I've been thinking more about the idea of including greater diversity in the characters outside of Narnia. I still think it could achieve a lot of the things I mentioned earlier, but more than that, it could help avoid the implication that diversity is something otherworldly or fantastical; something strange, distant, or unreal.

Representation limited to Narnia might look progressive on the surface, but it could carry the unintended consequence of reinforcing old divides between “normal” and “other”? A thoughtful adaptation can avoid that by making the real world just as rich, layered, and reflective of humanity as the one beyond the wardrobe.

Sure, not everyone will consciously notice or consider this and some might argue that Narnia should be more diverse than the real world, but these thoughts could be what's informing Greta Gerwig in her choices?

It has been normal in recent years to add a disclaimer to the start of an older film, stating that it shows some attitudes and behaviour that are different from now. 

By casting an all-white English family in 1900 London, the film would be giving a truthful representation of the book, but a wider range of people would be seen in the street.  There is no need for a convoluted rewriting of Digory's family history or of London.

@coracle I understand what you're saying, but I still think reimagining Digory as mixed heritage doesn’t require any major departure from the original book? As we've already stated, in The Magician’s Nephew, Digory’s father is in India, which opens a plausible narrative space for a mixed-race family, and the casting call also suggests that his mother’s side of the family (the Ketterley's) remains white, meaning only his father would be Indian or of Indian heritage? That’s not a drastic reimagining. It’s a subtle shift that remains rooted in the existing world of the novel while opening up new thematic and emotional depth.

To me, Digory seems like the most natural character to reimagine in this way? If Greta Gerwig is thinking about these stories through a broader thematic lens, and wants to explore a different race for one of the visitors to Narnia, doesn't it make more sense to do this with a character like Digory, than let's say characters like the Pevensies, where's there's no textual justification?

Posted by: @rilianix

To me, Digory seems like the most natural character to reimagine in this way? If Greta Gerwig is thinking about these stories through a broader thematic lens, and wants to explore a different race for one of the visitors to Narnia, doesn't it make more sense to do this with a character like Digory, than let's say characters like the Pevensies, where's there's no textual justification?

Yes, that's what I've been thinking too. As I know I've already said, if at least one of the main child characters from our world is going to be changed ethnically — and really, why not, since isn't it nice to reassure modern audiences that not only white middle-class English children get chosen to go to Narnia?? — I’d pick Jill Pole, for the simple fact that we know absolutely nothing about her background or parentage and so nobody can be accused of doing something that contradicts the books.

But Digory would be the next logical choice, since he already canonically has some connection with India. No, I’m not saying Lewis meant him to be part-Indian. He didn’t. If Digory’s father is Indian, then obviously he loses the Kirke surname and the inheritance of the English country house. But — as I’ve already said — his surname is not at all relevant to the plot (it is Lewis’s private tribute to his best and most influential tutor, but it has no bearing on the actual story), and the house could possibly be inherited from Digory’s mother’s side instead.

(Or if it’s Digory’s father who is half-Indian, half-English, then if his mother — Digory’s grandmother — was Indian, then Digory’s father could still have the surname Kirke and the inherited English estate from his own father’s side. But that doesn’t match with what we’re told about Boy 1 having an Indian father and an English mother.)

So I’d say, while making Digory mixed-race does involve a few changes in his background, they are not huge and they are not convoluted. As far as I can see, it could be done without making any major difference to his actual character — not to the point where the plot has to be changed in any significant way — and it’s believable enough for the time period. So if they do decide to do that, then I can’t see any problem with it.

@courtenay Absolutely! I agree that alongside Digory, Jill Pole is one of the most flexible characters in terms of background. Who knows what’ll happen when Netflix (hopefully) gets to The Silver Chair, but within the scope of what’s currently on the cards with Gerwig (The Magician’s Nephew and possibly The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), Digory makes the most sense, given those parameters - as we both agree.

