Do we know that the casting call to the American studios was for 3 persons or were the two separate casting calls the one to the UK studios and the one for the American studios put together as if they were three different ones? I don't know if my question is making sense.

@decarus I think I sort of get what you mean.

The origin of the first casting call is very clear - a one page Casting Call notice which was sent out by Casting Director Nina Gold's team. You can now find this document on Nina Gold's official Twitter page. It's for two roles only, both of open ethnicity, and for roles which have subsequently been identified as bearing the codenames "Frannie" and "Isadore".

The provenance of the second casting call is a little bit less clear. The information was added to an online casting database for actors - @impending-doom did however manage to verify that the details were authentic by reaching out to the newly revealed US Casting Director

Therefore, per your original question, then yes, I guess there is some possibility that whoever added the details for this second casting call to the website, may have been amalgamating from two sources

At the end of the day though, all three roles are described as "Leads" and two of them are described as "Important Roles" both on the new casting call (Boy 2 and Girl 1) and on the original casting call.

"Boy 1" is the only role with any stipulated ethnicity requirements across both casting calls.

Hmm. Yeah, you answered my question. I just think that it is very unlikely they added a third child. I remember how much we talked about the little girl in VDT that would be Lucy's friend and then that ended up not being a big thing. I mean she didn't make the movie better because Lucy should have talked to the boys, but it wasn't the worst thing about that movie.

I think there is no way they can add another child to the friends of Narnia group from our world. They can only change so many things before it just isn't the same book anymore. I do think just having the two kids will be such a change of pace for Narnia, especially in Charn and the Woods between the world. Having that isolated beginning, his mother on her deathbed, creepy uncle in the attic, that then leads to the quiet of the Woods and the desolation of Charn, and then leads to the big creation of Narnia. How they use sound, keep the beginning of the movie quiet and then explode into sound after the creation of Narnia. I don't know how they are going to figure out the climax of this movie. I guess saving his mother. I need to reread.

Posted by: @fantasia

I'm going to throw out a possibility that might be a bit of a stretch... or perhaps not. Since Hollywood LOOOOOVES to over-link all characters and plot lines together, what about the idea that the non-Digory boy might be a Pevensie relative. A grandfather perhaps? Anything to set up a relationship between Digory and a Pevensie ancestor so they can ship the four off to the Professor (a family friend) during the war. 

I was going to say that this sort of Marvel style world building really doesn't seem like Greta Gerwig's style, as it doesn't seem to offer up any particularly interesting thematic angles that I could imagine she would ever be interested in exploring as a writer or as a director...

However, I did then think of one thing which might allow the studio to get it's world building angle, and would allow them to "break the arc" of the whole story (as we heard them say) and also allow Greta to explore some of the themes which seem to be important to her based on her previous films - namely childhood, the female perspective on growing up, and inter-generational dynamics between mothers and daughters (to broadly summarise a very lengthy previous thread)

Anyway, it would look something like this; (building off part 1 which I already mentioned in a previous post):

• GG will lean into the "Lilith" connection from LWW, (and the whole "eve" thing in general) and accordingly Jadis will have a child, both to humanise her, and to explore the concept of motherhood with respect to Digory and Polly's differing situations (Polly being an orphan per the Frannie script)
• That child will either be the progenitor of the Calormen in Narnia, or will become Tash himself (Lillith's children are noted to be demons in general mythology from what I can tell) thus setting up the back half of the Narnia books and "breaking the arc" of the whole thing, as per that quote.

Not quite sure I've got it fully fleshed out, but something along those lines.

Obviously it could be a risky move in opening up the whole Calormen can-of-worms in the very first film  especially if thats the direction for the British-Indian character, but at the moment it's all Cans of Worms on this project, so therefore it doesn't seem that implausible right now.

Once you further factor in a Female Aslan as the literal creator of Mother Nature to tie together all of those threads under the broader umbrella theme of Motherhood, and suddenly a lot of things start to make a lot of sense.

Not good sense necessarily, just sense in the logical sense.

i.e. Aslan has to be a female to make her version of the story work because it is all about Creation - both of new life and of new worlds - and only females can give birth to new life. (creation = motherhood).

Thus giving Jadis.a son would also allow the villain to feed into that theme, and to play off Digory's story to save his mother's life.

