|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jul 7, 2020 11:24:44 GMT
'I should not have considered this role': Halle Berry PULLS OUT of playing a transgender male in upcoming film after coming under fire... as she vows to 'listen and learn from the mistake'
Speaking in an Instagram Live over the weekend, the Monster Ball actress, 53, revealed she 'might' be playing the role, leading to mass backlash Taking to Twitter on Monday evening, Halle apologised for her 'remarks' and admitted that she should have not 'considered this role' in the first place
Her statement read: 'As a cisgender woman, I now understand that I should not have considered this role, and that the transgender community should undeniably have the opportunity to tell their own stories'
Should Hilary Swank also apologize for winning the Oscar for BOYS DON'T CRY ?
Shes an actress so it's her fucking job to be able to transform herself into whatever the character calls for ! (unless of course it 's a white actor putting a blackface or shit like that). Should real life serial killers also complain that they hire actors to play them in movies ?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 7, 2020 12:20:49 GMT
'I should not have considered this role': Halle Berry PULLS OUT of playing a transgender male in upcoming film after coming under fire... as she vows to 'listen and learn from the mistake'
Speaking in an Instagram Live over the weekend, the Monster Ball actress, 53, revealed she 'might' be playing the role, leading to mass backlash Taking to Twitter on Monday evening, Halle apologised for her 'remarks' and admitted that she should have not 'considered this role' in the first place
Her statement read: 'As a cisgender woman, I now understand that I should not have considered this role, and that the transgender community should undeniably have the opportunity to tell their own stories'
Should Hilary Swank also apologize for winning the Oscar for BOYS DON'T CRY ?
Shes an actress so it's her fucking job to be able to transform herself into whatever the character calls for ! (unless of course it 's a white actor putting a blackface or shit like that). Should real life serial killers also complain that they hire actors to play them in movies ? I say this all the time - this will change the way we see actors forever - when Brando played Zapata and Olivier in "blackface" played Othello well Pacino just HAD to play Tony Montana and Carlito Brigante (and Shylock...... and a blind man and.....). if Pacino wanted to be in that elite league at all - and trust me, he really really wanted to be - he had to not play short Italians. The whole reputation of Brando/Olivier/Pacino is really based on playing "outside" of themselves........in today's climate people will tell you that NONE of them should have played ANY of those roles at all - heck Olivier is openly mocked by actors for doing it in "blackface" (which is utter BS imo and also NOT blackface either....... but I digress). Now we'll have a black Macbeth (?) - which I think is fine - black actors have played Macbeth especially when setting is unclear or moved - but it isn't on paper "right" and is that "color blind" casting or is that the 2020 version OF Zapata (?) and NO ONE has said sh it about it at all - partially because Denzel is a major actor (and he can play it too, he has the chops) but is being a major actor/star and being able to "play" it the "point" anyway or is the point that we can't even think through this logically in all cases and grant all actors such leeway as we would to just some? It is quite humorous and pathetc to me........and to Armond White .......who dissed the Hamilton movie, progressive politics, cancel culture and this type of thinking in one devastating line in his Hamilton review: "The show’s non-traditional casting obsession clashes with the limitations of today’s nutty progressivism that says actors can no longer pretend to be who they are not."
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 7, 2020 13:09:49 GMT
Jesus Christ.
The issue isn't so much that Halle Berry was taking the role in the first place (although, in 2020, with trans actors needing the platform more to assert themselves as mainstream so that, culturally, they aren't excluded, they should obviously be considered for the part). The issue is that Berry's initial statement was "[it's] a character where the woman is a trans character, so she's a woman that transitioned into a man. She's a character in a project I love that I might be doing."
In that short statement, Berry misgendered the character she would have been playing, which is absolutely the wrong tack to take and just shows how much she misunderstands the community/nomenclature, and if she was to make such a blunder in two sentences, then it's incredibly unlikely that the project would have handled the story with the respect it deserves. It likely would've been another Danish Girl, which is a horrible mischaracterization of Lili Elbe and the transgender community at large.
The argument isn't that cis people can't ever play trans characters (although, again, trans actors need the boost so that they are actually put on a level playing field; once they are accepted as a mainstream level on par with cis actors, then maybe we can revisit this). The argument is that if cis people are going to play trans characters, they should at least understand the fucking nuances to the character beyond "they once were a girl but now they're a boy, but I'm still gonna refer to her as a girl."
