Posted by: @rilianix

But it's not like Digory's race has to be a the forefront? I think it could be pretty interesting (if done right) to actually explore the social realities of Digory's ethnicity, even just briefly or subtley, if we're right and the boy of mixed-heritage is Digory?

I just think as another layer to everything else that's going on with Digory's character, if that element is introduced, it could be something that enriches the character even more? It's not something that would need to take precedence over other elements of Digory's character like how he's affected by mother's illness for example, so why not? It would be a mistake for anyone to assume that such an element would need to "go big or go home".

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been trying to say as well. I wouldn't want the emphasis on Digory's ethnicity (if he is Anglo-Indian) to be blown out of all proportion — it's not a story about race relations in the late Victorian era, after all. But it could easily be an extra aspect to his character that increases his sense of loneliness and isolation, precisely because there were NOT many darker-skinned people in London in that period.

It could also perhaps add some extra tension and friction between him and Uncle Andrew, who is a nasty enough character as it is — even in the book, he sneers at Digory for having been "brought up among women". What if Andrew disapproved of his younger sister Mabel's decision to marry an Indian man, and he looks down all the more on his nephew for being the product of that union? It's just the sort of thing he would do, really. I don't think that needs to be over-emphasised, either — just have it implied subtly (and maybe once or twice, not subtly) that there's an element of racial prejudice in the way Uncle Andrew acts towards Digory. Aunt Letty would probably be kinder, of course, but even she might have a slight air of disapproval that she can't always put aside, rather stiff and proper as she is.

And on top of that, as I've already said, Digory being mixed-race in mostly-white and heavily imperialist Victorian Britain makes it even more significant that Polly very quickly comes to see him as a friend and accept him as an equal. There are messages there that would ring true for lots of people in modern-day diverse Britain and other countries, without seriously detracting from the main point of the story, if only this aspect is handled well.

If indeed the half-Indian half-British boy really IS Digory, that is!! But clearly the "lead character" in this film is being deliberately cast as Anglo-Indian, so the associated racial themes will have to come into it somehow.

I don't mind Digory being cast as a mixed race boy--I feel what matters more is how Netflix approaches it. I don't want them to do it halfway. If they are going with this casting for Digory, I would rather them either: 

1. Cast Digory as a half-Indian child and not make a big deal about it. Establish that he's British-Indian in a historically-inspired version of Victorian England, especially as British racial and colonial dynamics are not really addressed within the books. As for out of universe adaptation issues, Netflix could utilize multiethnic/multiracial casting across the Chronicles to mitigate colonialist overtones and focus on the fantastical themes of the story (personally I am in favor of multiethnic casting if done with care and not from a place of tokenism, especially with the issue Calorman/Narnia dynamic later on--I've previously posted about this here). There can also still be in-group/out-group conflicts without centering on race/ethnicity. 

or

2. Make Digory's mixed heritage impact his character arc significantly. As @courtenay wrote, it could lead to some really interesting angles as to why Digory is so socially isolated or give an explanation as to why Digory's father isn't present, as @daughterofthestar suggested. Change it for a reason, make it mean something to the narrative, leverage the added sociocultural layers to tie it into the larger themes of Magician's Nephew. 

What I think would be the worst outcome would be trying too hard to do both and ending up with a half-baked story about racial ostracization while also trying to say that race doesn't matter that much because it's fantasy. Likewise, I'd rather not have the powerful themes of Magician's Nephew overshadowed by solving logistical questions about how a mixed race Digory would go about his life in the Victorian Era. 

Posted by: @impending-doom

 there’s enough of a connection to the book that it feels like fair game to me. 

Hmm, now this just got interesting. I wonder where they're getting at with boy 1 and boy 2.

It's not explicitly stated in the book. but perhaps Digory was born in India to English parents and moved to the English country home when he was still a little boy. At the time, India belonged to England, so it was not unusual to be born in India to English parents. Though CS Lewis never explicitly stated, that might have been the case for Digory.

So maybe in the movie they'll find some way to establish that. I don't know. I think it should be interesting where they'll go with it.

Posted by: @oldmanofarchenland

Yes, but that "connection" can only be made through a misreading of the text. We read the words "Digory's father" and "India," but that alone does not suggest in any way, given everything else we know about Digory and 19th/early 20th century Britain, that his father was Indian. There is far too much against that leap, as Courtenay and Icarus have described.

I can't speak for Icarus or anyone else, but Courtenay has also described in detail how she doesn't object to Digory being portrayed as half-Indian — even though it is definitely not what Lewis intended in the original book — if it's done in a way that fits in well with the story as we know it.

