Really excellent point. History has made it abundantly clear that corporate interests don’t make progressive changes without public pressure.
In addition, Dinklage’s comments have made me think about a type of media representation that I really haven’t before. That’s a win for him and also for me.
Did you read the rest of that paragraph? I feel like you missed my point entirely. Unless you feel that there has never been a good iPhone, and every subsequent version has been equally a failure, while other smartphones are worth having and improving upon…
Arguably not a great one, but still an adaptation of it, appears as one segment of the Roger Corman movie of Poe’s Masque of the Red Death
I’ve always felt cheated by that film, because we only get one “ourang-outang” in the “Hop-Frog” sequence and only four or so colored rooms instead of all seven.
Evidently it’s been restored recently, which makes my DVD out of date
All it likely tells us is that they haven’t actually written the movie yet. The existence of the property and casting of Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot might well be the only things about this movie that DO exist.
It’s even possible they’re regretting the Zegler casting, since “West Side Story” bombed spectacularly; I think their assumption was it’d be a big hit and people fresh off watching that would carry their interest in the star over.
Several actors, including Dylan Postl, Jeff Brooks, and Katrina Kemp, spoke to the Daily Mail to say that they did not want the dwarf roles in “Snow White” canceled… “When he was cast as a little person role in Lord of the Rings or in a Game of Thrones or in Elf or this that or the other thing… those checks cashed just fine,” he continued. “He had no issue then. But now he wants to be progressive? Come on man.”
“I don’t know if Peter Dinklage is still acting or if he is done now but I don’t know… it’s pretty selfish,” he went on. “People came before him. If it is his mindset that he wants to be the only one then you gotta grow up man.”
“It’s not helping our community it’s taking jobs away from our community that are very few and far between as it is,” he added.
## Dwarf Actors Say That Dwarves Are Not As ‘Offensive’ As Some People Think
Although Dinklage said that it was “demeaning,” actor Jeff Brooks said that he did not find it offensive at all.
Yeah, not all dwarfs are alike, they’re all individuals just like the rest of us.
Of course they’re pissed. If you’re a dwarf and your name isn’t Peter Dinklage, good luck getting any kind of decent acting opportunities that aren’t things like Snow White remakes. Which is kind of his point.
It’s an odd situation because of course Dinklage is really the only dwarf actor on the planet with his marketing power. Coincidentally I just watched “I Care A Lot” (not recommended; despite a solid cast the logic of the story rapidly falls apart) in which Dinklage plays a starring role in which his size isn’t even mentioned. There is no way, none at all, any other dwarf actor on the planet gets that role.
So on one hand if his position is “dwarf actors like me should just get roles, they shouldn’t have to scrounge for roles specifically as fantasy dwarves” I see his point. But that is WAY easier to say from his position, which is that of the one dwarf actor in the world who needn’t bother rolling out of bed for a couple million a picture. It’s a different situation entirely for Michael T. Strugglingactor, for whom the opportunity to play Doc is a fat Disney payday, maybe a quarter of a point on the back end, and 15 more gift-wrapped roles. It’s the difference between having a roommate in a Van Nuys apartment and owning a house outright and a nice nest egg. I can very much understand if that guy is saying “Shut the fuck up, Pete. Change would be nice but cash is better.”
About a decade ago, there was a show starring Warwick Davis about how tough it is for dwarf actors to find roles.
Yes. And Mr. Dinklage is a spokesperson for a community of one specific person with achondroplasia and that person only. He happens to have a big soapbox and a large megaphone and has his. That does not these others’ opinions less important to hear and to respect.
Absolutely. What’s most interesting about his point is his point, not any idea about how he speaks for all little people or some such. Obviously his life experience informs his opinion, and I listen to him more than I listen to some 6’ schmoe who doesn’t have a similar life experience, but that alone doesn’t make him right, nor does it mean that I won’t listen to other folks (little or big) on the subject.
They dress exactly like the dwarves from The Hobbit, they work in a mine and there are no females around. Those are fantasy dwarves, not humans with dwarfism.
On the other hand, i work with a couple of actuaries who aren’t dwarfs, but who probably share a lot of the issues dwarfs have in society. One is a guy who’s about 5’2", and the other is even shorter, and has a pronounced humpback. And i wonder if actuaries who are dwarfs get asked “which one are you”, and otherwise have to deal with a lot of fallout from people having seen Snow White.
We are no longer in the bad old days when the only jobs dwarfs can get are in acting and circus sideshows. Those Disney roles would certainly be a win for the 7 people who get them, and maybe look good to another hundred dwarf actors. But i bet that thousands and thousands of dwarfs who work in office jobs, or grooming dogs, or stocking warehouses, or teaching children, or … would be just as happy if Disney weren’t showing a new, live action Snow White.