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Jul 7, 2020 13:17:53 GMT
Oh honey, I saw the Netflix doc, Disclosure a few days ago and have never particularly been interested in trans issues before, I came away with a completely new understanding: The reason why it is important for trans roles to be played by trans people (apart from giving them work) is that it humanizes them and changes the audiences perception of them as people. Would A Fantastic Woman (which I haven't seen) have been the same movie if it had been a role for Eddie Redmayne?
I can only say, watch Disclosure.
To a Mexican, I imagine Brando as Zapata, an iconic Mexican leader. is probably a horrendous caricature, especially when a Mexican could have been easily cast in the role - which would have made the movie more authentic. Much worse was Brando in The Teahouse of the August Moon. Just looking at the stills makes me cringe.
I've never been a fan of that style of acting. To me, that's not great acting. If you think it is, then Tracey Ullman would be the World's greatest actress.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 7, 2020 13:33:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jul 9, 2020 16:07:45 GMT
This is sooo fucking stupid. LIBERALS are sooo fucking stupid nowadays. It's pathetic. I really hate everyone in the world right now. I NEVER thought I'd identify with the people who said they hated both sides, yet here I am. And J.K. Rowling's a bigot too now, right?? PUH-LEEZE!!
And these SJW/PC/Virtue-signaling dopes are the biggest Trump-enablers out there and they are a main reason #OrangeTwat was a LOCK for re-election pre-pandemic & could still pull it out of his filthy ass if they keep it up.
It literally broke my heart to see Alison Brie apologize for her WONDERFUL, beautifully nuanced voicework in BOJACK HORSEMAN. The character being half-vietnamese wasn't significant in the least to her character arc & personality, and I LOVED that. It was refreshingly not made an issue. Let the SJW scum come out & ruin that and make an actor apologize for doing a great job. Then they made Alia Shawkat apologize for quoting a rap song with the N-word in it in an interview years ago just the other day. Jesus fucking Christ!! We are a dumb dumb DUMB fucking world!! Mostly cuz of RWNJ & religious fanatics, but also because of this regressive & disingenuously fascist new rancid breed of liberals. #rantover
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 9, 2020 16:46:13 GMT
This is sooo fucking stupid. LIBERALS are sooo fucking stupid nowadays. It's pathetic. ........ I NEVER thought I'd identify with the people who said they hated both sides, yet here I am. Pretty much. I always try to remember this scene and always pass it along since this is a movie board. One of the great line readings in film history - really gets cracking at 2:15 "and you're just the man to do it"........this is the Liberal (more accurately far Left) POV we see in the US gone too far in 2020. We know what Trump looks like when he goes too far (scary) but we rarely discuss his equivalent on the opposite end of the spectrum and it's just as scary - often more so. Sure, this a little off-topic .........but what the hell we aren't doing anything else today ........ and it's a scene we should all think about ........a lot..........some of us for the first time ever I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jul 9, 2020 17:11:21 GMT
I really just don't see the issue with non trans actors playing trans. Someone of one biological sex taking on the opposite gender identity shouldn't be controversial in 2020. These objections are really quite essentialist when you think about it. This isn't really analogous to blackface either, even aside from the issue of parody/ridicule. 10% of the US population is black, more than that worldwide, it's not realistic to say you can't find a good black actor to play Othello. But well under 1% of people are trans. It's such a small group it's entirely possible you can't find the right trans actor and would need to cast someone else. On top of that, this movie likely won't get made now and if it does it will be a tiny indie no one sees, same deal with the Scarlett Johansson thing. To draw people into a movie with obscure subject matter like this you need a star. I really hate everyone in the world right now. The quote that defines 2020.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 9, 2020 17:16:14 GMT
Cis-actors have been taking heat for playing trans parts for years now but I think Berry is the first to actually misgender her subject, which was amazingly stupid of her. Surely it wasn't intentional, I mean she's not Ben Shapiro, but still what a monumental fuck-up. How do you pursue a role without even knowing who you're playing? More generally, the entire counter-outrage narrative of "actors being actors" is the same kind of woeful simplicity/intellectual dishonesty of separating the art from the artist but it's vastly worse because it displays both a profound ignorance of privilege/representation and inability to prioritize even the slightest bit given that privilege--basically a total unwillingness to engage with meaningful social and sociopolitical factors. I don't think Brie should've had to apologize for Bojack but if you're more bothered about that than by the fact that grossly under-represented minority groups seemingly aren't even being sought for a lot of these roles than your priorities are in the wrong place. The dogmatism of PC outrage can be insufferable, but the ignorance and apathy of counter-PC outrage is often so much worse.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jul 9, 2020 17:20:20 GMT
I mean, it's not like she's quoting Hitler or anything...
