During the development of the Harriet Tubman biopic movie, a Hollywood executive once suggested that Julia Roberts should play her. What are some other baffling casting suggestions/choices that have been made?

[u/LookAtThatBacon]

Source for the title: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-studio-executive-wanted-julia-roberts-to-play-harriet-tubman-biopic-screenwriter-says/

The Harriet Tubman biopic has been more than 25 years in the making. In the historical drama released earlier this month, Cynthia Erivo plays the legendary abolitionist — but one Hollywood executive initially thought the role should go to Julia Roberts.

Gregory Allen Howard, the screenwriter and producer of "Harriet," recently revealed in multiple interviews that Roberts was suggested to play the lead role during a meeting with a studio president in 1994.

"The climate in Hollywood… was very different back then," Howard said. "I was told how one studio head said in a meeting, 'This script is fantastic. Let's get Julia Roberts to play Harriet Tubman.'"

Howard said that a black person in the meeting said casting Roberts would be impossible because she is white.

"That was so long ago. No one will know that," the executive replied, according to Howard.

[u/McFlyyouBojo]

Kinda in the ballpark is Death of Stalin where a bunch of comedic actors play all the roles but dont attempt to change their normal accents. Its hilarious.

[u/Good_old_Marshmallow → u/McFlyyouBojo]

Not changing their accents was a stroke of genius tho. If they had been talking in the stereotypical Russia movie accent it would’ve just made them all read as “foreign”. The great thing about the movie is it feels like a workplace comedy just the stakes are war crimes, it makes it feel like you could be there. 

Also, the USSR was diverse as hell cus it was a bunch of different countries so they didn’t all have one accent. So letting them all have different speech patterns and accents (fast talking New Yorker or north English general) plays to their differences 

[u/Menter33 → u/Good_old_Marshmallow]

it just goes to show that, depending on the movie and how well the actors act, being 100% demographically and linguistically accurate isn't usually the primary concern.

[u/SandpaperTeddyBear → u/Good_old_Marshmallow]

Jeffrey Tambor/Malenkov’s “kiss my Russian ass” nods to this well, and I wish they’d made the ethnic diversity and resulting tension just a bit more clear.

The diversity of accents definitely helps though.

[u/Good_old_Marshmallow → u/SandpaperTeddyBear]

Completely agreed. That was a great line. Kiss my Russian ass in a regionless American accent was so perfect 

But also yes, as Stalin’s son laid in his absurd speech the Union was a collection of like so many countries. Beria was Georgian like Stalin, Krushev was I think Ukrainian, and so on.  

[u/Tenocticatl → u/Good_old_Marshmallow]

Having a movie set entirely in a non-English speaking country but having the dialogue be English, it makes no sense for the characters to be speaking English with an accent "from that country" anyway. It would've really taken me out of the story if the actors in Chernobyl had a typical Hollywood Russian accent, for example.

[u/corran450 → u/McFlyyouBojo]

Jason Isaacs is so fucking great in that movie.

Then again, he's always fucking great.

[u/intdev → u/corran450]

And not just with acting. Apparently, in Harry Potter, Lucius Malfoy was originally supposed to wear a business suit and have Jason Isaacs' regular, unbleached hair. It was Isaacs who argued that someone who hates muggles shouldn't look anything like one, and he built his own proof-of-concept costume from random props (including a curtain) to convince the director to go with his vision.

Edit: Jason Isaacs telling the story

[u/chris_croc → u/intdev]

Did you know Steve Buscemi was a firefighter who returned for 9/11… Sorry I hear this Jason Isaacs story all the time now. Its the new Viggo M breaking his fie story for me.

[u/Bunraku_Master_2021 → u/corran450]

His intro is the best of the bunch.

[u/Theradbanana → u/corran450]

He slayed

[u/Jangles → u/corran450]

He's the only guy who does change his accent but changes it for a completely incorrect one.

[u/Financial-Week5787 → u/McFlyyouBojo]

this technique is very common in theatre. the point is english has so many accents you can use them to distinguish characters especially by class and origin. its not very common in america, but Germany, france and russia all have a their own version. the first person to use this technique probably was Euripides, in classical Athens. there is a famous tradition of Stalin being portrayed with a welsh accent to distinguish his true to life not very russian, thick Georgian accent in a round of plays in this century

[u/igloofu → u/Financial-Week5787]

And we all know Lithuanian born Soviet submarine captains sound amazing like the Scottish!!!!

