Hobbit Casting Agent Fired For Dismissing Non-White Hobbits

[RoBi3.0]

And I quote LotR page 4:

"Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter,..."

Nice. You win 100,000 internets for that one. And you should be making about 99.9% of the posters to this thread wonder why they're so quick to run their mouths about that which they know absolutely nothing.

I'd like to agree, but all the hobbits in Tolkien's main works are Harfoots from The Shire. The Stoors are from a different region, the Gladden Fields.

While the Hobbits should be depicted by white actors, the casting agent really seems like kind of an ass for putting that bit in. If you do things like that, you should subtly hint at them, not go and add a comment like that without permission.

I'm totally confused. What are you trying to say? It's the Harfoot Hobbits that are brown-skinned. Or, at least, "more brown-skinned" (which could well be taken to mean that Hobbits other than the Harfoots are indeed brown-skinned themselves).

Oh crap. Seems I don't know my middle earth trivia quite as well as I thought. Sorry about that.

They probably just want to keep hobbits the way people are used to seeing them, the way they're depicted in TLOTR.

Which is one of the downsides of translating books into films: the lazy among us can then never bother to read the books (not saying that's you, just saying).

I did read the books all of them, and at one point had more Tolkien literature sitting in my personal collection then my local Library owned, and didn't know that. I think the misconception is formed because 1) hobbit linage is only mentioned in the prologue and only briefly. and 2) LotR mainly follows hobbits of the Took line which the prologue specifically stated were strongly of the Fallohide strand (the fair skinned hobbits)

Does it specifically describe them as "fair-skinned?" And I ask because if it doesn't, to say that a Harfoot is "more brown-skinned" than a Stoor and Fallohide could mean that Stoors and Fallohides are themselves brown-skinned, just not as brown-skinned as a Harfoot.

Yes

Quote
The Fallohides were Fairer of skin and also of hair, and they were tall and slimmer then the others.......

Hmmm. I'm not gonna quibble the point (I'm happy enough to know that there are some brown-skinned Hobbits) but the quote doesn't necessarily mean that the Fallohides were fair-skinned. It could mean that they weren't as brown-skinned as a Harfoot. "Fairer" sounds as if it only make a comparison, not a statement. But, again, it's a minor point and I ain't gonna quibble you on it. Again, I'm just glad to know ther're some brown-skinned Hobbits (the same way I was glad to see that one African-American NASCAR driver).

To be fair, browner of skin doesn't really mean that the had brown skin just that it was a little browner then white, but I wont quibble either. The only way to figure out exact skin tones would be to find a passage specifically describing what the Stoors skin color was as they seem to be a shade right in the middle of the two. The prologue doesn't do that.

What the passage means to me is that Tolkien meant for hobbits to basically be a cross section of current humanity. meaning that any ethnicity could be cast as a hobbit.

If you want I guess I could type that entire passage for clarity.

 

[JDKJ]

As far as I am aware. The original books of J.R. Tolkien never had any colored hobbits. I don't think this is discrimination based on prejudice, rather, keeping to the original spirit of the novel. Naz Humphreys appears to be playing the race card, and it was easily predicted that she would do so. The ironic part of it is, that in by forcing your skin color into a fictional culture whereas such a provision was never made, is racist in itself. It does not respect the cultural heritage of the native hobbit. Maybe just ethnocentric?

How exactly can you determine the color of the skin of a Hobbit from a book? From what I remember, I have never read where it would indicate one way or the other. And why is it not perfectly acceptable to have a black dwarf or dark skinned Hobbit?

I've always found it amusing that the closer you are to good and light, the paler your skin and the closer to evil and darkness, the darker your skin. Obviously pigmentation works in reverse in the fantasy realm, or maybe it's just a kind of evolution - better to hide from beasties in the dark by being black? That's funny, I've always found it hard to discern colors in the dark...

Read Tolkien. According to his own words, the Hobbits are multi-ethnic or multi-racial. Take your pick (i.e., at least of various skin tones, ranging from "brown" to "fair").

 

[Dogstile]

My friend had an excellent response to this, if in bad taste.

Don't read the below if you're sensitive

Spoiler

A black hobbit would literally remind the audience of Gary Coleman, not a hobbit

Don't read the above if you're sensitive

Its ridiculous. You don't get black hobbits and they're firing him for PR reasons.