Again, this is understood by literally everyone in the conversation. You’re not adding any new information by pointing out that they’re “fantasy dwarves.”
Height by itself doesn’t prove anything about whether you have a genetic condition that makes you different in some essential way from most people. I should know. I’m male and 4’11" tall. This is only because my mother was 4’10" and my father was 5’5". A rule of thumb in calculating the most likely height of the children of particular parents is to average the mother’s and the father’s height and subtract 2.7" for a daughter and add 2.7" for a son. So the most likely heights for the male children of my parents was 5’4.2" and was 4’10.8" for female children of my parents. Those are the most likely heights. In other words, those are the centers of the normal curves. I don’t know what the standard deviations for those normal curves are. I suspect that you can expect about 1 in 100 male children of a 4’10" mother and a 5’5" father to be 4’11" or less in height.
For polygenic quantitative traits, when you get toward the population extremes, the mean of the distribution will differ significantly from the average of the two parents, it will be biased toward the population mean. So you are probably more unusual than you think, even after accounting for the height of your parents.
I wonder too. Do you know or do you just assume/imagine? We do not honestly even know if Mr. Dinklage has ever had that experience.
Under the assumption that some assholes have made those comments - how many of those assholes actually have any stereotype of mythological “dwarf” informed by Snow White in mind, even to the point they could name any? (Heck some here seem to only know that there were “dwarfs” in the movie and no more.) Or would be asking which one of the LOTR dwarfs they are if only they were Tolkien nerd assholes?
The assholishness is how some jerks deal with anyone who is in anyway other. Then their feeble minds scramble for something that they think might be “clever” and their fund of dwarf images to plumb aint deep. They can’t name any other dwarfs, human or fantasy character. I don’t care how fully realized of a character Mr. Dinklage’s next role is, if the movie is a huge hit that becomes part of even idiots’ cultural literacy, they will in the future be “clever” with some Cyrano “quip.”
Without question your very short male co-workers who are not dwarfs have certainly experienced prejudices and insults … and in an alternate reality in which Snow White never existed would have experienced the same. As would those with achondroplasia.
I’d bet most of them would be just as happy either way. Or maybe for most their happiness with the movie would be based on how the characters were actually handled? Like Mr. Dinklage’s for laughs character in Elf? Or as individuals with actual strengths and weaknesses with character arcs and relationships (which a live action adaptation could do)?
Again, the complete story is problematic and needs complete reworking, which Disney has not been shying of doing before (see Maleficent): the vain Queen is driven to jealous murderous rage by cosmetic envy. Snow, an immigrant into the forest, is only allowed to stay in the dwarfs’ house, as opposed to being thrown out to whatever evil horrific fate awaits, because she cooks and cleans for them, the Prince kisses (sexually assaults) a drugged woman incapable of giving consent. And that is all GOOD.
Eeew?
Beautifully animated eeew and a product of its time eeew but … eeew.
A Latina being the one kept by a bunch of men because she functions as their maid helps on the “White” being part of her being the “fairest”, but not exactly helping on the rest.
The reworking needed is huge. It could be a total disaster. Or not. Reserving judgement seems fair but Disney is very aware of modern sensibilities and how to market with them in mind.
Like it or not Snow White is a staple Disney Princess. The movie will not relegated to the dustbins like Song of the South. Rehabilitating her into something less eeew seems better than letting her be as is. Creating some better parts for the fantasy dwarf characters would be a nice benefit too and a small challenge compared to the other problems of the property.
I have to agree with this. It’s one of the worst of the Disney princess stories.
I think there’s a very reasonable argument, which many people in this thread have made, which is certainly adjacent to what Dinklage is quoted as saying; something along the lines of “the Disney original’s treatment of the titular small-individuals is so all-pervading, and so troubling, that any attempt to remake or revisit it seems extremely likely to end up further perpetuating troubling stereotypes and images. A serious bottom-to-top rethink would be necessary for it not to be very hurtful to me and people like me; and even so, why go to all that effort just to remake such a fraught original”. But that isn’t really what he seems to be saying, and in fact it’s a bit tough for me to parse precisely what he’s saying. Sure, if Disney remade Snow White as precisely the same movie with no rethinking of the dwarves or their characterizations at all, that would be troubling… but, come on, honestly, was there any real risk that ultra-image-conscious Disney would do that?
Now, obviously, there’s a fair chance that Dinklage, who is a smart guy who has certainly thought a ton more about this specific issue than any of us, actually would make a cogent and reasonable point in a context other than quick-soundbite-on-comedy-podcast. But so far, I have to say I’m not entirely sure what point he is trying to make.
Maybe he just thinks it’s a stupid idea and Disney should abandon it.