I'm in three minds about this...

Analysis 1 says this element is just part of the audition script, and that the line has been designed to test how well the actor can flip between the darkness of "Everyone I know is dead" to the nonchalant levity of "nothing to miss", particularly if this sort of thematic balancing act is going to be highly prevalent in the script, it makes sense to test it with a well constructed line.

Analysis 2 says that Polly's parents don't really figure much into the book plot as it is, so having them be dead doesn't really shake things up one way or the other.

Analysis 3 says that giving Polly her own trauma, which she has either fully dealt with or repressed (since she seems not to be bothered about it) might add an extra dynamic to her relationship with Digory throughout the movie, and maybe then allows you to compare and contrast them both against the theme of loss/grief etc.

Having done theater years ago, I will say that we didn't always read a script from the play we applied for. Often our casting director would give us a different role to read, just to see how we'd play out different emotions, interpretations, etc.

Also, with this rapidly becoming a VERY high profile film, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they're putting out a fake script to the public.

Not saying that's what they did here, maybe Polly will be an orphan, but that was where my mind went.

Now that's very interesting! (I've just read the NarniaWeb news item that @Impending-Doom has linked to.)

I agree with @icarus — any or all of those three things could factor into it. I'm guessing it's just an audition script, to get the dynamic between the boy and girl characters and, as icarus says, to see if the actor can handle that "thematic balancing act" of darkness and lightness that will almost certainly be needed throughout the film. We've got no evidence, so far, that any of this conversation is going to be in the actual movie.

I gather it's common for auditions to use a made-up script and invented character names that aren't actually part of the film that's being made — largely so that details of the "real thing" don't leak out too early — meaning that they're acting out a scene and characters that are similar in tone to the real script, but not actually connected with it. I'm thinking this script sounds very much like that.

On the other hand, if they do decide to make Polly an orphan with no extended family, I also agree that that isn't likely to affect the overall plot very much and it may make Polly a more interesting character — and it would give her all the more reason to become friends with Digory and to feel an increasing connection to his family, if she hasn't got any of her own. Maybe it would give her an emotional bond with Digory's mother — not as deep as Digory has, obviously, but if Polly meets and befriends the seriously ill Mabel, she could start to realise what she (Polly) has been missing out on by never having a mother of her own. And that means Polly too has a personal stake in Digory's hope of finding a cure for his mother, and she can support him more strongly in it, if Mabel's life or death now means something directly to Polly as well.

I wouldn't have any problem with that being added to the story, since even though it's not what Lewis himself chose to do with those characters, it could very well enhance and deepen the themes that are already there, without distracting from the main plot or dragging the story in a different direction. I think I'd really quite like to see it done like that, actually! But like so many things with this, we can only wait and see.

First thought is I’m uncomfortable with the idea.

The Magician’s Nephew is uniquely Digory’s story—he’s the clear-cut main character, hence the book’s title. His personal journey is the heart of the book. If Polly is also given a tragic backstory, I worry it could shift some of the emotional weight away from Digory’s arc.

That said, I can also see a scenario where this actually strengthens and adds to his development rather than detracting from it.

If handled well, it could deepen their dynamic and even highlight Digory’s own struggles in a new way. It all depends on how Gerwig takes the story — that’s if this line of dialogue has any bearing on the actual film. 

I haven't had a chance to read the news article yet, but how do we know who is Digory and who is Polly? (If it's really obvious from the news story, just ignore this post and I'll delete it later. 😉 )

Posted by: @impending-doom

The Magician’s Nephew is uniquely Digory’s story—he’s the clear-cut main character, hence the book’s title.. 

I'd been thinking about this for a while, because whilst you are absolutely right (even more so, given that MN is a prequel to LWW in particular) for a lot of Narnia readers, the very first character they are ever introduced to, in the very first paragraph, of the very "first" Narnia book (if reading in chronological order) is Polly Plummer.

"and in those days there lived in London a girl called Polly Plummer"

Its a weirdly odd status that Chronological Order affords to a character who doesn't really figure that much into the rest of the books.

I wonder if they'll have Polly be an orphan but not have everyone that she's ever known be dead in the real script. I can see them making her an orphan because...well, it's conventional for protagonists, especially young ones, to be orphans. But having her entire family be dead sounds like overkill. That line in the audition scene strikes me as weirdly over the top.