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 9, 2020 17:48:22 GMT
And the project probably won’t get made now without an star like Berry anchoring it.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 9, 2020 17:52:54 GMT
And the project probably won’t get made now without an star like Berry anchoring it. A defeatist outdated truism. Berry is barely relevant, I'd hardly call her a star. Also films get bankrolled with unknowns all the time and presumably this was going to be a modestly-budgeted independent film, not a blockbuster. Even the Danish Girl with all its period detail only cost $15 million, and would've cost less had they not cast Redmayne.
|
|
|
Post by tastytomatoes on Jul 9, 2020 18:06:44 GMT
I don't think Brie should've had to apologize for Bojack but if you're more bothered about that than by the fact that grossly under-represented minority groups seemingly aren't even being sought for a lot of these roles than your priorities are in the wrong place. The dogmatism of PC outrage can be insufferable, but the ignorance and apathy of counter-PC outrage is often so much worse. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jul 9, 2020 18:31:11 GMT
Cis-actors have been taking heat for playing trans parts for years now but I think Berry is the first to actually misgender her subject, which was amazingly stupid of her. Surely it wasn't intentional, I mean she's not Ben Shapiro, but still what a monumental fuck-up. How do you pursue a role without even knowing who you're playing? More generally, the entire counter-outrage narrative of "actors being actors" is the same kind of woeful simplicity/intellectual dishonesty of separating the art from the artist but it's vastly worse because it displays both a profound ignorance of privilege/representation and inability to prioritize even the slightest bit given that privilege--basically a total unwillingness to engage with meaningful social and sociopolitical factors. I don't think Brie should've had to apologize for Bojack but if you're more bothered about that than by the fact that grossly under-represented minority groups seemingly aren't even being sought for a lot of these roles than your priorities are in the wrong place. The dogmatism of PC outrage can be insufferable, but the ignorance and apathy of counter-PC outrage is often so much worse. Can always count on you for the official braindead PC/SJW opinion. Every word of your imbecilic, brainwashed, pandering, virtue-signaling is EXACTLY the kind of cancerous #CancelCulture/SJW mentality your ilk pretends does not exist, yet you're reading from their script word for word, like a good little sheep. Also, I'M A FUCKING MINORITY, unlike you, so you know where you can stick that tired "white privilige" trope you were going for. I understand the plight of minorities more than you ever will, I've LIVED IT, and I know what you're saying has NOTHING to due with progress and everything to with cheap, disingenuous, "white guilt" virtue-signaling. And if your argument wasn't braindead enough, you bring it back to the old tired "separate art from the artist" argument, which by the way, you have NEVER presented a coherent or valid argument against, while I and pacinoyes REPEATEDLY illustrate why it's just common sense.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 9, 2020 18:34:22 GMT
And the project probably won’t get made now without an star like Berry anchoring it. A defeatist outdated truism. Berry is barely relevant, I'd hardly call her a star. Also films get bankrolled with unknowns all the time and presumably this was going to be a modestly-budgeted independent film, not a blockbuster. Even the Danish Girl with all its period detail only cost $15 million, and would've cost less had they not cast Redmayne. I dunno man - without Eddie Redmayne THAT movie may have not been made either (It made 123 million ) and the guys who made the movie may have felt he was the ONLY actor they'd make it with. Would it be better to not have been made at all? Worse? Neither? That's a big deal - artists want their work to be seen and don't want to be told who to cast and they could easily walk away from some projects too. That's always a risk. In another post you said this: "....... inability to prioritize even the slightest bit given that privilege--basically a total unwillingness to engage with meaningful social and sociopolitical factors."There's also an inability to also prioritize the artistic choices of filmmakers and the economics of the marketplace - that's at least as important as "sociopolitical factors" isn't it? "Prioritize" is the right word........I'm not sure it's as easy to assess as we think. Halle Berry is "barely relevant" or is she "the only Black BA winner ever".
