Can o' worms...

[Pitchwife]

Well, since PJ already got away with giving us a fair-haired Boromir and Faramir (contrary to Tolkien's descriptions), I really don't see a problem with a brown-skinned Hobbit, even if you don't want to go all the way to colour blind casting - I mean, looking at the photo of Ms Humphreys on the site davem linked to in his first post, I don't see how she would be particularly implausible as an average Hobbit. The original decision really seems a bit ridiculous.

As for colour blind casting, the only problem I have with that is that I'd like the characters to look more or less like Tolkien described them (which is a problem you won't get so much with Shakespeare - Juliet or Hamlet could be any colour you like for all I care; Othello maybe not, but I could see a white Othello in an all-black cast, or any Othello in a mixed-colour cast, if his outsider position is somehow differently marked [/digression]). So no problem at all with levantine Gondorians or Asian Elves (on the contrary, the Elven style of hairdo PJ used in the trilogy would look really cool on Chinese or Japanese actors!), but a black Éomer or Galadriel is just not how I'd picture them.

The problem with this is, of course, that the only people Tolkien explicitely described as dark-skinned, i.e. the Haradrim, are on the bad side, and thus all gates are opened to allegations of racism (which PJ obviously tried to circumvent with his uncanonically pale Haradrim in RotK) - but as this is a problem which Tolkien fandom has laboured with for some decades now (see e.g. here for a previous discussion on these Downs of ours), I don't quite see why movie-goers should be spared it.

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder where this will go? The Globe thing sounds a bit odd to me. I would have noticed & it would have distracted me. Why do it except to show everybody how you're not 'racist' & above such 'trivialities' as skin colour(which comes across as a bit patronising to me.) - because, well, we're all the same, aren't we?

I'm not!
No, seriously: much as I despise political correctness myself, it's sometimes difficult to resist its tyranny without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and relapsing into the old prejudices it legitimately opposes. Or, to put it more concretely - what difference does it make for an actor/actress whether s/he's denied a role because s/he's the wrong colour or because the producer/director doesn't want to appear to be patronizing? "Oh, of course there's no reason why you, as an Afro-American/Asian/Arab/whatsoever, couldn't play this role, but if I'd cast you for it, it would look like I'm only doing so to avoid seeming racially biased, so I'd rather not. I'm sure you'll understand." - "Yes, sir/madam, of course I do, that's a big comfort, thank you very much."

Originally Posted by davem

The problem with pretending you're colour blind as far as Tolkien's world is concerned is that race is a pretty important theme (the whole Elves & Dwarves thing, the blood of Numenor, the 'racial' division of Hobbits into Harfoots, Stoors & Fallowhides & Elves into Calaquendi & Moriquendi.

Ah, but here you're putting worms from a number of different cans into the same stew:

• Elves, Dwarves and Men. - Yes, Tolkien himself used the term 'race' for the three kindreds of the Children of Ilúvatar, and his use is justified insofar as they were capable of producing fertile offspring with each other (although we only ever read about the products of Elf/Man unions - no Dwelves or Dwarf/Men hybrids, which may have to do with the Dwarves' special status as His Children by adoption only); but looking at e.g. their vastly different life-spans, I don't know that the relationship and differences between them are quite compatible with the terms of modern biology - neither 'race' nor 'species' seem really appropriate here.
• The blood of Númenor. - This is a somewhat curious matter, as many of the so-called Lesser Men with whom the Númenóreans interbred in the Third Age probably were descended from close relatives of the Three Houses of the Edain and thus akin to the Númenóreans themselves. The main difference seems to have been the special longevity which the Númenóreans had been granted by the grace of the Valar for the role their ancestors played in the First Age - i.e. for historical, not biological reasons.
• The three 'breeds' of Hobbits. - These are more or less what we today would call 'races' (i.e., to coin an ad hoc definition, a population sharing the same hereditary phenotype; for a more elaborate definition see here).
• Calaquendi/Moriquendi. - This division is purely historical, i.e. depends on whether or not they went on the Big March and saw the light of Aman, and has nothing at all to do with the biological concept of race.

