Eat the Rich: Classism in the UK Entertainment Industry, Pt. 1 [ONTD Original]

[jdnightghobhadi]

Comments

[xellabelle]

Also, the fact that class divide among actors more prevalent in the UK is also due to the fact that the world (and especially the US, Hollywood etc) still have this idea that British people drink tea and wear hats and speak like in Downton Abbey and they eat that shit up. So more people like Benedict Cumberbatch, Eddie Redmayne etc. get cast just because of their background and accent because it reinforces that stereotype.

I think the trio from Harry Potter is actually a good example of this, Emma Watson only got the part because casting people went to her PRIVATE school to look for girls with posh accents. Daniel Radcliffe got the part because his dad knew David Heyman. Only Rupert Grint auditioned in the open call casting type way and it’s no surprise that his character was intended to be a more of a “working class” type character with a working class accent.

[meadowphoenix]

...are the weasleys standing in for working class? i think they're standing in for minor branch nobility that had to work, honestly. eta: i mean Arthur might as well be a second son from a titled, and molly pretty much says her family is legit "titled" in pureblood terms and she married "beneath" her because she didn't marry into the main weasley branch. Arthur's head of an entire governmental department, ignominous as it is. they're not working class at all, lmao.

[loveumbrella]

one would think they are since a huge theme re: the Weasleys is the fact that they were poor and couldn't afford school equipment for instance. Of course I don't know how real life classism can be applied to a completely fictional world...

[meadowphoenix]

i mean, you're confusing wealth with class. upper-class uk is primarily about blood before money (why does that sound familiar) and jkr pretty much pasted on uk class onto her wizarding pureblood analog. jkr even made up a pureblood le bon ton (called the sacred twenty-eight) of which the weasleys and prewetts (and longbottoms, shaklebolts, abbots, and mcmillans, and the grand majority of slytherin names we met) are a part. the weasleys are upper-class but poor. that was absolutely common for many english nobles, to have titles or minor lines (second, third, and fourth sons and descendants who had to work in government because they weren't entitled to land from their family) which had no money but still have some type of social consequence (so they "diluted their blood" by marrying rich middle-class folks or rich Americans, Hermione for instance). jkr wasn't being in the least subtle, she just like to use her metaphors for many different social striations

[fried_twinkie]

I mean, there is no indication that Hogwarts charges tuition fees or room/board fees...

[meadowphoenix]

you're right in that jkr has said that its free. but she's also has post-canon apocrypha saying that harry always had a "place" at hogwarts (implying that he was always on the hogwarts list), which doesn't make sense to stress for a publicly funded magically expanding universally available magical school except as an analog for eton and harrow so....

[jdnightghobhadi]

Huh, literally never thought of it that way because my stupid American ass always coded them as working-class. They were obviously inspired by the Borrowers or whatever. The kids were getting hand-me-down robes. Hmmm. But it seems to me Jo Rowling didn't really expand on other occupations outside of the Ministry (like, it seems everyone in the main cast was associated with it, even McGonagall if I remember from Pottermore). Some worked serviceable jobs, but those were minor characters. Having Arthur work at the Ministry was convenient for the plot, too. But I'm not saying you're wrong. You make a valid point. I guess I'm trying to find a parallel with Rowling's fictional world and her portrayal of classism vs. real-world classism.

[meadowphoenix]

i think i just caught it because i read a shitton of romance novels where "poor but noble" or "second son with no money now has to work in the government" is def a plot, lmao. anyway upper-class relies on blood not wealth, and the pureblood stuff is more closely analoged to that than race. there was a spate of victorian and georgian and frankly into edwardian nobles who were poor as shit, and "diluted" their blood to marry wealthy middle class folks, or who "couldn't afford the fees" to eton and harrow. the weasleys are part of the truly truly pureblood set. the sacred 28, like "the bon ton" of the georgian titled classes. hogwarts is clearly eton/harrow (i.e. the weasleys having a "place" there is how highborn/upperclass talk about having a spot reserved for them at eton and harrow). nobody's working outside the ministry, because they don't work at all make money off inheritance or property lol. the whole thing where poor as hell weasleys still have a better social position than their squib accountant relative is the same as

[jdnightghobhadi]

I just saw your other comment too above. A+ response. And I'm sitting here thinking I knew the difference between wealth vs. class vs. blood in the UK, but NOPE! I still have a lot to learn, apparently. Thanks for enlightening me.

