THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD | Official Trailer | Searchlight Pictures 

dev patel is english

@@shrimpfriedizzy yes but you get my drift

Maybe we can use our imaginations to envisage a society where all races were considered equal?

@@wonderwoman5528 Of course we can, but it really doesn't feel right in this movie at least for me.

You can only cry about it now because generally people like it.

@@user-zb3ih3vh4n Dullards

@@paulsmithii racist

@@user-zb3ih3vh4n As if You know anything about me.. 😂

@@paulsmithii by seeing your comments any one can tell what's your level of thinking and who you are

Dev patel is English, he's just of Indian ancestry

@Kermit TheFrog English is a nationality not an ethnic group

@Kermit TheFrog OK fair, but it's also a nationality.

@@letsgetfluffy3138 Do you think a white guy born in India would ever get to play the lead in their movies?

@@hijack69 No I do not think that, unless there was some certain reason tying into the story

Thank you for that long-winded and boring rant. I have good news and bad news. Fortunately for you there are already countless all-white adaptations of pretty much any Dickens work you could ever want to see. Watch one of those. Clearly this one is not for folks who are irked by seeing non-white actors playing parts in movies. Unfortunately for you, the racially preoccupied seem to be a dying breed. The very simple fact that studios are increasingly willing to bankroll inclusion despite you folks going into utter meltdown on every comment section of every movie in which there are a few non-white actors-- always spewing the same old tired BS about why this or that character shouldn't be anything other than a white man-- attests to this. If it annoys you, don't go see it. Simple as that. Obviously nobody cares about you lot and your superficial hang-ups anymore, at least not those making awesome looking movies like this one.

@@jonathanneal6611 I'm not offended by diversity and inclusion in film. I'm just bothered by a period drama that inaccurately depicts history and is unfaithful to its source. It's a two edged sword because I was also critical of Dunkirk for excluding the instrumental rear guard role of non-white British soldiers in the conflict. In general, it's a peeve of mine when any serious cinematic work radically distorts, omits, truncates, over simplifies or entirely fabricates the facts. So, the film looks fun and interesting and may even be worth watching when it hits Netflix, but because it flies in the face of plausibility, I can't take it seriously. I'm sure there are a lot of people that hate to see brown and female leads in film. I'm not one of them by any stretch. However, that's not what bothers me about this adaptation. I understand why you would assume that about me but you clearly weren't listening to what I was saying. I'm making a film criticism. It's devoid of bigotry. But rather than merely engage with the film criticism, you had to go and make it personal in the most condescending way you could. For your information, that kind of makes you an ass.

@@joshl6275 whether or not you think I'm an ass, I think my words still stand. Although as you said, the novel is semi-autobiographical, the author himself called it a " weaving of truth and invention". The characters are fictional. You talk about the work being brought to screen 'as the author intended' but I think that's a silly notion. We've seen it brought to screen in all white productions before; how this would make a work of fiction more historically accurate is beyond me. And having read the work upon which this movie is based, I don't remember the author explicitly stating that every character was white (although he did admittedly describe features that most would assume to be caucasian in some). And ultimately, after so many existing versions, what would be the point of doing the movie again *unless* it was a novel interpretation or re-imagining? And what would you say of all the other artistic liberties that are commonly taken in adapting written works to screen? Should every movie be filmed exactly as it was written in the novel and be entirely bound by the conventions of the time period in which it was originally conceived, all other artistic considerations be damned? That sounds like a pretty boring world to me. I wonder if you are this much a stickler for costume, skipped chapters, the deletion or addition of characters, inappropriate colloquialisms, wrong location, the fact that establishments that should have been there aren't, incorrect street names, dirt roads where there should've been cobbled streets and vice versa, people playing characters of different nationalities, wrong accents/intonation and all the other little departures that are commonly made in movies from the specific point in history and geographic location in which the source materials were originally written to take place? If you are then I wonder how you manage to enjoy anything. If on the other hand none of these things bother you, but the skin color of the actors is enough to take you completely out of the suspension of disbelief then, as reasonable as you otherwise sound, you may want to look into implicit bias, a problem we ALL suffer from to varying degrees. What I do take from your more recent comment is that you don't seem to have any malicious intent in saying the things you do and that you otherwise sound like a pretty thoughtful person. I also very much appreciated you breaking your reply up into paragraphs. It communicates your ability to make coherent arguments as well as consideration for your interlocutor. I'd ultimately end by suggesting that you simply give the movie a chance as a work of art. Nobody with any sense will be walking into the theater thinking 'Hey, Victorian England looks like it was a great place for black and brown people!!' I mean yeah, bud, we get it, we weren't welcome there,-- like we're not welcome any-fuckin-where-- but sometimes, as an 'other', one longs for a revisionist approach to time periods. Reality blows, that's why we go to the cinema. It's not always to speak to the way the world is or was-- there are plenty of movies that do that-- but perhaps sometimes to the way it *should* be or *should* have been. If you can't revel in the awesomeness of that because you're a stickler for the cruel bigotry of humanity then what can I say, really?