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jul 9, 2020 18:52:37 GMT
And the project probably won’t get made now without an star like Berry anchoring it. A defeatist outdated truism. Berry is barely relevant, I'd hardly call her a star. Also films get bankrolled with unknowns all the time and presumably this was going to be a modestly-budgeted independent film, not a blockbuster. Even the Danish Girl with all its period detail only cost $15 million, and would've cost less had they not cast Redmayne. Well no one's suggesting they need an A-list star who probably wouldn't even do a movie like this anyway. But even with a small movie you still need some kind of a name above the title to sell it. As you noted Danish Girl had Redmayne. That's especially true for a movie with niche or controversial subject matter that might drive backers or audiences away. Tangerine has been cited as an example in this thread, but that was a micro budget movie shot on someone's phone that had a worldwide gross in just six figures. If you want to make a small movie like that that's fine, but it's also fine to want your movie to get an actual release and be seen by the GP.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 9, 2020 19:36:14 GMT
A defeatist outdated truism. Berry is barely relevant, I'd hardly call her a star. Also films get bankrolled with unknowns all the time and presumably this was going to be a modestly-budgeted independent film, not a blockbuster. Even the Danish Girl with all its period detail only cost $15 million, and would've cost less had they not cast Redmayne. I dunno man - without Eddie Redmayne THAT movie may have not been made either (It made 123 million ) and the guys who made the movie may have felt he was the ONLY actor they'd make it with. Would it be better to not have been made at all? Worse? Neither? That's a big deal - artists want their work to be seen and don't want to be told who to cast and they could easily walk away from some projects too. That's always a risk. In another post you said this: "....... inability to prioritize even the slightest bit given that privilege--basically a total unwillingness to engage with meaningful social and sociopolitical factors."There's also an inability to also prioritize the artistic choices of filmmakers and the economics of the marketplace - that's at least as important as "sociopolitical factors" isn't it? "Prioritize" is the right word........I'm not sure it's as easy to assess as we think. Halle Berry is "barely relevant" or is she "the only Black BA winner ever". If there was any good to come out of the Danish Girl movie directed by Oscar-hungry hack (hardly an artist) Tom Hooper, it's that it propelled forward conversations about the necessity for trans representation (a lesson many are still struggling to learn). As an example of how not to make a trans narrative, you can't do much better than The Danish Girl. It's a cautionary tale. As for artistic choice, I'd posit that if a director is unwilling to cast a trans performer in a trans role esp. if it's a central role, then they don't care to actually represent the truth of trans experience and outing themselves as exactly the wrong kind of person for the material. It's a contradiction: creating narratives that are sympathetic to the trans experience while actively participating in something that contributes to the negative aspects (re: being underrepresented/ignored/denied) of that existence. One could pass that off as ignorance 10 years ago but now you have to be intentionally ignorant to not grasp this contradiction. Transpeople have called for greater exposure/representation. The ball is now in the industry's court and in the courts of individual writers/directors/casting agents/producers who make these decisions. Casting a cis-performer in this climate is willfully ignoring those pleas and begs the question why. This isn't too far off from black/yellowface. The same logic anyways. Hiring a bankable star like Katherine Hepburn to star in yellowface might've been a practical economic reality in the 50s but now in a streaming climate where independent cinema is booming and films are made cheaply ever week it's just an excuse for laziness and/or transphobia. Lack of resources is not the issue here. And I've literally only seen the economic factor excuse used in relation to conversations around representation for minorities/POCs. I said it before in another post: literally tons of films are bankrolled every year with acting newcomers in lead roles (a huge chunk of A24's lineup just for an example of one studio). Don't remember any of these kinds of money narratives surrounding "The Souvenir" or "The Rider" or any of Eliza Hitman's films, all of which featured nonactors or acting unknowns in the lead, and those are just recent examples off the top of my head. Don't understand why this pressure to perform at the BO is only leveled at certain kinds of films about certain kinds of people as an excuse to not hire said kinds of people ( ). if the intent is to draw a comparison between Berry/Redmayne, their situations are quite different. Berry won her oscar two decades ago in a controversial film that didn't earn any other Oscar nods. Her win was an upset and remains divisive among those who remember it and forgotten by most everyone else. Redmayne won a year before starring in Danish Girl (in a BP, screenplay and actress nominee) and was hot on exposure from other Oscar-nominated prestige projects. He was much more bankable for money and oscar potential in 2015 than Berry is now. Berry's 2010s resume is populated with just as many misses and hits and the films where she was the lead (The Call, Kidnap, Kings) were panned. Economically she's not relevant. Dramatically she's not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 9, 2020 19:41:34 GMT