Here's a theory that occurred to me. In the book, Polly, out of sensitivity, refines from interfering when Jadis is trying to convince Digory to give the apple to his mother instead of Aslan because “you see, it wasn’t her mother who was dying.” Maybe they want her to have undergone some traumatic loss in her past so that she has more of a right to advise Digory during that part. Maybe the filmmakers are thinking it’d be awkward if Polly and Fledge just stood around and look scared during the big dramatic scene.  

Anyway, the idea of her being an orphan doesn't really appeal to me because it feels like such an artificial and cliche attempt to add "depth" to her character. But bad sounding ideas can be executed well. This might be something that sounds pointless to me but which I love when I see it played out in context. Sometimes that happens with adaptations of books I love. 

I also agree with the points provided by @icarus and @fantasia. 

While this part of the script may or may not be official. It could offer some clues about what they are planning to do with the adaptation. As for Polly's family, it is quite possible that they may make her orphan in this adaptation. 

Event 1: Polly could totally be an orphan in the story. She might have lost her parents in an accident or in any other event. This won't affect the story that much at all if they will go with this plot but will probably affect her relationship with Digory in a better way (will elaborate more later on).

Event 2: Polly's whole life could be a lie. They might have made her believe that her parents or her family are already dead for any reason. If that's the case, then this will affect her story more and it depends on how they will do this. This will add more drama to her story. They might give her a good reunion with her parents/family or worse, they despised her (too much drama on this sense). 

Event 3: She is adopted and there is no back story about her family.

If Polly is indeed an orphan, this will probably affect her relationship with Digory more. As the book states, Digory's mother is ill and he asked Aslan's help to cure her. This way, Polly would have had more sympathy on Digory as she knows how it feels to be alone and on that sense, lose a parent. While Digory's mother is of course cured by the end of the story (in which I really hope they won't change this in the adaptation), Polly could provide more comfort to him. By the end of the story, I wouldn't be surprised if Polly will be adapted (if not too cliche to the story) by Digory's mother and they will have stronger bond. 

Posted by: @fantasia

I haven't had a chance to read the news article yet, but how do we know who is Digory and who is Polly? (If it's really obvious from the news story, just ignore this post and I'll delete it later. 😉 )

Strongest evidence would be the Frannie tells Isadore that he has a girls name to which he replies; “Isadora is for a girl, Isadore is for me. It was my great-grandfather’s name.” 

So unless they’ve also gender-swapped the two roles for the auditions to really confuse us, I think it’s safe to assume 😉

I was thinking that the logic of the codenames could be that they have the same number of syllables as the real names, so theoretically they could easily be swapped out in a finished script without affecting the rhythm.

Dig-or-ree / Iz-a-door

Pol-ee / Fran-ee

It is almost irrelevant whether Polly has a father, but when she has taken the ring and disappeared, Uncle Andrew pressures Digory into going after her, finally with the words that otherwise D will have to go and explain to P's mother that she'll never see her again because D was afraid to put on a ring.

That sense of relationship would not be so strong if Polly just lived with an aunt or foster parents.  And Digory's feelings are played on because of his own mother and her illness.

So, Polly must have at least a mother. She doesn't realise how lucky she is to have a mother who is presumably running their home, until she meets someone whose mother is dying. After she meets Digory she takes a bit of interest in the middle-aged neighbours. 

@icarus That's a really interesting point!

They could also have Jadis and Uncle Andrew mention that they lost their parents at a young age (explaining why he spent so much time with his godmother) if they really want parentlessness to be an overarching theme.

It also occurs to me that a lot of Narnia books have a boy and a girl who argue a lot but are ultimately friends as main characters. Maybe this movie's story is going to be a combination of several different Narnia books that haven't been adapted yet and Isadore and Frannie are "distilled" versions of Digory and Polly, Jill and Eustace and Shasta and Aravis. 

But I think Isadore and Frannie being placeholder names for Digory and Polly is more likely (and desirable.)  

@col-klink No thanks, I prefer a film for each one!

On the other hand, it's a good representation of how friends who are boy and girl often relate, especially when they are not yet good friends (Jill is not a friend of Eustace at the start of SC, no matter what the VDT scriptwriters interpolated into the end of that film). 

It shows the romantically inclined that boys and girls can be friends without being romantic, and that in many ways their friendship develops like sibling interaction.

(it also shows directors that movies with boy-girl friendships can and should be played by child actors, instead of teenagers taking the roles and becoming boyfriend/girlfriend)