So yes, the concept of races in the widest sense does play a role in Tolkien's Legendarium, but how important is it really, compared with other themes (such as power and being corrupted by it, or mortality and the various ways to deal with it, or humble folk rising to meet huge challenges and being ennobled thereby)? Not in any way central or crucial, I'd think.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

[*]The three 'breeds' of Hobbits. - These are more or less what we today would call 'races' (i.e., to coin an ad hoc definition, a population sharing the same hereditary phenotype; for a more elaborate definition see here).

Whether this is scientifically/anthropologically/sociologically correct, I've always thought of the three divisions of hobbits as akin to the three divisions of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who invaded England before William the Bastard did. And by some strange fate of equivalences, also somewhat similar to the Scots, English, and Welsh of the current UK. I have no cannonical support for that last comparison, but I suspect I could muster up a fair bit for the the first.

So yes, the concept of races in the widest sense does play a role in Tolkien's Legendarium, but how important is it really, compared with other themes (such as power and being corrupted by it, or mortality and the various ways to deal with it, or humble folk rising to meet huge challenges and being ennobled thereby)? Not in any way central or crucial, I'd think.

It is all, I think, overwhelmed by, overpowered by, the unstated but clearly expressed/expounded/depicted idea that the crucial point is the unanimity or coming together of all the disparate groups against the concept of evil. This is why the friendship of Legolas and Gimli is so important, and not merely fodder for slash jokes. and fanfic.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Pitch

So yes, the concept of races in the widest sense does play a role in Tolkien's Legendarium, but how important is it really, compared with other themes (such as power and being corrupted by it, or mortality and the various ways to deal with it, or humble folk rising to meet huge challenges and being ennobled thereby)? Not in any way central or crucial, I'd think.

Good stuff. I had a very long, insightful conversation with Fea months back about if there were elitist and rascist undertones in the Lord of the Rings. We sort of discovered when you first read the books, if you were young and early teens it goes completely unnoticed. You read the story, as it was meant to be read, to be enjoyed. The battles, the mastery and flow of language, the heroes. Then as we get older, read it again (and again ) , it seems like we lose that first-time reading experience. We are possibly reading for meaning.

Just speaking for myself and what I said in the convo. When you look too much into it, the Numenoreans being the "pure" race, teaching and instructing the inferior and darker races. The darker-skinned Men who joined Sauron, the Black Riders...etc. You can look at it and make it out to be about race, but it's really not about black and white at all. It's for me, light and unlight. Ungoliant's darkness was described as unlight.

In the end, it's over-complicating the story, by searching for meaning, instead of enjoyment. What is Tolkien trying to say here? What does he mean by the fair-skinned Elves, with the "Light of Aman" in their faces and the dark Moriquendi?

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Good stuff. I had a very long, insightful conversation with Fea months back about if there were elitist and rascist undertones in the Lord of the Rings. We sort of discovered when you first read the books, if you were young and early teens it goes completely unnoticed. You read the story, as it was meant to be read, to be enjoyed. The battles, the mastery and flow of language, the heroes. Then as we get older, read it again (and again ) , it seems like we lose that first-time reading experience. We are possibly reading for meaning.

Just speaking for myself and what I said in the convo. When you look too much into it, the Numenoreans being the "pure" race, teaching and instructing the inferior and darker races. The darker-skinned Men who joined Sauron, the Black Riders...etc. You can look at it and make it out to be about race, but it's really not about black and white at all. It's for me, light and unlight. Ungoliant's darkness was described as unlight.

In the end, it's over-complicating the story, by searching for meaning, instead of enjoyment. What is Tolkien trying to say here? What does he mean by the fair-skinned Elves, with the "Light of Aman" in their faces and the dark Moriquendi?