@@jonathanneal6611 As I said, taken on its own merits the film looks interesting and it would probably be fun to watch. But the way it totally disregards racial realities of the Victorian era is still a bit jarring to me. I have no problem with fantasy genre proper. But if a fantasy purports to be historical drama without acknowledging to the audience in some fashion that it is merely a fantasy, that's when I get peeved. I mean, for one thing, revising history in this way will give historically illiterate individuals the impression that this is how things really were. Over time this kind of thing will create a false collective memory. By colorizing contemporary narratives set in historically racist eras without any acknowledgment to that reality you ironically white wash the sins of the past from our collective memory. I think it would make more sense if, in addition to making Copperfield Indian, they also worked that into his character and acknowledged in some way the racial realities you would expect him to encounter. I have no problem with adaptations and novel reimagining of a work. I also am fine with fiction taking liberties with fact for the sake of narrative expedience. But within reasonable boundaries. If you are a period drama, you should at least try to make some attempt at giving a nod to the reality you're riffing off of. In general I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for just about any fictional work so long as it remains internally consistent. For instance, if a work is a complete work of fantasy genre but still supposes this world's laws of physics, I'm fine suspending my disbelief regarding fantasy elements such as vampires and werewolves but I also expect otherwise mortal characters to be bound by the limitations of normal human physiology. That would be internally consistent. Of course, point here being: because of modern sensibilities, in such works you will find depictions where, say, a 90lb, 5'2", Vampire hunting woman is seen being able to toss monsters twice her size around like rag dolls. Because girl power? That just strains credibility. But if you show her being able to square off against supernatural beasts on her own terms because she's clever or well equipped rather than because somehow she has brawn that men twice her size wouldn't have, then I'm willing to go along with it as a viewer. So, at the end of the day, all fiction is fantasy but I have a hard time getting on board with a story that refuses to follow the rules implied by its own premise. That said, far be it from me to tell people what they should watch or how they should make their movies. I'm just throwing my two cents in the pot and registering my annoyance at how vapid and poorly thought out most media is.