 

[JDKJ]

And I quote LotR page 4:

"Before the crossing of the mountains the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter,..."

Nice. You win 100,000 internets for that one. And you should be making about 99.9% of the posters to this thread wonder why they're so quick to run their mouths about that which they know absolutely nothing.

I'd like to agree, but all the hobbits in Tolkien's main works are Harfoots from The Shire. The Stoors are from a different region, the Gladden Fields.

While the Hobbits should be depicted by white actors, the casting agent really seems like kind of an ass for putting that bit in. If you do things like that, you should subtly hint at them, not go and add a comment like that without permission.

I'm totally confused. What are you trying to say? It's the Harfoot Hobbits that are brown-skinned. Or, at least, "more brown-skinned" (which could well be taken to mean that Hobbits other than the Harfoots are indeed brown-skinned themselves).

Oh crap. Seems I don't know my middle earth trivia quite as well as I thought. Sorry about that.

They probably just want to keep hobbits the way people are used to seeing them, the way they're depicted in TLOTR.

Which is one of the downsides of translating books into films: the lazy among us can then never bother to read the books (not saying that's you, just saying).

I did read the books all of them, and at one point had more Tolkien literature sitting in my personal collection then my local Library owned, and didn't know that. I think the misconception is formed because 1) hobbit linage is only mentioned in the prologue and only briefly. and 2) LotR mainly follows hobbits of the Took line which the prologue specifically stated were strongly of the Fallohide strand (the fair skinned hobbits)

Does it specifically describe them as "fair-skinned?" And I ask because if it doesn't, to say that a Harfoot is "more brown-skinned" than a Stoor and Fallohide could mean that Stoors and Fallohides are themselves brown-skinned, just not as brown-skinned as a Harfoot.

Yes

Quote
The Fallohides were Fairer of skin and also of hair, and they were tall and slimmer then the others.......

Hmmm. I'm not gonna quibble the point (I'm happy enough to know that there are some brown-skinned Hobbits) but the quote doesn't necessarily mean that the Fallohides were fair-skinned. It could mean that they weren't as brown-skinned as a Harfoot. "Fairer" sounds as if it only make a comparison, not a statement. But, again, it's a minor point and I ain't gonna quibble you on it. Again, I'm just glad to know ther're some brown-skinned Hobbits (the same way I was glad to see that one African-American NASCAR driver).

To be fair, browner of skin doesn't really mean that the had brown skin just that it was a little brown the white, but I wont quibble either. The only way to figure out exact skin tones would be to find a passage specifically describing what the Stoors skin color was as they seem to be a shade right in the middle of the two. The prologue doesn't do that.

What the passage means to me is that Tolkien meant for hobbits to basically be a cross section of current humanity. meaning that any ethicist could be cast as a hobbit.

If you want I guess I could type that entire passage for clarity.

No, I'm cool. I'm willing to take "browner of skin" to mean that some Hobbits had brown skin.

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

This is ridiculous. It's like a white guy complaining that he got turned down to play Martin Luther King. It's not racism, Hobbits just don't have brown skin! For fuck sake.

 

[JDKJ]

This is ridiculous. It's like a white guy complaining that he got turned down to play Martin Luther King. It's not racism, Hobbits just don't have brown skin! For fuck sake.

Read Tolkien. According to his own words, the Harfoot Hobbits are "brown-skinned."

 

[hightide]

Read Tolkien. He never said the Hobbits are "white." According to Tolkien, the Hobbits are multi-ethnic or multi-racial (i.e., at least of various skin tones, ranging from "brown" to "fair").

Honestly, i don't really really care what Tolkien said, the umm... short candy making guys in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were originally black and I believe from Africa so I give the film maker all the right to change things, but fair and browner doesn't seem like he meant for them to be a melting pot of culture, and that is what most current day viewers will, at least subconsciously, assume.

Edit: The film maker should just do what he wants and not worry about what people think, fantasy shouldn't have to bow to political pressure because it doesn't have the merit that other genres have.

 

[Skratt]

This is actually ridiculous!

I mean imagine if there was a movie about Nelson Mandela, and some white actor was refused the role of Mandela and then called the casting director racist. It's the same situation in reverse!