Many, most threads on the Downs concern themselves with questions of what is meant by this phrase, how to interpret the use of certain words or how to reconcile x passage with y excerpt.

We analyse, we interpret, we argue for and against any number of topics. I doubt this takes away from anyone's enjoyment of the text. I therefore don't see why, if the question of race is raised, all of a sudden it is a matter of "over complicating" the story. I can understand not agreeing with a point of view and saying why you disagree but where is the "over complication"? It seems to me a matter for interpretation just like anything else.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morwen

We analyse, we interpret, we argue for and against any number of topics. I doubt this takes away from anyone's enjoyment of the text. I therefore don't see why, if the question of race is raised, all of a sudden it is a matter of "over complicating" the story. I can understand not agreeing with a point of view and saying why you disagree but where is the "over complication"? It seems to me a matter for interpretation just like anything else.

I wasn't intending to imply if we read it for meaning than you can't enjoy it just the same. What I meant was, while talking to another member, we were trying to figure out how come when we first read it as young teens, why didn't we catch any elitist or rascist undertones?

I believe it is because when I first read it, I wanted simply a good story, I wanted to be entertained. That is the basic heart of any story, to be enjoyed. Of course authors weave in their own personal experiences and messages, but that requires us to look for it. Not that reading for meaning, or what the author is trying to say, is less enjoyable, but rather a different experience from when you first read it.

And yes, at times if we are looking for meaning and analyzing, we can beat on things that just aren't there. As readers we make what we want from the story, and draw from our own experiences, but we should separate that from what Tolkien's messages and beliefs were in the story.

[davem]

More from the Grauniad http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/...obbit-race-row. Apart from a nice quote-

The Shire, after all, was Tolkien's version of a sort of pre-Edwardian rural England: stuffed with hairy-footed, pipe-smoking, moleskin-trouser-wearing, unworldly, pig-ignorant yokels who dwelt in cosy holes in the ground surrounded by overfilled furniture, decorative knick-knacks and back issues of The Hobbit Reader's Digest. It was a vision that was retro even when put together; and The Hobbit was published 11 years before the Windrush put in at Tilbury docks.

It got me wondering - will we now see 'Hobbits of color' (notice I used to American spelling there, as I hold every single American personally responsible for the existence of Political Correctness) just because of this issue - will the Shire now be filled with a glorious racial rainbow simply so the producers can show the world that they are color blind? (Same with the Elves & Dwarves?). After all, they now have something to PROVE, don't they? And of course, you will now have folk of all races turning up for the auditions - you may even find that they have to audition specifically for 'colored' actors to play extras if they don't have any at the moment.

What's also interesting, for all the comments made by Jackson & the Producers about there being no colour bar on potential cast members, that every single cast announcement we've had has been about white actors being cast in the major roles.....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

It got me wondering - will we now see 'Hobbits of color' (notice I used to American spelling there, as I hold every single American personally responsible for the existence of Political Correctness) just because of this issue - will the Shire now be filled with a glorious racial rainbow simply so the producers can show the world that they are color blind?

Don't point fingers, Davem. You Brits decided to have Sharia law courts, and thus subverted your own judicial system in the name of political correctness.

This whole can o' worms is as indigestible as the aforementioned prepackaged annelids. Aside from parsing out text into indecipherable bits of evidentiary vagueness and monosyllabic minutiae, Tolkien is quite clear on the racial make-up of Hobbits, their place in the prehistoric Northwestern corner of Europe, and their pre-Edwardian proclivities.

Personally, I have no problem with an actor of African descent playing a Hobbit. Just use make-up to present him as an Anglo-featured halfling. Lawrence Olivier had to wear face paint to portray Othello, which is only correct, as Shakespeare presents Othello as a Moorish general in the army of Venice. If it was okay for Sir Larry, it should be okay for an actor with 15 seconds of screentime.