​@@joshl6275 Rapid fire, I love it. I'm going to summarize your arguments and you correct me if I've misunderstood anything: 1. The film disregards racial realities and you personally find that jarring. OK. I can accept that you are well aware of the racial realities of Victorian England and they are an important enough aspect of that time period that you can't enjoy anything that doesn't pay deference to them. 2. Fantasy must at some point explicitly state itself to be fantasy. I think this is an arbitrary supposition. Fantasy need not be explicitly labelled as such. We can know it by the degree to which it deviates from the world we live in. I think we both understand the reality of racial relations in Victorian England and the degree to which this depiction deviates from that. In that deviation I see obvious and deliberate artistic liberty taken. It doesn't bother me because I know the facts. I don't need to see them represented or have them acknowledged in every piece of media/art I experience. I've seen, as I'm sure have you, visual art that makes no sense, I've listened to-- and enjoyed-- literal noise. That being the case, the simple fact that the movie doesn't acknowledge a racial reality of which anyone I'd ever respect enough to talk to is already be aware doesn't concern me. In this same deviation, you somehow see some kind of personal or historical affront. I can't help but wonder why. 3. Without an explicit statement like 'this is not how things actually were' historically illiterate people might believe that black and brown people were really a part of the upper echelons of Victorian society. We can't not make art or bar the imagining of alternative histories on account of the fact that stupid or ignorant people might not understand it. Imagine if we conducted anything else this way. 4. If they wanted an Indian Copperfield, they should have changed the character and the story to make that more true to the realities of Victorian England. For you the reality of race as it was perceived in Victorian England precedes the actual story written by the author. I can tell that you're not much of a theater nerd. In theater so called 'racial, gender, age, sexuality, and body type' realities are bent and twisted all the time in re-imagining some work. And as a person who's seen the story itself brought to stage in countless ways, these different filters always manage to bring out something new. Not for you though, I guess? It's white Copperfield or nothing? How unfortunate. 5. A period drama should necessarily make an attempt to be historically accurate. This is an arbitrary rule. I respect that it's necessary for your enjoyment, but as I stated before, a work of fiction is not historically accurate and the degree to which you try to make it so is merely going to be based on your arbitrary notions of what constitutes historical authenticity. For you, it appears to be race. For others it's costume. And still others linguistic considerations. None of it matters though if you're able to produce someone that resonates with people. 6. If we suppose folks to be human beings, they should be bound by the laws of normal human physiology. Only this would be logically consistent with the premise. You suppose Victorian "racial" hang-ups to be as binding and unchanging as physical laws? I guess I'm (at least) lucky that didn't turn out to be the case. Does the premise of being set in the past presuppose the "law" of white superiority as an operating paradigm? You seem to think it does. I just don't. "I'm just throwing my two cents in the pot and registering my annoyance at how vapid and poorly thought out most media is." You state this as if it's a foregone conclusion as opposed to a point of contention.

Pop

Is there another one? Lol

I read somewhere that Dev Patel said that was his first reaction, too...haha.

lol

How sad.

Yes

No. It’s the Korean version.

He looks hot ALL THE TIME.

No he doesn't but he isn't my taste. I don't find Indian men attractive. Good luck with that

​@@Tippy2forU Then this comment is not for you, and you know it.

Tiff'sTravels2012 then shut up and leave. I don’t get it 😂 what’s up?

@@Tippy2forU i am American🇱🇷🇱🇷🇮 then you can try me

Exactly.

TralfazConstruction I mean if they want to create some in universe explanation OK fine but his mother is white his aunt is White his father is dead presumably he was the Indian, but I believe it was Cate Blanchett that is the dead father’s sister so how does that work?

@@76tennboy I do not know and don't get it myself so I'm probably not in the target demographic.

Well it’s made $11 million which is 10 million more than the movie that I hated but is a much better movie broken heart gallery which only made 1.6. My idiot sister said that’s because Selena Gomez produced it! I said I know right? I mean imagine how poorly it would’ve done if Miley Cyrus had produced it and she was like wait what? I had to Explain to her 1.6 million is NOTHING movies are supposed to get minimum 200 million

@@76tennboy The dynamic of going to a theater is all out of whack. _All_ i want, for now, is to stream No Time to Die and then buy it when possible. Movies need that blockbuster first and maybe second weekend for sure before they turn up on Netflix, HBO or Amazon.

Because Hollywood is satanic trash.

Because Charles Dickens is awesome and you're racist to assume his character was White.

@@rhov-anion nope. He was definitely British. Not indian. There would be obvious references to the fact that he was indian.

@@rhov-anion show me in the book where its says he is not white

Laurence Pin show me in the book where it says he’s white! To my recollection, David never describes his physical appearance.

The Green Knight looks amazing

Brown washing?

@Fit Tall Gay Blond Dickens didn't draw the illustrations.

@Fit Tall Gay Blond - And what color is Dorothy's hair in The Wizard of Oz?

no its not.. cause copperfield was white

A very good British-Indian band! I recommend.

Yeah but dev Patel is hot and a god actor? So like idk what the problem is

Indians are the real aryans!

You're thinking of the American magician, not the Charles Dickens novel. I don't recall that Dickens ever specified that Copperfield was White, and there were tens of thousands of Indian people in Victorian England.

@@rhov-anion Lol. It is considered an autobiographical novel on Dickens' life. So, he was a white guy.

One of the irony of political correctness is that all these ethnicities & the activists/politicians who support them and the filmmakers who haven’t got the balls to say to no to the former are inadvertently affirming that the White European/North American western culture is, indeed, well worth included in so much so that they will fight tooth and nail to be included and exclusion is condemned with extreme prejudice as racist. Lol! I thought the white Caucasian culture was “racist” but they all want a piece of it.