Not exactly. Nelson Mandela is one man. Hobbits are an entire race. Tolkien himself in no way demands that all Hobbits be of a particular skin color, whereas Nelson Mandela IS black. If you can't find a black actor to play Nelson Mandela, you aren't trying or you are making a very racist statement (no black actors are good enough to play a black character). I think we've already been through that period of history...

 

[murphy7801]

Lord of the rings is supposed to be turn of the 20th century Birmingham (uk) country side there wasn't anyone of that colour at that time just due to lack of travel in rural areas which is the shires area. This ridiculous things don't have to have someone of another race to not make it racist just like if made a film about 10th century African cultures you wouldn't have any white people and no one would care.

 

[JDKJ]

Read Tolkien. He never said the Hobbits are "white." According to Tolkien, the Hobbits are multi-ethnic or multi-racial (i.e., at least of various skin tones, ranging from "brown" to "fair").

Honestly, i don't really really care what Tolkien said, the umm... short candy making guys in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were originally black and I believe from Africa so I give the film maker all the right to change things, but fair and browner doesn't seem like he meant for them to be a melting pot of culture, and that is what most current day viewers will, at least subconsciously, assume.

Edit: The film maker should just do what he wants and not worry about what people think, fantasy shouldn't have to bow to political pressure because it doesn't have the merit that other genres have.

I'm just correcting your "I don't believe the hobbits should be just white cause that's what the author said" spiel. Because, regardless of why you think a Hobbit should be black, white, pink, blue, polka-dotted, rainbow-colored like a bag of Skittles, or whatever, the author never said they were white. He said some of them were brown of skin and some of them were fair of skin.

 

[JDKJ]

Lord of the rings is supposed to be turn of the 20th century Birmingham (uk) country side there wasn't anyone of that colour at that time just due to lack of travel in rural areas which is the shires area. This ridiculous things don't have to have someone of another race to not make it racist just like if made a film about 10th century African cultures you wouldn't have any white people and no one would care.

Read Tolkien. According to his own words, the Harfoot Hobbits are "brown-skinned."

 

[RoBi3.0]

Read Tolkien. He never said the Hobbits are "white." According to Tolkien, the Hobbits are multi-ethnic or multi-racial (i.e., at least of various skin tones, ranging from "brown" to "fair").

Honestly, i don't really really care what Tolkien said, the umm... short candy making guys in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were originally black and I believe from Africa so I give the film maker all the right to change things, but fair and browner doesn't seem like he meant for them to be a melting pot of culture, and that is what most current day viewers will, at least subconsciously, assume.

Umm.. The prologue in LotR describes three different breeds of hobbit as they migrated into what is now the shire. The are described as being three distinct skin tones. their migration from lands in the east to Lotr time frame was 3000 year. For 1400 of those years the three breeds of Hobbits spent intermingling and interbreeding. From that we can conclude that Hobbits were in fact an array of shades ranging from fair to brown.

Interesting side note: Bree is one of the oldest hobbit settlement still standing.

 

[Spirultima]

Well all British were white and i say that as fact, if Tolkien didn't add coloured hobbits then i can kind of see the logic. On the otherhand this could be made out to be worse then fact, nearly always is, but if the guy was being genuinely racist then he got what he deserved.

 

[JDKJ]

Read Tolkien. He never said the Hobbits are "white." According to Tolkien, the Hobbits are multi-ethnic or multi-racial (i.e., at least of various skin tones, ranging from "brown" to "fair").

Honestly, i don't really really care what Tolkien said, the umm... short candy making guys in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were originally black and I believe from Africa so I give the film maker all the right to change things, but fair and browner doesn't seem like he meant for them to be a melting pot of culture, and that is what most current day viewers will, at least subconsciously, assume.

Umm.. The prologue in LotR describes there different breeds of hobbit as the migrated into what is now the shire. The are described as being three distinct skin tones. their migration from lands in the east to Lotr time frame was 3000 year. For 1400 of those years the three breeds of Hobbits spent intermingling and interbreeding. From that we can conclude that Hobbits were in fact an array of shades ranging from fair to brown.

Interesting side note: Bree is one of the oldest hobbit settlement still standing.

It's also a marvelous cheese when paired with fresh bread and a good Chianti.

 

[JDKJ]

Well all British were white and i say that as fact, if Tolkien didn't add coloured hobbits then i can kind of see the logic. On the otherhand this could be made out to be worse then fact, nearly always is, but if the guy was being genuinely racist then he got what he deserved.