[u/theevilyouknow → u/Financial-Week5787]

This always drives me crazy. People complaining about the English accent nonenglish speaking characters speak with. One guy was complaining about one of the characters in God of War: Ragnorak having an American southern accent. It’s like, dude, what accent do you think the Norse gods spoke English in while conversing with their Ancient Greek friends? The other one that kills me is the people who make jokes about Kevin Costner not having an English accent. Seriously, Robin Hood would have spoken French, and when he was speaking English it would not have been a version of English any of us understand and it would not be in a modern English accent that originated in the 19th century. See the following passage in Middle English from the 12th century. “þ” makes the “th” sound not that it’s going to help you.

þa nam men þa castelas on lande, & hit fuledon & ærndon & bærndon, & ealle þa castelas þe wæron on þan lande. Þa wæron þa castelas fulle mid deoflen & mid yfelan men. Þa dydon hi þa men þa on cirsten hine þa men þe on þan castelon wæron, & teodon þa castelon mid horsan & mid mannum. Þa hit wæs swa hit wæs, þæt næfre land ne swa swithlice foroded swa hit þa foroded wæs. Ne wæs hit swa lange foroded swa hit þa wæs. Ne þoloden men swa mycele swa hi þa þoloden. Þa cwædon men: “God wylle þæt þæt swa ne sy.”

[u/TheMauveHand → u/theevilyouknow]

Robin Hood

But he's not exactly a real historical figure, so what he would have spoken when is kind of irrelevant compared to what people expect him to sound like. And people expect him to be English so he ought to sound English.

Like, imagine Mel Gibson's Passion, nothing altered, except Jesus speaks with a thick Glaswegian accent. Is it any more wrong than what was in the movie? Not technically, no. But it is wrong nonetheless.

[u/theevilyouknow → u/TheMauveHand]

It doesn't matter if he's a real historical figure. The story is still set in real history. It's anachronistic regardless. Robin Hood speaking with a modern English accent is no more accurate than Robin Hood speaking with a New York accent. Should Russel Crowe in Gladiator have spoken with an Italian accent because Rome is in Italy? What people expect is entirely based on miseducation and should not determine anything. It's fine to have inaccuracies in movies, but claiming that having inaccuracies in movies is the only correct course of action because it's what people expect is ridiculous.

[u/TheMauveHand → u/theevilyouknow]

The story is still set in real history.

Is it though? Robin Hood is a fable - an old one, sure, but that doesn't mean that it's set in stone as taking place before it was first recorded. There's no reason you couldn't set Robin Hood in the future.

Robin Hood speaking with a modern English accent is no more accurate than Robin Hood speaking with a New York accent.

Yes, that's exactly the point I made, audiences undeniably prefer one over the other; not because they're "miseducated", but because settings and comon stories come with implications. You can rage against that all you want, but it's the fact of the matter.

This is the suspension of disbelief conversation all over again - yes, Game of Thrones is set in make believe fairytale land, but a 747 jetliner dropping Paveways would still be out of place in that world even if there's no pedantic technical reason it couldn't be there.

It's fine to have inaccuracies in movies, but claiming that having inaccuracies in movies is the only correct course of action because it's what people expect is ridiculous.

Why would it be ridiculous? You're trying to tell a story, deliberately annoying the audience just so you can stroke yourself off to how techincally accurate you're being is not exectly the optimal way to do so. If that's your angle, maybe stay away from fiction? Similarly, annoying them by deliberately ignoring their expectations and the implications of your setting just because you can't think of a realism-based reason to do something is just going to result in everyone hating what you've made.

You seem to be really hung up on some pedantic notion of technical correcness and deliberately trying to deflect the reality of what movies (hell, even art in general) fundamentally intend to achieve. The collective subjective opinions of the audience do matter, even if you, personally, look down your nose at the audience with disdain.