@tcntx SNOWFLAKE

“Copperfield was Indian?” Always has been 🇮🇳

Perfectly summarized this historically incorrect tripe. Next Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar and Snow White will be black too.

​@@HBosman But you can bet not a single black historical person will be played by a white actor. The agenda pushing, woke whining, Anti white, hypocritical, fact dodging muppets WON'T LIKE THAT. They will be first in the cancelation queue, having their little meltdowns over white supremacy, while at the same time purchasing their tickets for Whoopi Goldberg playing Lady Diana in her latest movie (Diana the African years). The idiotic brain-deads they are.

@@halloweenville1 It's mainly because the entertainment industry is in the majority hands of ultra-libtards who wants to rewrite history just because they don't like real history. They stick their heads in the sand like ostriches and force their agendas upon the general public through social engineering, using entertainment and media as a tool for their agendas.

He is native English person as he was born in UK but I get your point

One Indian is too much?

I've been bamboozled 😂

Charles Dickens is rolling in his grave.

lol

I don’t see how it makes a difference. This looks like a really fun and lively version of the story.

@@Bombadillio Just wondering about the all the hue and cry that would ensue were a white actor to play Swaminathan in Swami and friends

This is a modern remake

I thought it was hilarious. Humor won't be to everyone's tastes ever.

It's Charles Dickens. It's supposed to be more charming than funny anyways

Pretty much. It works, though. ;)

lol i was looking for the part when the butler sjust starrs at him mad close

They would never risk angering Black folk. They do it to White people because there are so many bootlicking self loathers out there. Just look at all these posts already praising this insult of a classic.

Spot's open now lmao

It was an abomination for an amazing story.

That movie never happened.

DairangerSentai7 ah yes forgive me

Ah, good old "White Default." Are you certain Charles Dickens specifically said he was White, and not one of the tens of thousands of Indian immigrants in Victorian England? Or did you simply assume that because he was not specifically stated as being dark skinned, he MUST BE WHITE? Rather racist to make such a huge assumption, but extremely common in literature. For that matter, does it matter what looks an actor has in portraying a fictional character? If a blond is played by a ginger, are you in a tizzy? If a character described as thin is played by an actress who is busty and curvy, do you protest? Or is it only when a fictional character Hollywood typically represented as White is now played by an actor who is Brown?

@@rhov-anion i will agree with you when Black Panther, Black Lightening, The Falcon, or Black Matra are played by a White or Asian actor... gotta give a little to get a little bud

@Cardboard Box copperfield was not indian - stick with the line of thought

@@rhov-anion just the same as Shakespeare did!

@@markippolito3620 long way to go but it’s a start. Bend it Like Beckham, with a girl playing football, and a gay Asian character, BIG leap for Ole BREXIT! 😂

Nah, the Charles Dickens novel is better.

Though it would be quite awesome to see a movie that has a magician in the 1800s.

Wow. Just wow.

SymphonyBrahms apparently they didn’t teach you how to take a joke

They turned a white guy into an Indian dude . TADA!

F

That part was so funny! I wasn’t expecting that. I really enjoyed this movie

It's not an adaptation!

It's a great adaptation. I love Dickens, and this is a movie that brings a new slant to David Copperfield while paying homage to the novel. 9/10.

The dude's not Indian. He's British. His parents were Indian.

@@anonymousperson7390 well but he is of Indian ethnicity. So it's rare to see that in a period film.

This is Victorian, not Medieval. This is almost 400 years after the end of medieval period.

@@sparker2857, You can expect to see a lot more Colored people in non-Coloured roles in more upcoming films. It's all in the name of Diversity. Patel used to get the role of Indian guys which was right. But nowadays Hollywood doesn't care about history accuracy it just needs to satiate the far left.

Sayan, he’s also in The Green Knight, a fantasy horror film set in a mythical form of the Middle Ages.

loool! Well played :)

😂😂😂

He will one day play queen Elizabeth and King Charles.

I saw it today. It's great.