As you’ve pointed out, explaining the inheritance is pretty straightforward and wouldn’t even need to be spelled out beyond a bit of subtle exposition, if they chose to address it at all, given the UK's history with India; trade specifically dates back to the 1600's with the creation of the East India Company.

Regarding your note about Digory’s father being of mixed heritage not matching the “Indian father, white mother” phrasing, I do think that could border on being overly specific, if they were to include that? It could unintentionally suggest that only children whose father is of Indian mixed-heritage and mother is white. The stipulation is probably more to do with giving some narrative context than setting strict parental demographics for casting of which parent is which ethnicity and whether they're of mixed heritage or not?

Posted by: @rilianix

Regarding your note about Digory’s father being of mixed heritage not matching the “Indian father, white mother” phrasing, I do think that could border on being overly specific, if they were to include that? It could unintentionally suggest that only children whose father is of Indian of mixed-heritage and mother is white. The stipulation is probably more to do with giving some narrative context than setting strict parental demographics for casting of which parent is which ethnicity and whether they're of mixed heritage or not?

I meant that as far as I can see, that's what they're stipulating that the character of Boy 1 has, in the context of whoever he is in the story. I don't think they'd restrict the actual auditions to people of that absolutely precise ancestry!! Just that they want a boy of that age who looks the part for a character who, in the story, has an Indian father and a white mother. Whoever that turns out to be — either Digory or some unknown new character...  

@courtenay Exactly, and overall it's gonna be interesting to see what comes of this. Between this and the Aslan casting, we've analyzed it so much that I wouldn't be surprised if by the time casting announcements are made, we're like... oh, we really overdid it - but that's what these pages are for and I'm loving every minute of it  😆 

My personal thought is that there may be a child actor who they already want to cast, who has that exact ethnic background,  and there's a need to allow others to audition, so it seems fair. 

@PrinceRillianIX To me, Digory seems like the most natural character to reimagine in this way?

Fair point. Now, if Greta Gerwig were to make Uncle Andrew of mixed heritage (that dodgy godmother of his, for example), that would be totally unsuitable. Not only for what it implies about his sisters, including Digory's mother, but also the rather snobbish way Uncle Andrew views himself. 

@waggawerewolf27 If the casting call we're going by is right (in terms of the character's mother being white, and his father Indian) then that won't be the case 🙂

Narniawebbers may remember that I was basically OK with Digory being Anglo-Indian, but I was a tad concerned that the movie would be trying to make racism a theme, which it wasn't in the book. (I wouldn't say it's never a theme in the books. The tribalistic dwarfs in The Last Battle and the genocidal Telmarines in Prince Caspian lends themselves to stories about racism.) But I had a revelation of how it might connect that, if I'm right, makes me positively approve of the change.

Perhaps the filmmakers are trying to draw a parallel between the British empire and the empire of Charn. That would tie in with Aslan's warning to Digory and Polly at the end of the story that their world is becoming more like Charn. That'd be clever though I'm not sure if 1900, which is when MN takes place according to the Narnia timeline would be the most fitting time to parallel the two empires. 

I'd still have a lingering concern that this would weigh down the movie with exposition about Anglo-Indian relations which ultimately wouldn't be that important to the story even if they're thematically relevant. But I'm not as worried about that with Greta Gerwig. In an episode of Talking Beast a long time ago, Glumpuddle praised her movie Lady Bird for making use of the historical background without having it distract from the story, and I'd say her Little Women did the same. Of course, those movies were made by Americans about Americans for Americans, so I'm not sure if she'd handle a movie about English characters the same way but I'm not too concerned about that yet. 