@icarus This is very plausible to me, because creation and female fertility are linked motifs in both Barbie and Little Women, so it's definitely something Gerwig is circling around and why I think Magician's Nephew is a good thematic fit for her right now. Nicely articulated!

@decarus my child got a casting call for Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) too, so they're looking further than North America ! it was the second round of casting with the Isadore and Frannie script.

@pennyjones Hi PennyJones, good to have another NZ member, AND to hear that your child got a casting call. I hope they get good news!  

Posted by: @icarus

However, I did then think of one thing which might allow the studio to get it's world building angle, and would allow them to "break the arc" of the whole story (as we heard them say) and also allow Greta to explore some of the themes which seem to be important to her based on her previous films - namely childhood, the female perspective on growing up, and inter-generational dynamics between mothers and daughters (to broadly summarise a very lengthy previous thread)

...

Once you further factor in a Female Aslan as the literal creator of Mother Nature to tie together all of those threads under the broader umbrella theme of Motherhood, and suddenly a lot of things start to make a lot of sense.

Not good sense necessarily, just sense in the logical sense.

i.e. Aslan has to be a female to make her version of the story work because it is all about Creation - both of new life and of new worlds - and only females can give birth to new life. (creation = motherhood).

Thus giving Jadis.a son would also allow the villain to feed into that theme, and to play off Digory's story to save his mother's life.

I must say that does all make a lot of sense from a world-building standpoint, at least if this was going to be a totally original series. It could be the basis of a really good and intriguing new fantasy universe, if so. But… it’s meant to be Narnia, and this is not Narnia.

Obviously none of us have any real idea of what Greta Gerwig and her crew are actually planning to do with Narnia, which is why there are all these speculations flying around. But if she really does stray that far from the very-well-established original stories, I can only imagine it won’t just be the devout Christians and die-hard Narnia nuts who’ll be absolutely appalled. Even casual fans of the books and of the previous Walden film franchise will be left going “Er… what?? Hey! Excuse me. This is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE anything I know as Narnia!!!”  

And honestly, I find it hard to believe any professional film director would do something so outlandish and so likely to alienate a huge percentage of viewers. I could be wrong, of course, but that speculation really does seem too extreme to be credible.

While we’re on this topic — well, this is now going a little off topic, and it may not be an appropriate discussion for NarniaWeb (if that’s the case, I understand), but I’m going to stir the pot a bit anyway...

Ever since it was officially announced that Greta Gerwig would be the director for Netflix’s first (and maybe second) Narnia movie, a lot of the conversation about her, here and elsewhere, has been along these lines: “Well, Greta Gerwig’s movies always have these particular themes, and she’s clearly focused on this and this and this issue (growing up from the female perspective, mother-daughter relationships, feminist themes in general). So how is she going to fit these themes and concerns into her Narnia film, and what changes will she need to make to Narnia in order to get it to fit her worldview and her agenda?”

I’m just wondering: would we be getting into these kinds of discussions if Gerwig wasn’t both a relatively new director, and a woman?

I mean, look at the huge (really quite incredible) range of films Steven Spielberg has directed over his career. I’m not old enough to remember the start of that career firsthand, but I don’t recall any significant critics ever stereotyping him as a particular kind of director, either based on previous films he’s made, or on his personal characteristics. Nobody suggests that because a lot of his films have been blockbuster action movies, he just can’t handle more intimate human-interest stories that don’t involve spectacular special effects and giant scary creatures. Or that because he’s Jewish and grew up knowing many Holocaust survivors, that all his films are always going to tie into those particular personal connections of his. Everyone seems to understand that he’s capable of making films on a great diversity of subjects and interests, and that whatever type of story he turns his hand to, he usually does a really good job of it.

So… why exactly are we assuming that Greta Gerwig is only capable of making movies on a very narrow range of subjects, and that every film she directs will always be geared towards her own particular interests and concerns??

Like I said, I could be wrong, but just wondering…  

@courtenay for what it's worth, I don't think it has anything to do with Greta Gerwig being a female director - I think it's true of almost every creative director. Sure, Spielberg is maybe a bit broader than others, but he still has particular themes and sensibilities which he hits almost every time.

Christopher Nolan is another prime example - all of his films echo a few central core concepts, which he tends to elaborate on with each successive movie, but there is still a very obvious thematic thread which connects them all.