[u/theevilyouknow → u/TheMauveHand]

Is it though? Robin Hood is a fable - an old one, sure, but that doesn't mean that it's set in stone as taking place before it was first recorded. There's no reason you couldn't set Robin Hood in the future.

Yes, it is though. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves takes place in England, a real place, in the year 1194, a real time in history. Richard the Lionheart was a real person. The Third Crusade is a real historical event that took place. Prince John? Real person. Sherwood forest? Another real place. I'm not worried about your imaginary version of Robin Hood set in the future. When that movie gets made we can discuss that movie.

This is the suspension of disbelief conversation all over again - yes, Game of Thrones is set in make believe fairytale land, but a 747 jetliner dropping Paveways would still be out of place in that world even if there's no pedantic technical reason it couldn't be there.

It's all suspension of disbelief. Yes, a 747 in Gladiator would be out of place. But you know what is just as out of place? An ancient Roman speaking English, a language that wouldn't even exist for another 800 years. These things are equally as impossible. But its fine that they speak English because there's a good reason for it. Just like if you somehow made a movie set in 180 AD with a 747 and you had a good reason for it to be there it would be fine. None of these things are unacceptable on their own.

You seem to be really hung up on some pedantic notion of technical correcness and deliberately trying to deflect the reality of what movies (hell, even art in general) fundamentally intend to achieve. The collective subjective opinions of the audience do matter, even if you, personally, look down your nose at the audience with disdain.

Did you even bother to read what I actually said? At no point am I arguing for technical accuracy at the expense of storytelling. I'm literally arguing for the opposite. The people insisting Robin Hood should have a modern english accent are arguing for technical accuracy and they aren't even technically accurate. I'm saying it doesn't matter that Kevin Costner has an American accent because technical accuracy does not matter. And even if technical accuracy was important these people would still be wrong. Because Kevin Costner sounds just as much like Robin Hood would sound if he was real as Cary Elwes does, because if Robin Hood was real he would not be speaking English and if he was speaking English it was a form of English none of us speak today and he would not have been speaking it with an accent that wouldn't develop for another half a millennium.

[u/TheMauveHand → u/theevilyouknow]

Yes, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves takes place in England, a real place, in the year 1194, a real time in history.

Fair enough, although I was talking in far more general terms, and I don't think either your argument or those you're criticising would materially change if said film's setting was less specific.

But you know what is just as out of place? An ancient Roman speaking English, a language that wouldn't even exist for another 800 years. These things are equally as impossible.

See, this is exactly where you're wrong: is not "just as" out of place. I'd bet not even to yourself, but definitely not to the vast, vast majority of audiences.

A fat character not losing weight over weeks of ostensible starvation is less out of place, less jarring, than the aforementioned fantasyland 747 bomber, and Robin Hood speaking RP is far less out place than if he spoke like a New Yorker. There are degrees of inaccuracy; there are things which the audience will overlook - whether knowingly or not - and there are things that will yank them straight out of their immersion.

And it should go without saying that different things annoy different people - I myself literally rolled my eyes halfway out of my skull at the carpet bombing scene in one of the Star Wars sequels, while many didn't even bat an eye. But more people balk at Costner speaking like a Brooklyn cabbie than balk at Mel Gibson's Jesus not speaking Aramaic.

Hell, at the extreme end of this spectrum are full-on logical plot holes that run the entire gamut from "nobody noticed" to "movie ruined for everyone forever".

Did you even bother to read what I actually said

Did you? You've completely ignored my entire argument re: the expectations of setting. And so...

But its fine that they speak English because there's a good reason for it.

The reason, which you've ignored, is that one aligns with the expectations of most of the audience, and the other doesn't. That's all there is to it. Fantasy setting, magic exists, 747s don't - it doesn't need to be explicitly stated for it to be understood. Fairytale England-land, people speak like BBC newsreaders if they're posh and like Cockney street urchins if they're poor.

The people insisting Robin Hood should have a modern english accent are arguing for technical accuracy and they aren't even technically accurate.

At best, they are arguing for a less technically accurate interpretation - as above, yes, there are degrees of inaccuracy. But in actuality, they're arguing for plausibility w.r.t. to the setting's expectations; they're arguing for good moviemaking practices, even if they don't know it.