@@SymphonyBrahms I don't think wed have much in common lol

@Fried Vegetables Lol! I *hate* that for em'! 😂

@Fried Vegetables Agreed-- lol! They *think* we need them, when it's actually the other way round... And I take great pleasure in that. 😎

This movie should be banned, it's an insult to Dickens' memory, who must be turning in his grave.

@@syncmeandroid 💯

may I ask is the novel any good? i'd love to read it if I ever get the chance!

@@stelthyy5018 bro mine was of class VI like it was named as The stories of David Copperfield It was same as this story but thin in size and a quick summary of this and at last It was interesting!!

@@marvelousansh6270 thanks!

@@stelthyy5018 go to your school library & get Dickens book. They aren't wrote for multi culturalism but for conditions the poor & downtrodden working classes. This is just utter tosh a panacea for paddling racial migrants. You won't get Bollywood making films for white audiences.

70,000 Indians lived in Victorian England, mostly in London. The first curry shop opened in the 1700s. London had it's own Indian quarter (and a China Town, and lots of ethnic diversity since, you know, THE BRITISH EMPIRE WAS EVERYWHERE) and curry was an extremely popular dish with Londoners in the late 1800s.

@@rhov-anion True.

Purist?

Yep.

It's fiction, and historically, there were lots of Indians in Victorian England. No appropriation here at all, just "White Default."

It's not the book but purely a exercise on hijacking great works of prose for anti white racism. It's ridiculous & not very good. What next get the colouring pencils out & colour-in the great pictures in every Dickens book of the characters for political correctness.

@@seltaeb9691 wow, a lot of words to show how pressed you are

Well, his parents were from India, I imagine it comes from there.

@@brianlynch996 David Copperfield??

No, Dev Patel, the actor. If you want to know why David Copperfield is brown, it’s because he’s being played by Dev Patel. The actor. Seems a little obvious, but I hope I helped.

@@brianlynch996 ahhh ok. Reading this novel growing up I always just thought a British man from 1800s Britain would be a Caucasian. Guess Dickens never really addressed that

its what happens when you have genetic diversity. its healthy.

Because it was out... is why you watched it... there in Ireland... Cool story bro!

Actually I live in Ireland

DO YA REALLY ? IM ONLY ASKING ,,,TO BE SURE HAHAHA

Historical? It's fiction. There were tens of thousands of Indian people living in Victorian England. David Copperfield totally could've been one.

@@rhov-anion This Movie is based on a Novel by Charles Dickens, and this movie is not faithful to the source material. If the Novel said he was Asian or Black, I would be complaining if they cast a white actor. It's a matter of faithfulness to Source Material.

@@chanakyanaravarjula6237 Wait, so... A book must describe a character as having colored skinned, otherwise it's a White character? That's the very definition of "White Default," and it's a bad habit common in readers. Prime example: Hermione in "Harry Potter" is never given a skin color. Everyone assumed she'd be White, and folks went berserk when the stage play casted a Black actress. J.K. Rowling herself stepped in and confirmed, she never said Hermione WASN'T a woman of color, and she supported the idea of a Black Hermione. Now, unless there is a line in "David Copperfield" that described his skin color as peachy, pale, sallow, etc., there is no argument to support that the casting department did anything wrong. For that matter, when have movies ever been faithful to all the gingers in novels played by blonde actresses, hmm?

@Cardboard Box Indian: no Living in the UK: no Making stuff up: no

@Cardboard Box okay, you're right, I'll stop telling the indigenous people of the UK. So let's see, definitely not the Anglo-Saxons, we can pinpoint when they immigrated to the Isles, definitely not Picts or Frisians or Celtics since we know where they originally came from, not the Britons either as they didn't arrive until the Iron Age. So like... who exactly? The Welsh are at least somewhat genetically linked to the original Stone Age people of the British Isles, so they're probably the closest you're gonna get to "indigenous." Okay, I apologise to the Welsh! (Wow, a "dumb American" like me who studied History of the British Isles for one semester in university can so easily tear down a right wing racist argument. Sad.) The British Isles have always been a land of immigrants, wave after wave, Britons mixing in with the Stone Age settlers, Celtics pushing Britons into Wales, Saxons pushing out the Celts, fresh blood from Sweden or France or India moving to England and eventually spreading out across the land, each changing the culture and enriching it. So what you mean isn't the word "indigenous." It's "White." What you really mean is, "White people were here first, historically White people have always played British characters, and we don't want Brown people to have any representation in even fictional British stories." Just be honest with your words, dude. FYI, my statistic about 70,000 Indian people living in Victorian England is not wrong, unless the British government was wrong, which it could've been. We all know how White people just love to imagine EVEN MORE brown people live in their country than who actually do. 🙄 Also, your example of Roots is ridiculous, as that's specifically about a unique cultural experience. David Copperfield is not. A better example would've been "Finn in Star Wars could've been played by a White actor," to which I wholeheartedly agree.