there was a spate of victorian and georgian and frankly into edwardian nobles who were poor as shit, and "diluted" their blood to marry wealthy middle class folks, or who "couldn't afford the fees" to eton and harrow.Oh shit, I've seen the light. Why does this make so much sense and I legit never noticed? And no duh to me- the Weasleys are pureblood! lol Yeah, I definitely picked up that "elite" coding for Hogwarts. It's a freaking boarding school. And the kids don't have to pay for boarding (right?) but they pay for their books and shit. Jo knew what she was doing. This whole comment is great. So informative

[xellabelle]

Yeah you make a valid point. That’s definitely true in the books but I feel like they mainly portrayed the Weasleys as poor in the films without much mention to their heritage and put them as a contrast to the Malfoys who were also pure blood.

[meadowphoenix]

i mean, i think the movies americanized a lot of british distinctions, because those movies were hollywood made even with an all uk cast, but i don't think they did elide them completely. i just think understanding the movies doesn't rely on you understanding the actual difference between the malfoys and the weasleys is more about how they feel about class-mixing than money, so you're not going to notice, if you don't notice. but they're literally all going to magical eton, for which there doesn't seem to be any scholarships, and that all the purebloods have a "place" there which is legit code for upper-class.

[jdnightghobhadi]

Re: the Trio, it's soooo glaringly obvious what the producers were doing. Yeah, Dan's dad Alan Radcliffe was/is a casting director. If it weren't for him, he would have never got into acting with the Panama Canal (?) and David Copperfield or met David Heyman at that play or whatever (or Maggie Smith who also put in a good word for him). I like Dan a lot, but his dad gave him a leg up. He wasn't that good of a child actor lol. Cute, and funny as hell in his interviews, but that charisma really didn't translate to the screen. He was soooo wooden in those early HP films (he's gotten better, sure, he DELIVERS in comedy like SNL or Miracle Workers, but he's nowhere near award-worthy yet). Yep, and Rupert really doesn't have a stereotypical "posh" accent. It's super telling. He's a damn fine character actor, though and I'm glad he got lucky. Didn't Rupert literally come from nothing, too iirc? I know he has siblings like Ron. His brother looks a lot like him (with dark hair, no less). Rupert, keep slaying, boy.

[xellabelle]

Yeah, even though I like him irl, in retrospect Daniel Radcliffe was a terrible Harry, he sometimes showed zero emotion especially in the last few films when emotional complexity was more demanding. And this is not his fault but I always envisioned a tall, more athletic Harry with messy hair when reading the books and Daniel in the later films just didn’t translate to that at all. Emma was more passable as Hermione especially in the later films but Rupert Grint was on a different level to them both. I see a different person when he acts as Ron, Daniel and Emma just act versions of themselves in whatever they do.

[jdnightghobhadi]

omg I wrote Panama Canal (what?! Where did that come from?!). I meant Tailor of Panama (which I SAT THROUGH), lol I was tired

[hunter_graphics]

I'm so proud of my ginger king. He is SLAYING in his new show 'Servant'. The most recent episode (ep 8) was centered around his character and he had to carry the entire thing and omg. At one point I felt like I was watching Paul Giamatti. SO SO good. No wonder Shyamalan and the writer are gushing over him. He's got presence and nuance and he's finally given (well not really, considering he sent in a tape and earned the role through auditions) a part where he gets to showcase the range that he's always had!

/steps off soapbox

[jdnightghobhadi]

GIRL, I STAN! DON'T APOLOGISE! love your icon btw!

Ugh, I want to see Servant sooo bad (I don't have that app or whatever, but I can find ways I guess)! Everyone here and elsewhere keeps saying how good it is and I believe it! M. Night really did a 180 with his career (loved his early work, then he was shit, then kind of passable and now he's returned from the dead and I hope he stays). I've seen just a few clips of Rupert in that and just from like, not even 2 mins - I want more, fam! Oh man, if and when I get around to watching it, I'll remember ep. 8 for our Ginger King. He really needs to be at the top where Emma is, like I can't believe a kid from no prior acting experience who got lucky with a franchise actually ended up being TALENTED! Like, he's getting up there with some of the HP adult cast. Most child actors from series or what have you end up being crap as adults, but Rupert? That's soooo rare, I feel. #GiveRonAllTheAwards