colbert back on the Report with his “I don’t see color” which was obviously absurd on its face.
Him kicking Buddy’s ass in Elf is one of the high points of the movie. So good.
“People with XYZ characteristics are JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE” is as big a disservice as the way just about every cosmetic/clothing brand these days leads off every online ad with a large person, a person with a striking skin coloration/patterning, etc.
It seems both inclusive, and patronizing! Like the ad directors are thinking “These people are just part of this until all those Gen Z people stop hassling us about representation mattering.”
In the age of social media it’s never been more true that you can’t make everyone happy, so the best you can do is exhibit good faith and have a rationale for your decision.In this situation, there’s definitely a case to be made for casting little people as Oompa Loompas; opportunity for a bunch of actors who might not be frequently cast, there’s precedent based on the original film, etc. Defuse complaints to the extent possible by acknowledging that there’s a legitimate opposing opinion, and move on. Obviously even Warwick Davis is divided on the subject, so there’s unlikely to ever be a consensus.
“but without the dwarf/creature/elf roles they don’t often get the chance to even break into the industry.”Well yeah, that’s exactly the point. It’s not a tough needle to thread at all. They probably wouldn’t mind doing dwarf and elf roles sometimes, but they don’t want to be seen JUST as dwarves and elves. Similar to how for a long time most of the roles you could be offered as a Black person was as a slave, servant, or criminal. You’d be fine to play that sometimes but you don’t want that to be the full representation of your culture on screen. Or if you were Latino you’d be just offered gangster or domestic help roles. All it would take is just…casting little people in regular roles. That’s not a tough needle to thread.
I’m showing my age here, but it’s totally possible… Remember the show Nip/Tuck? There was an awesome plot line where the doc’s wife had an affiar with a character played by Peter Dinklage. He played a really brilliant artist, and his size wasn’t played for laughs in the context of that romance. It was pretty refreshing. Obviously there were lots of other problems with that show, but I always thought that was pretty neat and wished there were more things like that for LP actors.
Peter Dinklage has definitely “crossed over” into mainstream roles for sure.
Could have avoided this if only Tom Cruise hadn’t been busy.
For authenticity sake.. they really should have hired real bona-fide Oompa Loompas. Oh thats right.. it’s just people play acting.
Plus, they don’t exhibit dwarfism – they’re pygmies. Although, making his head larger is a bit problematic, I will admit.
Nobody knows what they want and the obsession with finding the “right” way to do this has got this situation tied up in knots.
I actually think lots of people know what they want.
I’m sure a lot of individual people know what individual people want, but just the quotes in the article show there’s no true consensus on what would be best.
Okay, but so? “Nobody knows what they want” is very “YOU CAN’T EVEN MAKE A JOKE ANYMORE!” So what if there’s no consensus? You’re dealing with human people, and human people are individuals. If you give a shit, you listen to what they have to say, all the different perspectives, truly consider them with an open mind and with research of your own, and make the best choice you can. Nobody’s “obsessed with finding the right way,” not even in this article. People expressed their opinions and the studios made their decisions. Deciding that all the little people in Hollywood need to agree on the “correct” approach is the opposite of treating them as humans. Humans have individual minds and sometimes they disagree. Little people don’t need to give up their individual brains for our convenience.
Thats all fair and good if the little people who disagree with the ‘correct’ approach aren’t labelled ‘pick mes’ for having a different perspective.
and id say people aren’t obsessed with ‘finding the right way’ but studios and investors are. This is why all the live action disney remakes seem to want to fix things a that weren’t much of problem in the original (mulan and dumbo come to mind)
That’s not actually what I said, but I’m sure it made you feel better to say all of that and throw out some random righteous misplaced indignation. I’m going to assume you were half replying to me and half replying to the commenter I was replying to because you quoted both of us while seemingly shouting my voice down while saying other voices shouldn’t be shouted down. Cool.I didn’t say anything about a correct approach. I simply said that given there is no consensus. In that regard, saying that a studio acted rightly or wrongly is subjective – it depends on who you ask. Peter Dinklage for example seems pretty happy to have the Dwarves in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves not be little people. Warwick Davis seems to be somewhere in the middle. This actor is very firmly in the other came.I’m not sure where you think I was saying they have to give up their individual brains, but if they – or anyone – wants to dictate practice across the industry, there would need to be consensus. This is true in terms of a lot of hot button casting issues.
