'The Personal History of David Copperfield' with Armando Iannucci, Dev Patel & Hugh Laurie | TIFF
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- 'The Personal History of David Copperfield' writer/director/producer Armando Iannucci and stars Dev Patel and Hugh Laurie join The Hollywood Reporter at the 2019 Toronto International Film Festival to talk about their adaptation of Charles Dickens's novel.
#ThePersonalHistoryOfDavidCopperfield #TIFF #HollywoodReporter #TIFF2019 #THR
Subscribe for Roundtables, Box Office Reports, & More! ►► bit.ly/THRSubsc...
Stay in The Know With all Things Hollywood, Subscribe to THR News! ►► bit.ly/Sub2THRNews
I feel like Dave, I clicked on this video excited thinking this was a documentary on David Copperfield the magician.
Well, there's this thing called "literature" and within literature there are these things called "novels." Novels are book-length fictional stories. Some novels become very, very famous and are read by millions of people. One of the MOST famous in the English language is "David Copperfield," written by a man named Charles Dickens. He lived a long time ago and wrote many novels. As a result, he was famous all over the world and some people STILL read his novels.
I'm afraid that an unintended side-effect of casting an Indian as David Copperfield, and other middle-class characters as racial minorities, may leave some historically ignorant viewers with the misconception that Victorian England was something other than deeply and unapologetically racist.
The first Asian elected to parliament was an Indian man, Dadabhai Naoroji - a campaigner against British policy in India - and, although elected as a Liberal (in Finsbury in 1892), he was a good friend of HM Hyndman, the British Marxist pioneer and campaigner for colonial independence. The Indian intellectuals in Britain were mostly radicals - Hyndman was invited to open the Indian Home Rule headquarters, in Highgate, in 1905.
@@JCR12_ Indeed this is true they weren't always middle class but upper class and educated radicals etc - but the point is Naoroji would have experienced daily racism, as an Asian man in those times. David Copperfield wouldn't have. It does leave the impression of their being some very 'woke' white Victorians...
It’s fiction you idiots. It doesn’t matter. Dickens’s Victorian society didn’t exist. His is a world of make believe, not reality.
House just casually sitting to a strangers and pretend like always, love it !
Prince Zuko
Fantastic film
My parents think that Dev Patel is crazy. I mean, they're such huge fans of the two other guys in this video, but they're clearly not fans of Dev.
Why they not fans off Dev?
Oh. They just think that he's loco.
Girl I see you on so many Dev Patel videos, though your comments are a year ago 😂Hello fellow dev fan
@@user-ki4uk Hello 👋. It is very nice to meet you 😊.
It is highly ironic that we have no overt class system in America but there is more anxiety now than ever here as to how to fit in.
Didn't Dev shave? How did his facial hair grow back so fast?
Okay.
That's Dev !!! magic
Hormon...
here Brasil i will match Just on 2020😪
when people watch it , it shouldnt matter? if they watch it at all.
How thoroughly modern Dickens was to imply an Asian was the "Hero" of his literary masterpiece. Such forward and progressive almost millenial all inclusive multiculturalism cultural integration. If I were a syndicalist, I'd say that European culture was being reinterpreted to fit the modern narrative......happy to say I am not. ☺
@bye girl obviously.....David coperfield was a MAN
@bye girl David coperfeild was a white European....not an Indian male/female thus should be played by character appropriate person......if Dickens wrote a story about life in the rahj then an Indian should be played by an Indian
craig davidson
This David Copperfield 2019 BAME edition movie was made by a tosspot who worked for years at the degenerate BBC.
@@craigdavidson2278 Well. If Peter O'Toole can play Lawrence of ARABIA. Then so be it.
@@bf2404 but Lawrence was a white English man. ....
TBH, I have mixed feelings about the casting. I can't help but think part of it is hollywood virtue signalling again, which is supported by the last line of the interview, when Armando talks about drawing from the entire pool of actors, regardless of race...in reference to a 19th century period piece. It really comes down to how the whole thing is done. It looks like a humorous take, almost a parody of the original work, but incorporating "diversity" in a setting were it would historically be out of place, makes it much more difficult to create immersion, and not come off as tone deaf.
To see how badly it can be mishandled, look at the recent Star Wars movies, particularly episode 8. Where "diversity" was apparently more important than having a decent script, and the diversity was limited to humans only. In a universe with countless alien races, not a single new main character was an alien, instead we had every human skin color represented. In most cases, the characters didn't even have a point in the plot. Btw, why does nobody talk about how the two diversity characters went to find a hacker on some casino world, and rescued the animals, but left the children as slaves? Does that not bother anyone else? I guess it was more important to teach kids the important lesson of "save the animals" instead of "save slave children". Hollywood ethics, got to love them.
hi, 3 yrs later, just now seeing this movie bc i knew dev would be in it. and i agree, though another point to consider is that if it were to have been historically accurate casting, it would be yet another movie with all white people in it. since it is already said and done, it is refreshing to some and even a point of entry to this movie/genre/book/history to others all /because/ of the diversity. just something to consider. my mind wandered to these questions after my viewing as well
@@destinyfire8185 Why does skin color matter to you? What does it matter that all the people are white in a show/movie, other than how it makes or breaks immersion? Are you suggesting that skin color alone creates a meaningful difference in the content? Because that is kind of racist.
That is the exact problem with diversity for the sake of diversity. It doesn't create meaningful difference, it is just tone deaf pandering that at its core is racist. If someone makes decisions, casting or otherwise, based first on skin color, then they are being racist, no two ways about it.
@@EcnalKcin I think it's a lot simpler than that--it's just about giving opportunities to anyone, regardless of skin color to play any role, so long as the character's race isn't intrinsically important to plot. Iannucci said as much--that he had no race in mind for any role but that he didn't want to limit himself to only white actors for these characters. He had a bigger pool than that, and why not make use of it.