Scarlett Johansson will no longer play a transgender man in her next film

[aluchko]

@navarro

is that meant to suggest that you do?

No, it’s to suggest that we can’t just assume that acting well enough to carry a major movie is a relatively attainable skill that most actors can do on short notice. I personally don’t understand the craft well enough to know if Tom Cruise is a good, bad, or outstanding actor, but my presumption is that something isn’t easy just because I don’t understand what makes it hard.

@navarro

it depends on what your definition of is is.

It depends on what your definition of a transgender actor is. 10 years ago no one would have considered Lana Warchowski a transgender producer because none of us knew she was transgender. So for the purposes of this discussion it doesn’t matter how many privately transgender actors are out there, it’s how many are publicly out.

@navarro

which, if you follow your logic, there never will be because you’re always going to be hiring from the larger pool.

If you follow a deliberately misconstrued version of my logic sure.

But I’ve consistently argued for more transgender roles, and actors, throughout the industry. I just don’t think a qualified individual exists at this moment because there aren’t enough of those roles and actors right now.

@navarro

because that would be moving too fast to suit you?

Because you’re setting an unattainable goal that slows down achievable progress (like having a big budget film proving that mainstream audiences have an appetite for trans stories).

@navarro

you seem to have a couple of ideas fixed in your head (1. there aren’t any trans actors with the ability to lead a major film and 2. we need to give gradualism and tokenism a few more decades to work their magic) which seem very unsound to me. most of your other arguments are really just extensions of those two assumptions.

1. At this point, probably yes.
2. I never said decades, create a bunch of more roles for trans actors throughout the industry and you can have someone with the training and talent to front a feature film in 5 years. You still have the numbers issue, you’re drawing from a small talent pool so you’re probably not going to find a bonified star, but I suspect you can find someone good enough carry the lead role in the right film.

@KathyPartdeux

Chris Hemsworth in the first Thor was an unknown and hadn’t developed yet fully in his craft.

He had years of television and several films. He still had learning to do but you don’t need to be famous to be qualified for a major film, but you do need to have done a lot of acting. That’s why the roles need to be developed. Two or three TV series isn’t enough to give trans actors a platform to hone their craft.

Chris Hemsworth | Actor, Producer, Soundtrack

[Nightflyer]

Let me see if I’ve got this straight.

Presumably, transgender actors of a quality to portray lead roles don’t exist, because they haven’t been cast in enough work to develop the experience. But without gaining the experience, they can’t ever be cast in the first place.

Is that right?

Yet if, in some ephemeral and ill-defined way, the stigma against transgender actors was to magically evaporate, then fully-capable transgender movie stars will suddenly appear in our midst, fully-trained and ready for their closeup.

Personally, I find that to be a circular-- and extremely moronic-- argument.

The current Hollywood system is broken. Executives, who cannot see beyond their bottom line, attempt to avoid the risk of losing money by casting only tried-and-true actors, who tend to be stereotypically gorgeous, mostly white, and mostly male. Yet time and again we see that those who buck the trend and do something different can succeed well beyond expectations.

Conventional wisdom: “Nobody’s going to go see an R-rated superhero movie.” Enter Deadpool. Watch it break box-office records left and right. See more R-rated superhero movies get made.

Conventional wisdom: “Nobody’s going to go see a superhero movie with a bunch of obscure, third-rate characters.” Enter Guardians of the Galaxy. Watch it break box-office records left and right. See more obscure superhero movies get made.

Conventional wisdom: “Nobody’s going to go see a superhero movie with a female hero.” Enter Wonder Woman. Watch it break box-office records left and right. See more female-led superhero movies get made.

When it comes down to “conventional wisdom” as a predictor of box-office success, it is often stunningly wrong. When enough potential viewers say, loudly and clearly, that they do not want to see a non-transgender actress in a transgender role, sticking with the “conventional wisdom” that casting transgender actors just won’t work seems stubbornly foolish and short-sighted. With enough demand from viewers, some intelligent filmmaker will cast transgender actors, the project will prosper, and we will see more such movies and TV shows.