Tolkien did add colored Hobbits. Read Tolkien. According to his own words, the Harfoot Hobbits are "brown-skinned."

 

[imperialreign]

What the passage means to me is that Tolkien meant for hobbits to basically be a cross section of current humanity. meaning that any ethnicity could be cast as a hobbit.

If you want I guess I could type that entire passage for clarity.

Agreed. A small bit of my thinking as well - one must also address the grammatical style from the period in time when LOTR was written, and typical speech patterns of the author's geographic region. Taking that into account, I viewed the "browner of skin" as almost an Indian skin tone, maybe even a little darker; the "fair of skin and hair" of the Fallohides (IMO) was leaned more towards a whiter "northern european" appearance . . . and numerous variances in between throughout the 3 different breeds of hobbits.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

zala-taichou wins this thread. And the whole Escapist site. And the internet. In fact, zala-taichou wins 100,000 internets for pointing out that, beyond all dispute, Hobbits, in Tolkien's mind, were brown-skinned. Way to go, zala-taichou.

I believe the appropriate wording would be 'can be brown skinned', not 'were brown skinned'. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'd like to see the full tonal spread of Hobbits thank you very much

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

So, what? Does this mean that in the interest of equal opportunity employment they aren't gonna cast some Jewish guy as Gollum? That's ridiculous! Everyone knows that Gollum's Jewish.

Ahem, that's Golem you're thinking of. Golem is Jewish, Gollum is named after his own vocal sounds.

Ahem, there's a library full of scholarly research that suggests Tolkien's Gollum was inspired by the Golem of Jewish folklore.

See, for example, http://www.taylor.edu/dotAsset/57599.pdf

Haven't read the rest of your PDF, as I stopped reading right after it claimed the Judaism took the idea of the golem from the bible. Um, no, Judaism came first, otherwise Christ wouldn't have been Jewish now would he. Judaism has a rich enough heritage without having to steal from a younger religion. That pretty much destroyed any credibility that PDF had.

Edit: Just noticed that both post I replied to were yours. Coincidence, not some kind of personal grudge I assure you.

 

[JDKJ]

zala-taichou wins this thread. And the whole Escapist site. And the internet. In fact, zala-taichou wins 100,000 internets for pointing out that, beyond all dispute, Hobbits, in Tolkien's mind, were brown-skinned. Way to go, zala-taichou.

I believe the appropriate wording would be 'can be brown skinned', not 'were brown skinned'. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'd like to see the full tonal spread of Hobbits thank you very much

I guess the only real certainties in Life are death and taxation, but you'd be hard-pressed, I think, to argue that when Tolkien writes that "[t]he Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter" it doesn't strongly suggest that a Harfoot was brown-skinned.

 

[JDKJ]

So, what? Does this mean that in the interest of equal opportunity employment they aren't gonna cast some Jewish guy as Gollum? That's ridiculous! Everyone knows that Gollum's Jewish.

Ahem, that's Golem you're thinking of. Golem is Jewish, Gollum is named after his own vocal sounds.

Ahem, there's a library full of scholarly research that suggests Tolkien's Gollum was inspired by the Golem of Jewish folklore.

See, for example, http://www.taylor.edu/dotAsset/57599.pdf

Haven't read the rest of your PDF, as I stopped reading right after it claimed the Judaism took the idea of the golem from the bible. Um, no, Judaism came first, otherwise Christ wouldn't have been Jewish now would he. Judaism has a rich enough heritage without having to steal from a younger religion. That pretty much destroyed any credibility that PDF had.

Edit: Just noticed that both post I replied to were yours. Coincidence, not some kind of personal grudge I assure you.

Are you aware that the first five books of the Christian Bible (the so-called Pentateuch) reappear almost word-for-word in the Torah (the Jewish equivalent of the Christian Bible)? In fact, the names of the first five books of the Torah translate from the Hebrew into English as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is precisely what they're called in the English Christian Bible. In fact, Leviticus (which is mostly a set of laws) is named after the Tribe of Levi who, among the so-called Twelve Tribes of Israel, are known as "the law-givers."

Bible or Torah. If you're about talking the first five books of the New Testament or the Torah, ain't no difference.