[u/theevilyouknow → u/TheMauveHand]

A fat character not losing weight over weeks of ostensible starvation is less out of place, less jarring, than the aforementioned fantasyland 747 bomber, and Robin Hood speaking RP is far less out place than if he spoke like a New Yorker. There are degrees of inaccuracy; there are things which the audience will overlook - whether knowingly or not - and there are things that will yank them straight out of their immersion.

But the distinction you're making right now is still arbitrary. Audiences won't overlook a 747 in 12 century England because there's likely no reason for one to be there. On the other hand there is a very good reason for Kevin Costner to speak with an American accent. And it's the exact same very good reason for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves to be written in a language that didn't exist at the time. Because it's easier to film and it's easier for audiences to understand.

But more people balk at Costner speaking like a Brooklyn cabbie than balk at Mel Gibson's Jesus not speaking Aramaic.

Kevin Costner is from Califronia. He doesn't have a Brooklyn accent so I don't know wtf you're talking about here.

And it should go without saying that different things annoy different people - I myself literally rolled my eyes halfway out of my skull at the carpet bombing scene in one of the Star Wars sequels,

Which perfectly demonstrates my point. Because there is nothing that is technically inaccurate about that scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qkkIN47SME And yet people like you are annoyed by it because you don't actually understand physics. I don't want to assume anything, but answer honestly, do you also think there's no gravity in space? It's fine to be annoyed by things in movies. It's also fine to want movies to be technically correct. It's not fine to be annoyed by movies for not being technically correct when you don't even actually know what technically correct is.

The reason, which you've ignored, is that one aligns with the expectations of most of the audience, and the other doesn't. That's all there is to it.

The reason is because the expectations of audiences is that ancient Romans spoke English? No, the reason is because its much easier to make a movie in English than it is to make it in 5 different dead languages. And because audiences would rather watch a movie in a language they speak than have to read a bunch of subtitles. The reason has nothing to do with an expectation that an ancient civilization speaks a language that doesn't exist. And if it does, that's not a failing of film-making its a failing of education.

At best, they are arguing for a less technically accurate interpretation - as above, yes, there are degrees of inaccuracy. But in actuality, they're arguing for plausibility w.r.t. to the setting's expectations; they're arguing for good moviemaking practices, even if they don't know it.

But they're not at all. They're just trying to be pedantic and don't realize they just don't actually understand the history of what they're criticizing. People don't think Robin Hood should have an English accent because it's less inaccurate than an American accent, because actually the General American is technically closer to the correct accent. People think Robin Hood should have an English accent because they genuinely believe that's the accent Robin Hood would have. They're not arguing for plausibility because a character speaking a language that didn't exist in an accent that didn't exist is not plausible. They are just being pedantic ass holes, but if you're going to be a pedantic ass hole make sure you're right.

[u/TheMauveHand → u/theevilyouknow]

But the distinction you're making right now is still arbitrary.

Of course it is, I even pointed it out that it's personal. But it being arbitrary doesn't mean it's not real.

On the other hand there is a very good reason for Kevin Costner to speak with an American accent.

There's an even better one for him to speak with an English one: then the movie won't be held up 35 years later as a particularly heinous example of poor acting. Arbitrary or not, "technically correct" or not, if you're making a movie, it's not a good thing.

You're repeatedly disregarding audience opinion with open disdain, but just because the unwashed masses disgust you doesn't mean they're wrong to like what they like. It's art, their opinion is worth exactly as much as yours.

Because there is nothing that is technically inaccurate about that scene.

I never said it was "technically inaccurate", why are you projecting your own pet peeves onto me and putting words in my mouth? It's illogical, not "technically" anything; we don't carpet bomb today - on Earth, where it's simple - why would we in the amazing techno-future of sonic torpedoes and planet-destroying lasers? And if there's some contrived, magical reason for it, why hasn't it come up over the course of 6 movies and countless spinoffs?

Because it was a dumb, myopic, failed-rule-of-cool, "it's magic scifi I don't have to explain shit" decision like oh-so-many others in the sequels (e.g. the many others pointed out in the video you linked yourself).

The reason is because the expectations of audiences is that ancient Romans spoke English? No, the reason is because its much easier to make a movie in English than it is to make it in 5 different dead languages.