As I've said a few times now, it could increase Digory's relatability for a wider audience, if he visibly stands out as "different" in late Victorian London, and it's implied that this makes him feel even more alone as he's struggling with grief over his mother. (Especially if there's also a hint that Uncle Andrew disapproves of his nephew being "mixed-race", along with all the other things he already has against Digory.) And it could add an extra layer of meaning to his friendship with Polly, if she as a white girl is completely accepting of half-Indian Digory as a friend and ally.

I'm all for faithfulness to the books myself (and I'm also as white as they come, by the way), and yet I can see the sense in making a change like that, as long as it's done — as it easily could be — without throwing the plot off-track. If I were directing this film, that's an angle I'd certainly be willing to take.

(By contrast, as I've also said, I'm definitely against portraying Aslan as a Lioness — that is just too much of an unnecessary and blatantly political change to a character whose maleness is a LOT more important to the story than Digory's skin colour is. But I've also written elsewhere that I could imagine a blend of several voices being used somehow for Aslan, possibly including at least one female voice actor, in order to give a wider and deeper emotional range. That's getting off topic, but the point is... we still don't know what they're planning to do, either with Digory's ethnic background or Aslan's gender or anything else, and I'm willing to reserve judgment until I see the final product. )

There's some logic behind the change even if it doesn't quite match up with the book, this is the least of my current concerns for this adaptation.

Posted by: @courtenay

 

I can't speak for Icarus or anyone else, but Courtenay has also described in detail how she doesn't object to Digory being portrayed as half-Indian — even though it is definitely not what Lewis intended in the original book — if it's done in a way that fits in well with the story as we know it.

I also would have no real problems with making Digory part Indian, if it did not have a major effect on the original story.

The trouble is I think it's certain to. Digory is the main character in TMN, but he's someone who makes a huge mistake, one that will have massive negative effects on Narnia for centuries. Given modern sensitivities and the known ideological bent of Gerwig and companies like Netflix, I just can't see them allowing a mixed race character to be saddled with the blame for that. 

As I've mentioned before, I think that's where the second boy being cast will come in. He (possibly Polly's brother) will be the one to awaken Jadis and bring her to Narnia.

I could be wrong, of course. I very much hope I am. But the more I think about it, the more horribly plausible it seems.

I mind Digory being Indian only because in the book he is English and i think that it is okay for there to be movies about English people and they are changing it because they think that isn't okay.

I wouldn't mind if he was Indian if we didn't live in a world where that was happening. If he was a good actor and they just have him be Indian because they found a kid that was a good actor and don't talk how he is Indian or have anything about it with the uncle or anything then i wouldn't mind it.

It is so watered down to make Uncle Andrew's issues be about racism and not his desire for power. It makes it too cut and dry to be like oh that guy is just the evil racist uncle. Please no.

Posted by: @hermit

The trouble is I think it's certain to. Digory is the main character in TMN, but he's someone who makes a huge mistake, one that will have massive negative effects on Narnia for centuries. Given modern sensitivities and the known ideological bent of Gerwig and companies like Netflix, I just can't see them allowing a mixed race character to be saddled with the blame for that. 

As I've mentioned before, I think that's where the second boy being cast will come in. He (possibly Polly's brother) will be the one to awaken Jadis and bring her to Narnia.

So, if I'm reading you right, essentially the theory here is: "We don't want to be accused of racism, so let's make the main character part-Indian. But oh no, the main character does something wrong, and we can't have a non-white character do an evil deed, because that would be racist. So let's introduce another white character to do the wrong thing instead."

I can see your point, but that to me seems a very long bow to draw, and a very cynical one at that.

It honestly does not come to me as a strong possibility, not least because Digory is not the villain of the piece. He's one of Lewis's most relatable child characters — a boy who is honest and good at heart, who is absolutely wracked with grief because his mother is dying, and he desperately wishes he could find some way to cure her. But like any human being (of any skin colour), he also has flaws and is subject to temptation, and he impulsively gives in at a crucial moment and does something that brings terrible evil into another world. AND he's made to confront his own sins and recognise his fault, and he repents and is given a chance to redeem himself and bring protection to that new world for many generations to come.

And along that journey, he also has to lose any hope of saving his mother — but then that giving up is unexpectedly and beautifully turned around through divine grace. It's one of the most moving character arcs in the entire series, more so, I think, than Edmund or Eustace, the two main characters who start out with much more obvious and harmful evil tendencies and need to be redeemed more dramatically.

