I’m trying to understand how whether Dinklage has seen Snow White is irrelevant to whether Dinklage’s criticism of Snow White and the idea of remaking it was fair.
Dinklage is a great actor, and perhaps he knows a lot of the cultural representational of “little people”- I will grant him that. But that means jackshit when applied to mythological creatures. And I don’t misunderstand it at all.
I think it is quite likely he has not seen it. I have heard people rant about Song of the South as if they are experts… who have never actually seen the film. In fact the very first critique of the film as racist was by someone who had not seen it. (Hint, there are no slaves in that film).
It is nice that you think he has seen the film, knows they live in a cottage not a cave, and knows they are mythological creatures- but NOTHING in his rant gives even the slightest hint those are true. Maybe they are true, but the rant doesn’t give a clue.
Oh geez.
Have you seen the film? Sure it is a lighthearted musical film to start out, but the dwarves get all serious towards the end, they chase the queen to meet her well deserved end. They, not the Prince- get the job done.
We already know it doesn’t since there are… wait for it… no “little people” in the film. The questions remaining= is his rant out of ignorance or is it just a ploy for publicity?
But the issue here is Peter Dinklage Rips Disney For ‘Snow White’ Remake: ‘What The Fk Are You Doing?!’** and criticizing him for his rant is totally fair game.
Agreed, and I wish I had had the sense to say so.
One thing to point out - it’s not like this is a thing only Dinklage has ever noticed or objected to. Hell, people have published scholarly articles on how damn offensive the 7 dwarfs are:
One scholar has said it “followed the conventions of the freak show and perpetuated contemporary prejudices in their constructions of people with dwarfism,” portraying them as “incapable, humorous, weird, childlike,” and “overly naïve, perhaps even dim-witted.”
Snow White and Rose Red?
There are no people from Thailand in Lady and the Tramp, does that mean “We are Siamese” does no disservice to them?
The idea that Dinklage doesn’t understand the difference between fantasy dwarves and humans with dwarfism is too ridiculous to bother entertaining.
I see the objection as similar to the objections some Irish people have to depictions of leprechauns as small, belligerent, drunken, ginger-haired men. I mean, leprechauns aren’t humans, so why the fuss?
If the term “Leprechaun” was also commonly used today to refer to people of short stature you might have a point. But it isn’t, is it?
A movie doesn’t have to have slaves to be racist.
Similar =/= The Same. It wasn’t the stature of Leprechauns that I was referencing. Modern pop culture leprechauns have a whole lot of Irish stereotypes attached to them. And the term Leprechaun is used as a stand-in for “Irish”.
I’m not sure I understand the discussion. The important point isn’t if he’s seen the original. It’s that he has no idea how the remake will be made or how they will handle the issue.
Giving an opinion on an issue he’s dealt with every day of his adult life is not equal to being in charge.
In this case it is an uninformed opinion because the movie might turn out to be completely unobjectionable to him.
I’ve seen it. I had the Little Golden Book variant as a child. I’ve read the original Grimm tale, and at least half a dozen reimaginings, and scholarly criticism of the original and of the Disney retelling. I aced a graduate-level course in children’s fantasy and fairy tales, at Harvard, taught by Maria Tatar. Are you freaking kidding me? You got any more questions about my credentials to discuss the matter?
You’ve got to be kidding me. After all the discussion about cultural conflation between little people and mythological dwarves, after linking to articles on the subject, after we’ve already agreed that they likely not human, you think this is a point we’re gonna wait for?
There’s absolutely no chance that you’re even understanding the point Dinklage, or others, are making, if you think your italicized bit is a refutation.
No. Pronoun antecedents are a thing.
Gaiman’s Snow, Glass, Apples is a personal favourite. Very Angela Carter-ish
But if the original film was so deeply laden with offensive characterizations (think Birth of a Nation) then you can rightly ask why it is important to remake that story? It’s certainly possible to make an inoffensive version of BoaN, but should you?
Do you think the remake will not feature a little house in in the woods where 7 dwarves live?
Do you think one of them will work as a paramedic another as a cop and one as a carpenter?
Or do you think they’ll all do something stereotypical?
Do you think the story works at all without stereotypical dwarves?
I think the point is that this little fairytale does not need a remake. Find some other material, create something new!
So, it’s really sexist, then? Snow can only have value if she cooks and cleans? I’m a guy, and I’m offended by that.
They should clean their own damn cottage. What if she wants to do something else? Like, oh, maybe be a dentist? I bet the titular Seven don’t take care of their teeth, either.
FWIW, I’m nine years older than Mr Dinklage, and I’ve never seen Snow White.
I’m curious about why this is personally a particularly hot topic for you.
If you look upthread there have already been several re-imaginings mentioned that have not included stereotypical dwarves. As to why they need a remake, maybe they want to make their historic first feature film into a modern version without stereotypes? More importantly to them, like every other remake they are doing it to make money.
That question does not interest me. Discussing personal interest in the question turns it from the much more interesting core questions.