@Mourning Star Did Charles Dickens specifically say David Copperfield was White, or did you simply assume that all British people in the 1800s were White, and he couldn't have possibly been one of the 70,000 British citizens of Indian heritage living in London at the time? I mean, I don't blame you if you did assume that. "White Default" is very common amongst readers of all races, I'm totally guilty of it too, so it's not exactly racist to make the assumption that, because the character's skin color was never described, they are most likely White. Novelists are just as guilty as readers in that matter, and bad writers go out of their way to remind readers "hey look, I included a Black woman, I'm so damn woke, I'm gonna tell you about her ebony skin every other paragraph." However, it is racist to INSIST on your assumption being portrayed in all media and insist that any alternatives (such as a British actor with non-White skin color whose ancestors hail from a former part of the British Empire) are all "cultural appropriation." India became part of Britain's "culture" whether either side wanted it or not. Londoners have been eating curry and drinking spiced chai since the 1700s, which is a lot longer than some of the traditions modern Brits assume are "cultural." Blame our ancestors for expanding the empire.

@Mourning Star Quote a single sentence from the book that makes it clear he is white. (Hint: there aren't any, it's merely an assumption by readers.) Granted, Charles Dickens was a raging racist, even for the time period (seriously, the man DESPISED the tens of thousands of non-white people living in London) so I doubt he would consciously make a person of color as a protagonist. I mean, it's not like "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where editors forced Roald Dahl to rewrite Charlie so he wasn't Black. Still, if you have a problem with a literary character who lacks physical description being played by an actor who is non-white... well, that's your own PERSONAL problem. You'd get along great with Charles Dickens, I'm sure.

@Mourning Star All I'm saying is throwing a tantrum "wah wah actor not white I feel oppressed" is dumb, because the book never says what David Copperfield looks like. Even if he was described, how often are actors chosen PURELY to match physical descriptions? Color blind casting simply removes prejudice. I mean, most right-wing Christians I know proudly tout "I don't see color" and promptly lose their minds as soon as they SEE SOMEONE OF COLOR. Actually, I don't agree with the far-left stance of cultural appropriation. I get their point, but unless it is done with malicious intent, I don't see a problem with white people, or people of ANY color, using and appreciating the culture of another group of people, because I believe we were created as one Human Race, and cultures are all to be respected and shared. You assume way too much. I don't even consider myself to be a liberal. I'm more into Eisenhower-style progressive conservatism. We used to be called "Blue Dog Democrat."

There's the American magician and the Charles Dickens novel. This is based on the novel. That's why it's Victorian England and not 70s disco.

Ugh this irritates me lmao

Uh, because there were tons on Indian people in England at that time period, and Charles Dickens never said he was White? Maybe?

@Coasting & Toasting! I take it you did not enjoy the movie clip 😂... Well I'm willing to give it a try.

I didn’t realize he was price Zuko!! I’m glad he didn’t give up on acting after that train wreck of a movie 😂

@@annabellenonimous1302 what movie?

Omg it’s that guy from skins! I thought I recognised him

Did Charles Dickens specifically say David Copperfield was White? Are you equally upset when a blond character is played by a ginger?

WildRhov does Copperfield sound like a Punjabi name to you? Stop trying to excuse brownwashing.

cag147 it’s a Danish story and she lives too far down “under the sea” to not be white.

I'd love to have see Trump pardon Assange, but hey-ho.

Or Toby Maguire as Tre Stiles in Boyz N the Hood. Robert Patterson as Kunta Kinte in Roots. Or Willie Nelson as Sofia in The COlor Purple.

@@stevemcauliffe1887 IKR.....

@@johnmark1v17 I'm still waiting for Christopher Walken to play ghandi.