“That’s not actually what I said, but I’m sure it made you feel better to say all of that and throw out some random righteous misplaced indignation.”I didn’t say you said anything, but I’m sure it made you feel better to completely ignore my point in order to try to score an internet win by diagnosing my feelings in a way that make you feel superior.“ I’m going to assume you were half replying to me and half replying to the commenter”No need to assume, as that was 100% clear from the fact that I literally quoted the other commenter.“while seemingly shouting my voice down while saying other voices shouldn’t be shouted down.”Who was shouting? Exactly who?“I didn’t say anything about a correct approach.”Didn’t say you did, Lindsey.“I simply said that given there is no consensus.”Literally no one said there was a consensus, though, so…I guess thanks for telling us anyway?“In that regard, saying that a studio acted rightly or wrongly is subjective – it depends on who you ask.”Obviously. Again—who is arguing against this?
Why would you reply to me with quotes from another person? Are you new to the internet? Go reply to them. And if you’re going to patronizingly use my name, how about you spell it right when it’s right in front of your face. Also, I’m sure you graduated from high school so remember when you quote people and they aren’t literally the person you’re talking to attributing that quote to them is customary. I didn’t ignore your point. You replied to me for some unknown reason when most of your points were about the other poster claiming that I said individuals aren’t allowed to use their brains. Didn’t say that. I said that the individuals all seem to know what they want, but since there’s no consensus, it isn’t clear what the right approach is. Which you somehow seem to be agreeing with while still shouting at me on the internet.
“Why would you reply to me with quotes from another person?”Because this conversation is about what the other person said? Unless you truly inserted yourself into my conversation with that person simply to make the irrelevant and obvious point that “there is no consensus”? Surely you didn’t take time out of your day to say something that everyone in the entire world already knows? How sad.“how about you spell it right when it’s right in front of your face.”I truly don’t give a shit. I cannot emphasize that enough.“You replied to me for some unknown reason”The reason is that you replied to me, stupid. I’m sorry to be blunt, and rude, but you are really dying on a very stupid hill. Do you know how conversations work? I responded to the OP with a comment about what he said. You responded to tell me what? Is what you had to tell me not at all related to what the OP said? If so, then why did you reply to me if you didn’t want me to carry on the conversation in the *context of the comment we are all talking about*? If you didn’t want to discuss in the context of the OP, then please tell me in very clear terms exactly what you were trying to say that didn’t need the context of the original post?“Which you somehow seem to be agreeing with while still shouting at me on the internet.”I’m agreeing with your comment that there is no consensus because that’s such an obviously facile point it goes without saying. And it has no bearing on what I was saying at all, but since you seem to not have read what I said at all it’s not surprising.Also, what is your definition of “shouting”? Are you just doing that internet thing where you use words implying the other person is hysterical in order to undermine their point? Geez that’s…so disappointingly juvenile.
The reason is that you replied to me, stupid. I’m sorry to be blunt, and rude, but you are really dying on a very stupid hill. Do you know how conversations work? I responded to the OP with a comment about what he said.I replied to you specifically about what you said. You said that “lots of people know what they want.” And I said that a lot of individual people know what they want, but that’s not consensus. I was not replying about anything else that the other person said. I was not arguing with what he said or addressing anything else he said. So if you have more to say to him, go talk to him.It’s rich calling people juvenile when you’re the one on here calling people names.What you actually said:
“I actually think lots of people know what they want.”What I said:“I’m sure a lot of individual people know what individual people want, but just the quotes in the article show there’s no true consensus on what would be best.”I never once said that nobody knows what they want. I said the opposite. But instead of reading what I wrote you went off pointing out the flaws in someone else’s argument.
“And I said that a lot of individual people know what they want, but that’s not consensus.”And your understanding is that that was some sort of newsflash? To this I give you my original response: “Okay, but so?”“I was not replying about anything else that the other person said.”There you go. Then you should make it clear in the future when you insert yourself into someone else’s conversation that you are not addressing the subject matter of the conversation. That will make things easier for everyone.“It’s rich calling people juvenile when you’re the one on here calling people names.”And yet somehow it remains true.“I never once said that nobody knows what they want.”Again, I never once said you did.It looks like we have this all cleared up now. You have a great day.
There you go. Then you should make it clear in the future when you insert yourself into someone else’s conversation that you are not addressing the subject matter of the conversation. That will make things easier for everyone.Because a conversation never has two threads in it? Highlighting that you pointing out that lots of people have opinions and that not being a consensus is a pretty isolated reply to what you said specifically. Not least of all because your initial reply didn’t exactly elucidate much beyond a very basic concept. But I guess talking to two people at once must be new to you. Welcome to the internet.