A defeatist outdated truism. Berry is barely relevant, I'd hardly call her a star. Also films get bankrolled with unknowns all the time and presumably this was going to be a modestly-budgeted independent film, not a blockbuster. Even the Danish Girl with all its period detail only cost $15 million, and would've cost less had they not cast Redmayne. Well no one's suggesting they need an A-list star who probably wouldn't even do a movie like this anyway. But even with a small movie you still need some kind of a name above the title to sell it. As you noted Danish Girl had Redmayne. That's especially true for a movie with niche or controversial subject matter that might drive backers or audiences away. I wouldn't call a film about a trans-person a "niche" or "controversial" subject. Someone like A24 would grab it up in a heartbeat. LGBT-related films are honestly pretty trendy right now in the independent scene. I mean we're not talking about a Disney film here... The solution is simple. If you need a big name actor, hire them in a supporting role a la Florida Project with Dafoe (btw Florida Project is pretty damn niche). You don't need a cis-actor to play the lead in order to have bankable names in the cast.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 9, 2020 20:09:25 GMT
I dunno man - without Eddie Redmayne THAT movie may have not been made either (It made 123 million ) and the guys who made the movie may have felt he was the ONLY actor they'd make it with. Would it be better to not have been made at all? Worse? Neither? That's a big deal - artists want their work to be seen and don't want to be told who to cast and they could easily walk away from some projects too. That's always a risk. In another post you said this: "....... inability to prioritize even the slightest bit given that privilege--basically a total unwillingness to engage with meaningful social and sociopolitical factors."There's also an inability to also prioritize the artistic choices of filmmakers and the economics of the marketplace - that's at least as important as "sociopolitical factors" isn't it? "Prioritize" is the right word........I'm not sure it's as easy to assess as we think. Halle Berry is "barely relevant" or is she "the only Black BA winner ever". If there was any good to come out of the Danish Girl movie directed by Oscar-hungry hack (hardly an artist) Tom HooperAs for artistic choice, I'd posit that if a director is unwilling to cast a trans performer in a trans role esp. if it's a central role, then they don't care to actually represent the truth of trans experience and outing themselves as exactly the wrong kind of person for the material.
This isn't too far off from black/yellowface. The same logic anyways. Hiring a bankable star like Katherine Hepburn to star in yellowface might've been a practical economic reality in the 50s but now in a streaming climate where i ndependent cinema is booming and films are made cheaply ever week it's just an excuse for laziness and/or transphobia. Lack of resources is not the issue here. Ok we just see this in opposite ways then, no worries. To me, first and foremost it's an artist rights issue mostly and everything prioritizes down from there - I am not opposed to diversity obviously but when that means it takes the artists right away to make a project exclusively as they see fit, I'm out at that point. I mean you're taking a lot of cheap shots here at Hooper imo (so he's not Herzog, that means he has no artistic impetus to control HIS projects at all?), if an artist (yes, Hooper) feels strongly about the material and the actor he/she wants in it we're then branding that as "the wrong kind of person" now (!) - THAT'S being way too dogmatic just on the surface! .........as for blackface/yellow - I defended blackface (or what is called that, incorrectly) for Olivier's Othello but the 3 actors I gave in my example Brando/Olivier/Pacino controlled to some large degree all of those projects at a conception stage. There wasn't a producer really who could stop them and if they had been stopped - movie history would be far different and far duller - our personal takes on those examples aside it's all iconic work. That assumes all projects start from a producer/directorial level as opposed to a star level and if they do originate at a star level we're then telling the revenue generating star they "can't" do something? That's scary to me......I don't see "independent cinema as "booming" I see all cinema as "dying" and relative to the thread topic - I don't dispute that sometimes you want to cast someone more right for the role like I said it's part of the priorities discussion ........but in general I'm more inclined - far more - to go with Armond White's quote (God help me) in my first post from his Hamilton review: "The show’s non-traditional casting obsession clashes with the limitations of today’s nutty progressivism that says actors can no longer pretend to be who they are not."