Basically, there's nothing in Digory's character and role that absolutely requires him to have a particular skin colour. And there's definitely nothing in general human experience to suggest that people of Indian heritage can't go through a sin-and-redemption character arc like that, or that any intelligent audience would be offended at such a portrayal of someone who isn't white.

I don't know precisely what Gerwig and her team's motives are, and I don't think any of us know enough about her personally to say for sure, rather than slapping stereotypical assumptions on her about her supposed agenda. But if she really believes that it would be wrong and racist to have a non-white character do something bad and need to make up for it, well, that would be incredibly shallow of a professional film director and certainly wouldn't make for very complex and thought-provoking stories.

In fact, I honestly can't think of any recent screen adaptation that's done such a thing — in the interests of avoiding the "white people good, brown people bad" racial tropes of older literature, let's just flip that around and make it "brown people good, so only white people can do bad." If someone can point me to an example — particularly an adaptation of a classic book like the Narnia stories — I'd find that interesting to look into, but I can't think of any myself offhand.

Back to the question of who Boy 1 and Boy 2 actually are, which is being discussed in other threads, I'm wondering if Boy 2 was originally meant to be Digory, but now they're considering recasting him as half Indian, so they're doing another casting call specifically for boys of that background. Then when they've seen enough auditions for both "white Digory" and "half-Indian Digory", they'll pick the boy who most genuinely comes across as what they want for the role of Digory overall, play him as either white or mixed-race accordingly, and drop the apparent "other" boy role.

A few other people here have put that theory forward, and while it's also a fairly long bow to draw, it makes some sense. It'd certainly be easier for the film-makers than rewriting the whole story to include a third child character, especially if the intention is to deprive Digory of what is probably the most important element of his character arc — doing wrong and causing great harm, recognising and accepting his fault and repenting, and succeeding in a quest to mitigate that harm and save Narnia.

Until we've got more definite information, I will continue to reserve judgment!  

EDITED TO ADD (I forgot this bit!): we're also aware that there is a possibility that Charli XCX will be given the role of Jadis. She herself is half white, half Indian. If she, as a mixed-race person, is indeed being considered for the role of THE biggest villain in the story — the one who, you know, killed every living thing in an entire world with one word — I really don't think there's too much danger that they'll refuse to let a possible mixed-race Digory commit a somewhat lesser evil.  

I agree that they can't add a third main character. If they had Digory have a sibling or something that was just minor, i could see that, though why, just to give Digory someone to save and take care of. They are clearly going to add a lot to the movie that is not in the books way more than was in the Disney versions. It really does just come down to a different view or morality, in my opinion.

Posted by: @hermit

Given modern sensitivities and the known ideological bent of Gerwig and companies like Netflix, I just can't see them allowing a mixed race character to be saddled with the blame for that.

I would posit that the choices for or against casting ethnic minorities in villainous or antagonistic roles is dictated more by the consideration of the greater context of how it's historically been handled in Hollywood. They might also consider what stereotypes they might risk retreading or perpetuating. For example, if there was a role for a con artist or thief, they may avoid casting one people group or another because the majority of media has riffed on this stereotype--a stereotype that may negatively impact those communities. By contrast, callous, amoral Dr. Gaul in the Hunger Games prequel Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes was cast as Viola Davis even though her ethnicity was not specified in the book. So I think it really does depend. It's not that people from minority backgrounds can't be villains or have negative traits or character arcs but rather how those read in a broader context. And I can't really think of any issues of this nature that would impact Digory's casting. 

Posted by: @courtenay

I don't know precisely what Gerwig and her team's motives are, and I don't think any of us know enough about her personally to say for sure

This is the interesting thing to me--Greta Gerwig has written and directed an adaptation of a classic coming of age book: Little Women. While it's more historical than The Magician's Nephew, Gerwig chose not to change the ethnicities of any of the characters, even though Laurie, Hannah, and Professor Bhaer (assuming you changed the last name) could've been altered along this line of thinking and still fit relatively historically. Arguably it would've been a "fresher" take (edit: "fresher" in the Hollywood sense) to do this with a property like Little Women that has had many adaptations, but she still chose not to. 

So to me the fact Digory could be mixed race feels like she has a reason for it and is not doing it arbitrarily. Whether that reason will resonate with fans remains to be seen. 