“Highlighting that you pointing out that lots of people have opinions and that not being a consensus is a pretty isolated reply to what you said specifically.”Except it’s not, because my saying that lots of people know what they want in no way at all indicates that I think that means there’s a consensus. There’s no possible way you could have understood “Lots of people know what they want” to mean “And they all agree completely.” No rational mind could have interpreted my comment that way.“Welcome to the internet.”Second time you’ve used that “sick” burn. And oh boy does it sting. I just love how you think it’s an insult to say that someone is not chronically online.
I’m not trying to burn you, bestie. I’m just honestly shocked that you think it’s rude for someone to reply to a comment in a thread or that it’s normal to reply to that person with a ton of quotes referencing someone else. It makes me think you don’t know how to talk to two people at once.At best, your comment was an incomplete thought – “Lots of people know what they want” could easily mean that they all want the same thing. All I said is that individuals know what they want, not unified groups. That’s it. I’m sorry this conversation has been so shocking for you. I’m still waiting for that apology on spelling my name wrong.
For your own sake, I’m gonna need you to find a bestie who is not openly hostile to you. I imagine having no friends who actually like you being a tough way to live.“I’m just honestly shocked that you think it’s rude for someone to reply to a comment in a thread or that it’s normal to reply to that person with a ton of quotes referencing someone else.” Help me out here—show me where I said or suggested it was rude so that I can respond to this appropriately. If you’re “just honestly shocked” that someone would reply to a comment in a conversation by talking about the subject matter of the conversation, then it must take very little to shock you.“It makes me think you don’t know how to talk to two people at once.”It’s truly not my habit to carry on two unrelated conversations in literally the same conversation space, you are correct. If two people were having a conversation I would not walk in and start talking about something entirely unrelated. I think that’s insane. You don’t. We differ. We both have to make peace with that.“your comment was an incomplete thought.”lol No it wasn’t. It completely encompassed exactly what I wanted to say to the person I was talking to.“All I said is that individuals know what they want, not unified groups.”Well that’s a lie, isn’t it? That’s not all you said. You continued with “there’s no true consensus on what would be best.” Which is weird, because nothing in my comment said anything about what was best, so why would you go there in your comment? But again I thank you heartily for this completely obvious fact that everyone knows.“I’m sorry this conversation has been so shocking for you.”At this point I invite you to go back through this conversation and identify exactly which one of said she was shocked.
So you’re not shouting at me, but you’re hostile to me. Got it. Can’t believe I was confused by that.
If two people are having a conversation and you say something that ignores 50% of the context of the article, yeah, I would expect someone to point that out. Which is what I did.Still waiting on my apology for misspelling my name. I’ll also take one for assuming my gender, please.
Okay thanks! I didn’t read this but wanted to let you know I’m packing up and about to head out camping—you know, touching grass, not spending my life telling people “welcome to the internet” over and over again like it’s my home because I have no life, you know… Anyway, you have a terrific weekend. It’s been real!
No, it’s conveniently the part where I asked you to apologize for spelling my name wrong and assuming my gender. Cool that that’s the part you conveniently keep missing when you choose to be patronizing.
Problem is they presume to speak for what other people want as well, which often is not the same thing.
Do they? Who is “they”? Because I don’t see how the comments quoted in the article could be interpreted in that way.
They “want” to be offended. So, casting little people as dwarves or oompa loompas must be stopped, Even if such roles are how some actors make a living.
While we’re on about proper casting: the role of Willy Wonka should have gone to a real confectionary mogul. It’s absurd that an “actor” was cast. What does Timothee Chalamet know about making chocolates and candies and stuff? Brutal.
I have no idea but am curious to know how LOTR and Elf were received. Those films used a lot of perspective work vs pure CGI, and the characters were not technically human. I don’t recall any conversation then but I could very much be wrong. Are oompa loompas supposed to be human? If yes, there’s some weird racist undertones there as well. If no, is it as big a deal in casting? I really don’t know, so I decline to make a judgement.
Exactly. An Oompa Loompa is not a person.
They’re obviously people. And the racism isn’t in “undertone.” It’s right there in your face for you. In the book they were literally Black African pygmies.
I must have read a sanitized version because I’m pretty certain I would have remembered that. Then again, maybe not… It’s possible the movie version with the orange oompa loompas overwrote that odious tidbit.
In the original book. It was changed in the 70s or something. Still, they’re very clearly human people. Nothing in the book or the movies gives the impression that they aren’t people. They’re not called Oompa Loompas because they’re a different species. It’s because they’re from Loompaland.