@Col-Klink Perhaps the filmmakers are trying to draw a parallel between the British empire and the empire of Charn. That would tie in with Aslan's warning to Digory and Polly at the end of the story that their world is becoming more like Charn

I somewhat doubt that would be the case, as C.S. Lewis, writing in 1955, is referring back to a time when Queen Victoria was still reigning, in 1900, and when the British Empire, however large it eventually became after its 4th July in 1776 loss of USA, could pride itself on the social progress it had made throughout the 19th century, being the first such empire to abolish its slave trade in 1807, before abolishing slavery altogether, in 1833, in releasing at least 5000 slaves in South Africa, after Britain took over Cape Town, in 1795, in bringing in universal enfranchising of its male adult population, not only the landowners, and the reforms the likes of Elizabeth Fry, the prisoner's friend, initiated. Whilst others, like the Earl of Shaftesbury, got children out of coalmines and sent them to school, instead.

Even though Queen Victoria was only mentioned once, on the first page of MN, it was the contrast between Queen Victoria's London and that of Charn which struck me more, & which explains much about the warning Aslan gave about Charn, when some 20th century countries and empires were eviller than the British Empire ever was, despite her faults. For examples of Charn-like empires, some countries fighting in WW2 do come to mind, in which C.S. Lewis, himself, and the church he belonged to, played its own part in quietly trying to protect dissident German church leaders like Dieter Bonhoeffer, who was nevertheless hung by the Germans in April 1945 at Flossenbürg, along with Admiral Wilhelm Canaris and others. According to Internet: "In the dark days of World War Two in England, a man named C.S. Lewis began giving 15-minute talks on BBC radio. The series of talks, originally under the title of “Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” would eventually be turned into Lewis’ classic work Mere Christianity". 

But getting back to Digory's ethnic background, well might he have Anglo-Indian ancestry, when Britain's East India Company, a parallel to The Netherlands' VOC in now Indonesia, had been trading since 1600, long before the British Raj started in 1858, finishing in 1947. The Anglo-Indians who often became wealthy, as merchants have tended to do in Britain, certainly made an impact on British fashion, diet, sport (polo) and language. Even Queen Victoria, herself, had an Indian servant, Abdul Karim, whom she called "Munshi" (or teacher).  

Posted by: @hermit

a grossly implausible historical detail can break that suspension of disbelief far more easily than the most outrageous magical creature. Paradoxically, the more fantastical a story is, the more rooted in reality the mundane parts of it need to be.

This is so true.

Spin off of your thought, often times the mundane parts are further either dullified or made more real for effect. For example (in Lewis's writing), before they get into Narnia, the Pevensies cannot go on adventures through the countryside because it's raining. Of course it would be raining! How typical. And another: before they get into Narnia the second time, they are about to go to school, a part of everyday life. In fact, for each beginning of 2,3,4,5 (chronological order) they are doing something mundane, unexciting, terribly normal - which begs for adventure. Imagine if the beginning of TLWW began with an almost otherworldly adventure through England countryside before finding the wardrobe in the middle of some woods. As reader, you would wonder where the line of real/magic was, and would end up being potentially confused. To put it another way, when the reality parts of a story become unbelievable, the magic is less magical, and the whole things because implausible - like hermit said.

Hopefully, Gerwig keeps this in mind.

Posted by: @lamp-lighter

In fact, for each beginning of 2,3,4,5 (chronological order) they are doing something mundane, unexciting, terribly normal - which begs for adventure.

Imagine if the beginning of TLWW began with an almost otherworldly adventure through England countryside before finding the wardrobe in the middle of some woods. 

Exactly.

I think I've mentioned something similar in other conversations with regard to the additional focus that the Walden films put on WW2 - starting the Pevensie's story amongst the drama of the blitz, and against the backdrop of the most significant event of the 20th Century (WW2) is not really the vibe that Lewis was going for. Even the way the movie presents the train journey (especially the music) is far too magical and exciting, but maybe that's just me.

Either way though, maybe that proves the point that historical accuracy and extra detail isn't actually all that important to the story. A British-Asian Digory is probably going to be believable enough for any point in time of the 20th Century for it not really to be an issue.

That said, I still have no expectation that this is what they are doing with the casting, but I could be wrong