Greta Gerwig mentioned once in an interview about Narnia, that writing for her is all about finding the "North Star" - that singular guiding principle that leads you through the story. I can definitely tell you what Spielberg's 3 or 4 North Stars are which define his storytelling sensibilities, and I think Gerwig's is starting to come into focus as well, but sure, she's still early in her career.

Bringing it back to the topic of "Boy 1" though, I do think that if we are attempting to work out what the logic going on here is, then getting inside the creative wheelhouse of Greta Gerwig is probably a great place to start. I really can't see her as thinking she is a good voice to tell stories about Empire and Race Relations for example.

That's not to pigeonhole her into one particular set of themes and ideas, but rather to acknowledge that she is a creative auteur, and she probably isn't just going to make any old studio-franchise movie like a generic gun-for-hire director would.

Posted by: @icarus

@courtenay for what it's worth, I don't think it has anything to do with Greta Gerwig being a female director - I think it's true of almost every creative director. Sure, Spielberg is maybe a bit broader than others, but he still has particular themes and sensibilities which he hits almost every time.

Christopher Nolan is another prime example - all of his films echo a few central core concepts, which he tends to elaborate on with each successive movie, but there is still a very obvious thematic thread which connects them all.

Greta Gerwig mentioned once in an interview about Narnia, that writing for her is all about finding the "North Star" - that singular guiding principle that leads you through the story. I can definitely tell you what Spielberg's 3 or 4 North Stars are which define his storytelling sensibilities, and I think Gerwig's is starting to come into focus as well, but sure, she's still early in her career.

Fair enough, but I would say that Spielberg's "3 or 4 North Stars" — which I wouldn't attempt to define, not being a movie buff, but I'd be interested to hear what others think they are — are rather less specific and thematically uniform than "childhood, the female perspective on growing up, and inter-generational dynamics between mothers and daughters", to quote your earlier post again.

What I mean is... ever since the confirmation of Gerwig as director, I've felt a lot of the commentary on her has gone implicitly along these lines (possibly not always consciously):

"Greta Gerwig is a woman, and a mother, and a feminist. Therefore all her films are going to be centred on female childhood and adolescence, motherhood and mother-daughter relationships, women as creators, women's issues and rights and freedoms, and so on. So obviously she HAS to make Aslan female (because, despite her background in Christian theology, there is no way she can allow a male creator / God-figure in any story she's directing), and this mysterious boy of a different ethnic origin must be the female villain's son, so that the female villain can have a more interesting and complex and relatable back-story, and..."

And to be fair, Gerwig's three major films so far have all been focused on female main characters and women's issues. But does that mean we have to assume that every film she will ever make must follow exactly the same pattern?

I mean, take Steven Spielberg again. When he directed The Color Purple in 1985 — well, of course we didn't have the internet and social media back then, so there would have been a lot less public kerfuffle, but before the film came out, were there huge numbers of critics going "Hey, this Spielberg bloke so far has produced some thriller and horror films (Jaws, Poltergeist, Twilight Zone: The Movie), and a couple of sci-fi films about contact with reasonably benign aliens (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T.), and two action-adventure films about this macho archaeologist guy (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). We can see pretty clearly what his main concerns and interests are. So how on earth can he be the right director for a movie about black women's experiences in early 20th century America, especially seeing he is neither black, nor a woman??"

(Nowadays I've no doubt there WOULD be a lot of controversy about a white man directing that particular film or anything else with similar themes, but that's getting a bit off topic — and in any case, I doubt there were any prominent black female directors in Hollywood back in 1985.)

And yet Spielberg made that film, and it was a critical and commercial success, and it certainly goes to show that while he might have a few key themes that feature in all or most of his films, he can't be pigeonholed into a particular genre or into any really specific concerns and issues.

For Gerwig, it's probably too early in her career for us to tell for sure (as it would have been for Spielberg after only his first three films). And — especially considering the Female Aslan rumour hasn't been fully confirmed, but it hasn't exactly been denied either — it's possible she could be trying to rewrite the entire Narnia saga to fit a female-dominated fantasy template, and making an unrecognisable hash of Narnia in the process.

But… couldn’t we give her a little more benefit of the doubt — rather than making so many wild assumptions that seem to be rather heavily focused on her gender and what her specific interests “should” be as a female director — until we know for sure what she is actually doing??