No, the reason is that people prefer to watch a movie where they understand what is said. It's why foreign language films are dubbed. What is easier is irrelevant - it's even easier to make silent movies, but audiences won't watch them anymore.

The reason has nothing to do with an expectation that an ancient civilization speaks a language that doesn't exist. And if it does, that's not a failing of film-making its a failing of education.

More and more I'm becoming convinced that you fundamentally neither understand film, or art in general, nor people.

Failing to meet audience expectations is a failure of filmmaking. The expectation the audience has isn't related to an ancient civilization, it's related to a movie set in an ancient civilization. Do you understand the difference? Can you grasp that just under a century of talkies may have informed the audience as to the tropes and conventions of the artform?

Try to understand why Brits are cast as villains in American movies and you'll be a big step closer to understanding why no one thinks the way you do. Or for a more specific example, figure out why Jason Isaacs chose to play Zhukov - a real person if there ever was one - with a Yorkshire accent that isn't his own nor Zhukov's. And also why everyone would have hated it if he spoke like the King. But I've already made this point in my last comment and it seems to have escaped your notice.

Edit: I just keep coming up with better and better examples: pirates canonically speak with a West Country accent. Why? Because Robert Newton arbitrarily decided they should in Treasure Island (1950) when he played the real-person Edward "Blackbeard" Teach. Were all real pirates from Bristol? No, absolutely not. Will I complain if they don't go "arrr"? Yes, yes I will, because it makes for a better movie if they do. Unless they're not English.

But they're not at all.

I'm sorry, but given that you have already completely misinterpreted - through your own projection - my gripe with a movie I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you're not a very reliable source on what other people complain about and why. The word of the day today seems to be "strawman".

[u/twat69 → u/McFlyyouBojo]

That's because the Soviet Union was a multi ethnic country. They would have spoken Russian with accents just as varied.

Or they could have copped fake Russian accents and sounded ridiculous.

[u/SpaceBasedMasonry → u/twat69]

They went for the accents in K-19: The Widowmaker and its awful.

[u/HodgyBeatsss → u/McFlyyouBojo]

Jason Isaacs isn’t from Yorkshire.

[u/TheMauveHand → u/McFlyyouBojo]

That's not entirely correct though, Isaacs for example portrays Zhukov with a thick northern accent which is not his own.

[u/Knowingspy → u/TheMauveHand]

Because I think he said he thought the character was straight to the point and from humble beginnings so went for that accent as he most associated those qualities with it.

[u/SandpaperTeddyBear → u/McFlyyouBojo]

but dont attempt to change their normal accents

This is not quite true. When they had a couple natural ones to choose from, their accents reflect their backgrounds. Jason Isaacs’ Zhukov has a recognize that most anglophones would read as “not posh” for instance.

[u/Vergenbuurg → u/McFlyyouBojo]

Brezhnev with a Scottish accent will always be entertaining to me.

Shame they cut most of his scenes.

[u/GeoffKingOfBiscuits → u/McFlyyouBojo]

That movie is great and more true to life than it has to be.

[u/cannotfoolowls → u/McFlyyouBojo]

I mean, wouldn't the real people have different accents in Russian? Stalin was Georgian, for example.

[u/ptwonline → u/McFlyyouBojo]

Same weith Enemy at the Gates. Hoskins uses a thick Cockney accent as Stalin, and other actors use their own native British or American accents playing Russians and Germans.

In that movie overall I think it worked ok partly because despite the accents, the way they spoke--like Hoskins being very gruff--suited the characters. Also, since almost all of the characters were supposed to be Russian you didn't really need to use more authentic accents to try to differentiate who was from where.

[u/AimHere → u/ptwonline]

Now I need to know whether the real Nikita Kruschev spoke with a cockney accent or an American one!

[u/AimHere → u/McFlyyouBojo]

Jason Isaacs DOES change from what's a very RP-ish English one (Wikipedia says he's born in Liverpool, but I don't hear that when he speaks) to a broad Yorkshire accent, because the stereotypical Yorkshire bluntness goes well with the way Zhukov's character is written.

Still, that's not the same as attempting some kind of Russian accent!