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 9, 2020 20:53:18 GMT
To me, first and foremost it's an artist rights issue mostly and everything prioritizes down from there - I am not opposed to diversity obviously but when that means it takes the artists right away to make a project exclusively as they see fit, I'm out at that point. I mean you're taking a lot of cheap shots here at Hooper imo (so he's not Herzog, that means he has no artistic impetus to control HIS projects at all?), if an artist (yes, Hooper) feels strongly about the material and the actor he/she wants in it we're then branding that as "the wrong kind of person" now (!) - THAT'S being way too dogmatic just on the surface! Rights doesn't enter into it for me because we're not talking about actual legal censorship here. What I'm suggesting is that if an artist wants to make a trans narrative sympathetic to the trans experience without actually trying to understand it, then it's going to be a bad and inaccurate film. No one's saying Hooper didn't have a right to make Danish Girl, but it is a bad film by most accounts. The subset of people it was meant to represent uniformly hated it, so that's a massive red flag. Btw this director I'm taking cheap shots at... just made Cats And we're not talking about historical revisionism to make an artistic or dramatic/social/psychological point. Bennett Miller does that all the time. Coppola's Marie Antoinette is revisionism in its purest form. Films like The Danish Girl only exist to (presumably) explore a specific kind of experience and bring awareness to a wider audience of what that experience is like. It's a social justice movie. But this goes back to my point about contradictions: you can't be sympathetic to trans experience if you're actively excluding trans performers and voices from your trans movie. If the intent is something else then that's a different discussion, but that wasn't the case with Danish Girl (or Lukas Dhont's "Girl", for another example), which was intended to be an earnest depiction of Lili Elbe's life. as for that White quote: "The show’s non-traditional casting obsession clashes with the limitations of today’s nutty progressivism that says actors can no longer pretend to be who they are not."
I genuinely have no idea what he's talking about. Daniel Craig isn't a spy, Ethan Hawke isn't a suicidal pastor, Matt Dillon isn't a pretentious serial killer, Colin Firth isn't a stuttering king, Daniel Day-Lewis isn't an effete fussy dressmaker (not yet anyways!)... Don't remember any nutty progressives complaining about these casting choices. This is reactionary tunnel vision. He's projecting a single project and a general trend towards more concern over representation onto an entire profession and it literally takes two seconds to prove him wrong. EDIT: also, non-white actors playing the founding fathers is literally an example of actors pretending to be something they're not.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jul 9, 2020 20:55:57 GMT
Tommen_Saperstein so where do you draw the line? Can a trans actor play a cis role? Can a gay actor play a straight character and can a straight actor play a gay one? I agree that trans actors should be given more opportunities, but I don’t think a trans role should be exclusively limited to them.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 9, 2020 21:21:08 GMT
Tommen_Saperstein so where do you draw the line? Can a trans actor play a cis role? Can a gay actor play a straight character and can a straight actor play a gay one? I agree that trans actors should be given more opportunities, but I don’t think a trans role should be exclusively limited to them. Can a trans actor play a cis role? That's a complicated question. Hardliners would probably say yes. I'd say it depends on their ability to pass (I'm sure I'll regret this answer in 10 years). Indya Moore had a small role in Queen and Slim that I'm pretty sure was meant to be a cis-woman. On the last question, I also don't think that trans roles should be exclusively reserved for trans performers, but I do think you need to grant trans performers higher priority in the audition/casting process and seek them out if you can. I feel similarly about gay performers playing gay roles but overall lesbian and gay representation in showbiz is leagues ahead of trans representation so they're two different discussions.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jul 9, 2020 21:48:42 GMT
Oh honey, I saw the Netflix doc, Disclosure a few days ago and have never particularly been interested in trans issues before, I came away with a completely new understanding: The reason why it is important for trans roles to be played by trans people (apart from giving them work) is that it humanizes them and changes the audiences perception of them as people. Would A Fantastic Woman (which I haven't seen) have been the same movie if it had been a role for Eddie Redmayne? I can only say, watch Disclosure. To a Mexican, I imagine Brando as Zapata, an iconic Mexican leader. is probably a horrendous caricature, especially when a Mexican could have been easily cast in the role - which would have made the movie more authentic. Much worse was Brando in The Teahouse of the August Moon. Just looking at the stills makes me cringe. I've never been a fan of that style of acting. To me, that's not great acting. If you think it is, then Tracey Ullman would be the World's greatest actress. Brando isn't Sicilian or even Italian so should he have not taken the part in The Godfather?
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jul 9, 2020 22:25:20 GMT
Tommen_Saperstein so where do you draw the line? Can a trans actor play a cis role? Can a gay actor play a straight character and can a straight actor play a gay one? I agree that trans actors should be given more opportunities, but I don’t think a trans role should be exclusively limited to them.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 1,409
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jul 18, 2020 5:25:24 GMT
as someone who actually has close trans friends: they would be significantly more receptive to cis people playing trans roles and vice versa if there was more initial respect given from the forefront (for the absolute bare minimum if you're casting a cis woman to play a trans part then have her play a trans woman), had more representation (are there any trans d-listers, let alone a-listers?), and the people doing this didn't have awful PR (berry's stuff has been posted ITT but the scarjo shit was even worse). it's really not far off from white people playing different races in 50s hollywood.
|
|