Hey, this role should have gone to an English white guy

Indian actor Dev Patel, who's a pretty good actor, has been cast as David Copperfield.

David Copperfield was not from India.  He was an English bloke.

Now, there has been a recent outcry about someone who is of one ethnicity playing a character that is a different ethnicity.  Or a character of one sexuality (there are quite a few available now) playing a character of a different sexuality.  Or a character of one skin color playing a character with a different skin color (i.e., racial descent).

The director of the David Copperfield movie who cast Dev Patel say that his movie is "color blind". So what's wrong with that?  The biggest musical hit of the past decade has African-American (black, Negro, whatever the best term is) actors playing historical personages that were of European descent, at least in most cases.  That doesn't seem to cause a problem.

So why such a big deal in some cases, and not in others?  After all, a human actor is playing a felid (a lion) in a really big movie this weekend.  Why no major stink about that from the tigers and the leopards?  I mean, seriously ...

The point is ... actors play characters.  Sometimes they stretch and play characters unlike them.  A good actor is important to make a good movie or a good play.  A bad actor (think Sofia Coppola in Godfather III) can ruin an otherwise top-notch effort.  (Note that Sofia Coppola is an excellent screenwriter and director.)

So if a director wants to make a good movie or play, they should be allowed to cast whoever they think can act the role.  Because of the production is bad because of the acting, it doesn't matter what message is being sent or what is being portrayed -- less people will want to see it and less people will see it.  So the goal should be, and what the producers and investors want, is a movie that people see and make money.  And that requires the best actors money can pay.

I think that's simple.  So ScarJo can play whoever she wants, in my opinion.