@@sixhawks That oddly would not be far off. I can totally picture Walken walking around with a shaved head and an orange bed sheet repeating fortune cookie lines to people.

Okay, I kind of love this as an actual idea and may have already added it to my calendar for next year :D Cheese board and a Dev Patel movie next year it is!

It's from Fox Searchlight Pictures in the United States and Lionsgate in the United Kingdom.

@killingangels “Why brown people in movie. Brown people scary :(“

MasterCombine no. It’s why brown people in a movie about a place that had very few to no brown people playing a part that was not brown. But if we see a white character in a brown movie where there’s no white people then it’s RACIST!!!!! Waaaaah😭😭😭😭😭😭

As it should.

@Odins Spear LMAO NO IT WAS NOT

It’s a reimagining of a story that’s been portrayed dozens of different ways, not a documentary. Calm down.

Or the Joke History of David Copperfield.

Yeah, on your phone, like? Minimum two meters from anyone else, right?

It’s back go see it

Boomer

You’re thinking of the magician. This is a fictional character.

Brian Lynch Pretty sure he was White as could be in Dickens’ tale.

Intriguing, if irrelevant. Do you have any evidence for that theory, though?

Brian Lynch ...the book itself.

It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, but I don’t remember them making reference to his race. Could you quote the passage?

True

The magician? This story is based on a book, why cant he be an indian?

@@dioritbajrami8283 well, if you read the book, there is nothing that shows he was, and besides, there weren't a lot of Indians living in England those days.

@@MBosEs its a fictional character, you can make him blind for as far as i care.

He's British. And no, his ancestors were not from Pakistan. I'm gonna guess you didn't know India was part of the British Empire, tens of thousands of Indian people lived in Victorian England, and Charles Dickens rarely specified the ethnicity of his characters but racists assume all fictional character are White unless their skin color is specified. (This is called "the White default" in the literature world, and challenging it triggers racists to no end.)

@@rhov-anion how about we just sum up the fact here then that west = euro related most often and both are interchangeable, its exactly what it is and one doesnt have to have 3 different doctorate degrees to figure that out if we want to talk difficulty here. I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling obvious that you can see. Look at everywhere that has gone away from the euro format it once was, they're shitholes, kind of like London i hear. He'll, even the cities I'm familliar with where I'm from. Although I agree there are degrees of civilised society in the east - out.

@@rhov-anion You should excuse everyone for assuming a man named "DAVID COPPERFIELD" was white and not of Indian descent.

Sunny What the hell is a “white” name? Your obsession with skin color is so evident... Lay off the CNN!!!

I hope that made you feel better.

What happened Pastor? Ran outta kids to molest?

God is not real

I'm Indian and even I feel this is utter nonsense. There will be a day when he will end up playing Queen Elizabeth or King Charles. You never know.

@@BellaBoo0002 it doesn’t “upset” me, consider this us offering cultural criticism. I understand the need to suspend disbelief when watching a work of fiction, I prefer not to suspend it to that degree.

@@BellaBoo0002 He's a non indigenous packey who were never in England in the 1880s. That's why it offends me and Emily is still kept white with malice intent.

It's reimagined. I thought it was brilliant.

@tcntx First, he was FICTIONAL. So he can be whatever colour the film maker wants him to be. Do you think there were no people of colour in London in the Victorian era?

@tcntx #RaceLifted

@tcntx Try as hard as you Liking your own comments, you pathetic dweeb? Sorry, I'm not that invested in a movie

This looks to be the best filming of that book as yet. Most of them half take themselves too seriously, half not enough. To make anything that is just close to as surreal and delightful as the actual novel, you must let loose! And I've read that novel five times or more. It's one of my favourite books. I am looking forward to seeing this.

Who’s peter Capaldi?

Matt Damon was in a film version of Mahabharata like 20 years ago.

@@brianlynch996 And how did that work out?

Big ol' flop, which is irrelevant to whether or not it was made.

@@brianlynch996 It's reception is relevent.

How so? Valli was acting like such a thing wouldn't happen. But it did. It doesn't matter that it turned out poorly. That said, the whole analogy is irrelevant in this case, as this is an English actor in an English movie based on an English story, which makes for an odd comparison to an American singer in an adaptation (country not specified) of an Indian story.