It doesn't make something a fresh take because they change the skin color of a character and we want a faithful adaption. I wouldn't particularly care if it was for the very idea that they think they have done something interesting by just changing the color of a characters skin or by making Aslan female. That is not what is interest about Narnia and it will not make a new audience be interested. If anything it will lose the audience they could have gained outright.

My only "beef" with making an issue of portraying Digory as Anglo-Indian, is that from 1600 AD, Great Britain's East India Company had been operating extensively in India until 1874, when I gather the Raj took over British interests in India. Because of that company's highly lucrative trade in spices etc., in competition with the French & the Dutch, in particular, as well as the Portuguese, still remaining in Africa, Goa, Timor, Brazil & Macau, there had been whole generations of wealthy British families with possible Anglo-Indian or other more exotic connections, even before British soldiers were sent to fight in The Raj, during Queen Victoria's reign. As I have explained elsewhere, already, by 1900, when events in MN took place, an Indian paternal grandmother (much more likely, in my humble opinion), would not be anywhere near as much of an issue today, as having a purely Indian father.

At the end of MN, Digory's father finally returns home to be with his family, having inherited the grand house, where forty years later, the Pevensies spent their time in the country, during the WW2 evacuations. Though Digory's family may well have been of Anglo-Indian descent, over generations, because of that spice trade & thus well able to afford such a large house, it does not follow that his father, himself, would have been one of the native sepoys of the Raj. If we get to see Digory's father at all, - and probably we won't - the father also needs to be Anglo-Indian, (ie dashing, tall, dark & handsome) in my opinion, to make him look more plausible, historically speaking. 

I'm not sure that C.S.Lewis, who wrote about characters like Aravis & Emeth, would be at all fussed about Digory being Anglo-Indian, or maybe even having been born in India, like Rudyard Kipling, the author of the Jungle Books. But there is no evidence in the book that Uncle Andrew's sister, Mabel, Digory's beloved mother, had ever gone to India, herself, though Uncle Andrew's godmother might well have done so. 

Posted by: @courtenay

(By contrast, as I've also said, I'm definitely against portraying Aslan as a Lioness — that is just too much of an unnecessary and blatantly political change to a character whose maleness is a LOT more important to the story than Digory's skin colour is.

As I see it, Digory's "skin-color," as you refer to it, is nearly as important as Aslan's maleness. I reject the notion that changing a character's ethnicity is just changing that character's "skin-color," as if it's a different piece of clothing being swapped out. That is a reductionist view of ethnicity. Just as maleness is more than only the physical, bodily attributes of males, ethnicity is also more than physical appearance (though in both cases the physical qualities are themselves important). 

That said, while I don't know quite how important Digory's "skin-color" might be, his ethnicity certainly is. I am in favor of truth, and for that reason alone I do not want Lewis's work to be so gratuitously altered. He wrote his stories at a particular time, and set them in a particular time, and wrote them with particular details. These specificities are important. One of these specificities is that Digory is British.

I saw the user "Son-of-Eve" write on another thread (talking about changing Digory) that there is no such thing as a faithful adaptation, and that people will be watching this is 2026, not 1955. It seems to me that the sentiment behind this statement is that every adaptation will be affected by the time it is made, and it is therefore just fine to alter stories. To a certain extent this is true. We cannot entirely get out of ourselves. Anything we make will be affected by our point of view. However, when adapting works from different times, we should as much as possible seek to get into the mind, so to speak, of that past author, and try to portray his work as clearly as possible. We certainly shouldn't consciously make changes, like changing Aslan and Digory. When we so cast stories of the past in our image, in the image of our times, we lose the power of stories: to show us another world. Instead of seeing something else, a different viewpoint, and different world, a different time, we see only ourselves.

Digory is British. If Digory is no longer British, he will be another boy, because a person's ethnicity is a fundamental aspect of his/her being. While it is possible that there could be a story about an Anglo-Indian boy in Victorian London, while it is plausible such a thing could be done and handled well, The Magician's Nephew is not that story. It already exists. Let Lewis show us a vision of an all white England, let him show us that different world that once existed not very long ago. While such a version of The Magician's Nephew that you describe could be historically plausible, there is a trend of rewriting stories and history of the past in the image of these times. I think of shows like Bridgerton, and other portrayals of British and European history which are historically impossible. I would view such a change in The Magician's Nephew as part of this trend. A people's/nation's/ethnicity's stories, historical or fictional, are very important to their identity and self-esteem. A false past is being created, and our minds are being narrowed. Young people who know no better may become confused about what the past really was like, about who they are and where they come from. Do not steal a people's stories from them.

@waggawerewolf27 I agree with everything you said.