The problem in general is that I wish we had a glimpse into the the casting a little bit more to see if the Boy 1 is auditing with the same script as Frannie and Isadore. I think this would give us a glimpse into whether we are misjudging the whole situation or not. I think that personally, I do not care if Anglo-Indian Boy is Digory or not, frankly, he could be Frank and Helen's son, but, the big factor to me is if there are three children still trying to somehow do the same storyline as two children. There is not much for a third child to do in the storyline and it is concerning that they will add a lot to make it work or take away from Polly and Digory to give something to the third character.

\Now, I have thought of a recent idea that I would not mind in general, it matters how this plays out, Uncle Andrew could be the Anglo-Indian boy. In this case, Digory is part Indian but, not a half because his grandmother was Indian. Uncle Andrew will be given flashbacks throughout more of the movie to tell his story about how he got the box from Mrs. Lefay and did not destroy it. It may play similarly to Little Women in how the flashbacks relate to each scene in the future. In that case, you would list Uncle Andrew as a child as a lead character since the flashbacks are throughout the movie. 

Posted by: @courtenay

But… couldn’t we give her a little more benefit of the doubt — rather than making so many wild assumptions that seem to be rather heavily focused on her gender and what her specific interests “should” be as a female director — until we know for sure what she is actually doing??

For what its worth, I don't actually think the idea of making Creation (and by extension Motherhood) a key theme of the movie would necessarily be a wholly radical re-interpretation of the source material, but maybe that's a whole other topic...

The purpose of this topic however is to theorise the reasons why Greta Gerwig as the writer and director of this project might have chosen to add a third child lead to this project (and again, i stress "might" because compared to the Aslan story there is a tonne more uncertainty surrounding this one compared to that) and therefore I don't really think you can detach the analysis of Greta Gerwig as a filmmaker from that equation in terms of determining why she would or wouldn't make a particular creative choice.

Yes, it would be foolish to suggest that Greta Gerwig "must" do this, or "has" to that, in order to comply with some pre-defined Gerwig Formula that she is universally bound to follow for all time, however I do think its more than legitimate enough to look at her previous artistic body of work (as an actor, a writer and a director) and to try and extrapolate the core artistic themes that might carry over, as that's going to offer up a much more informed, and potentially much more likely answer to the central question posed by this topic of why she might want to add a third child lead to the plot (or indeed, as to why she might want to make Aslan a female character).

Any good artist is obviously going to grow and develop as their career progresses, and any good artist should be constantly seeking to challenge themselves and to try new things, and therefore is never going to be bound by formula... however most good art is ultimately underpinned by the core sensibilities of the artist themselves, and hence why art is not immune from critical analysis, and why its often difficult to detach art from artist (though again that's a whole other intellectual debate).

For reference though - some of Spielberg's core artistic themes as a filmmaker include:
(which i don't think are actually any broader, or more specific, than the ones suggested for Gerwig)

• The innocence of childhood - ET, AI, The Goonies, The BFG, etc.
• The importance of family - Hook, War of the Worlds, etc.
• Ordinary people struggling through extraordinary circumstances - Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds, Jaws, War Horse etc.
• The magic of cinema - The Fablemans, Ready Player One, Indiana Jones
• The Jewish experience - Schindler's List, Munich, The Fablemans

Some films like Jurassic Park aren't overtly "about" any of these things, but still has tonnes of moments which hit the first three of those categories in spades. Others such as The Fablemans massively hit 4 of those 5 categories. Again, none of this makes Steven Spielberg a boring or predictable filmmaker, but he definitely has an artistic style which can be easily defined and categorised to some extent, and could justifiably be used to determine how he may or may not approach future artistic endeavours.

Attention all posting members!  Rule #7 from Commands of the Royal Court: Forum and Section Rules at the top of the Cast and Character forum section:

7.) When quoting other members, only quote the relevant sentence or two of their post. Do not include the whole post over again as this makes for long page loads.

This is even more relevant when the quoted post is the immediately preceding one.

Next violation of this rule which is already making lengthy posts lengthier will receive a nice MOD PM requesting an immediate edit of the post in question.  

Thank your for your kind attention and cooperation regarding this matter.

I really think they just can't rewrite the entire plot of the book, add a third child, make the movie about racism and motherhood and female creation and it be the same book. Though, i think it is more likely that the issue is Netflix and not necessarily Greta Gerwig. She isn't controlling this movie.

Mod Note: This thread is getting off topic. Please limit your discussion to Boy 2 in Netflix's recent Casting Calls. This is not the thread for discussing directors and writers themes.  Thank you!