Verrrrry interesting. I’m going to do some light critical reading on this. Thanks for sharing. I didn’t realize that even in the 70s someone was like hey this is very bad and racist and maybe we should do something about it. Sheds some interesting light on the current kerfuffle over the revisions they’ve done to his other works recently.
Of course the 1970s was just after the main thrust of the Civil Rights Movement, so it was fresh on everyone’s mind.https://ourenvironment.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/UCB_McNair_Journal_2012_wc.pdf
It was also when they were making a movie adaptation and I’m sure they didn’t want that uncomfortable attention brought to the film.
i think casting little people in none mythical creature roles (like Elf does) goes a long way to help.
with LOTR they cast actors who really do look like what one imagines hobbits to look like regardless of forced perspective
Oddly, this is one area and role that imo Tim Burton absolutely *nailed* (no matter how one felt about the rest of his effort), and in addition hewed faithfully to the book, and this casting is a huge step backwards in more than a few ways.
I liked the Burton remake.
I did too. My point is that even folks who panned it tended to like the conception of the Oompa Loompas and Deep Roy’s use & portrayal to be great. (And it wasn’t offensive, a la the original “Pygmy” book illustrations of them.)
The first edition of the book, let’s just say, is more than a little racist re: the Oompa Loompa portrayals.
They sanitized it when the Gene Wilder film came out.
I love Dahl’s works but…. saying he was a complicated person is a little bit of an understatement as the man was, IIRC, antisemitic into his twilight years.
What I especially liked about Burton’s oompa loompa is that it was an actor who was in an episode of the X-Files that scared the absolute shit out of me for a really long time. Seeing him as an oompa loompa made him less scary and I could watch that ep again. lol
I think it’s a reasonable expectation that an industry that always has thousands of people trying to break in should work to hire more unrepresented people, especially when those people are uniquely qualified. Oompa Loompas aren’t real, but they are canonically based on real populations of little people. It’s not out of line to expect that such a role would be filled by someone with Dwarfism or something similar. In fact, it almost exclusively has been in the past.Roles specifically based on fantasy tropes are trickier since they have more cultural baggage that people might not want to associate with. Specifically things like Lord of the Rings and its various offshoots also create problems with numbers. The pool of available actors might not accommodate for so many roles, so it makes more sense to hire normal sized people and resize them. But that shouldn’t prevent them from hiring little people for some roles, at least where it won’t overly complicate the camera work and the VFX.
I honestly felt LOTR handled it about as well as they could. Hobbits are described by Tolkien as basically scaled-down humans with big feet. Dwarves are shorter but still strong as hell and capable of holding their own in fights with much larger species. LOTR elves are obviously very different from the way they’ve been portrayed elsewhere throughout literature.
I am not sure how I feel about this. Actors who also happen to be a part of the dwarf community are even divided on this. I would say we should let them fight it out…but…we aren’t allowed to do that anymore, right?
This one seems a bit……silly.
Calling a short person an Oompa Loompa is essentially a slur in the same way calling them a Hobbit is. I don’t think we should be in the business of forcing actors with dwarfism to exclusively play characters that they are already compared to in a negative way culturally.
Aside from that, this is ground that was already traveled in the Tim Burton remake with Deep Roy being CGI shrunk from 4’4. While that is short enough to qualify, its obviously no where near comparable to the heights of the actors playing the Oompa Loompas in the original film.
Such a friggen hilarious film. Val Kilmer was a great comedic actor back then and, really, the lack of his presence in the Willow series was one of the things that hampered it most. Turns out that Madmartigan really made the film what it was.
And in Real Genius, which I love as well.
Madmartigan was everyone’s favorite character in that movie.
Meet in the middle and cast Tom Cruise.
This feels like a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation like Snow White where you have one vocal group upset and one vocal group happy. It’s almost like the community isn’t a monolith.
Who’s happy with Snow White? Most positive reaction I’ve heard or read is it’s just kind of weird.
I’m talking about the conversation around dwarves in Snow White among little people performers. One group of actors is pleased they opted not to use little people to play the dwarves, one group is upset that they aren’t using little people.
Muppets. Cast muppets. Sweetums would make a great oompa loompa.
Damned if you do (Snow White), damned if you don’t (Wonka).
Isn’t he supposed to be like 6 or 9 inches tall in the movie? There are no little people that small, it’s CGI. So I don’t see the controversy.
“I understand that within the community of short actors, there might not be a performer with the right capabilities, the right attributes.”
Exactly, it’s not black or white…er…that’s the long and short of it…ummm…this outsized issue should not dwarf the conversation…ehhh…