The clear and simple answer is: don’t avoid the change. Embrace it. That is how progress happens. And we will all be better for it.

[navarro]

@aluchko

I never said decades . . .

the circularity of your logic says it for you. your arguments take the form of–trans actors who have the quality to be cast in lead roles don’t exist because they haven’t had enough experience but they can’t get the experience because they don’t have the quality to be cast in the first place. the only way out of the vicious circle, according to you, seems to be gradualism and tokenism which, if it works out for trans actors the way it did for black or hispanic actors, will take another 30-50 years to start to achieve at least some parity.

again, you make some very questionable assumptions in your arguments and many of your arguments are similar in tone and content to arguments made for gradualism and tokenism regarding black actors. what grates most is the way you position your arguments as being in the best interests of trans actors–e.g.

@aluchko

Because you’re setting an unattainable goal that slows down achievable progress (like having a big budget film proving that mainstream audiences have an appetite for trans stories).

[ficuswhisperer]

@aluchko

but you do need to have done a lot of acting

Bullshit. Plenty of unknown actors got their starts in major films.

@aluchko

Two or three TV series isn’t enough to give trans actors a platform to hone their craft.

It’s hard when the deck is stacked against you.

[aluchko]

@Nightflyer

Presumably, transgender actors of a quality to portray lead roles don’t exist, because they haven’t been cast in enough work to develop the experience. But without gaining the experience, they can’t ever be cast in the first place.

Is that right?

Yes.

Which is why you create more work so they can develop the experience to play lead roles. The way that virtually all other actors do.

@Nightflyer

Personally, I find that to be a circular-- and extremely moronic-- argument.

Because you’re deliberately distorting it. I’m laying out a well-defined and extremely achievable path to create big-budget films with transgender lead actors. And you’re acting like I’m arguing there should never be a big-budget film with a transgender lead actor.

@navarro

the circularity of your logic says it for you. your arguments take the form of–trans actors who have the quality to be cast in lead roles don’t exist because they haven’t had enough experience but they can’t get the experience because they don’t have the quality to be cast in the first place.

So you’re conflating a different issue, which is how you actually write a role for a trans actor. That’s one of the reasons why you’ve gotten a bunch of stereotyped roles in the past, because writers haven’t figured out the formula to make those non-stereotyped interesting characters.

@navarro

again, you make some very questionable assumptions in your arguments and many of your arguments are similar in tone and content to arguments made for gradualism and tokenism regarding black actors. what grates most is the way you position your arguments as being in the best interests of trans actors–e.g.

So what’s the alternative? Say “no cis-actor gets to play a trans person in a Hollywood film!” so no big film gets made because they’re not going to cast an in-experienced unknown trans actor. And then no TV series, supporting roles, or small budget films get made either because the public isn’t thinking of transgender stories.

Jared Leto played that badly caricatured character in 2013, and then also in 2013 a trans actor was cast in Orange is the new Black and Transparent (a cis lead actor though trans people have been cast) in 2014. Are you confident the second two still happen without Leto’s role?

@ficuswhisperer

Bullshit. Plenty of unknown actors got their starts in major films.

In the lead roles? When they weren’t children?

[navarro]

where is this certainty in your assumptions coming from? your certainty that casting a trans actor in the role of a trans character in a film is definitively going to fail? that ONLY through g&t will it ever be possible, at some unknown future point, for a trans actor to be able to take a lead role? i admit to no such certainty in my position except that it has certainly proved possible for black actors to carry major films and for women to carry major films, and thus it seems reasonable that trans actor could do the same.

why are you so relentlessly certain that tokenism is the only way to go?

[ficuswhisperer]

@aluchko

In the lead roles? When they weren’t children?

Sure. Google is your friend here. Big directors will even seek out unknowns for the cred that comes with ‘discovering’ new talent.

It seems like you don’t really understand much about the movie business. And, after reading your many posts I still don’t understand what your point is or what you’re arguing for/against which leads me to believe you’re more interested in agitation rather than honest discussion.

[Nightflyer]

@aluchko

Because you’re deliberately distorting it.

I’m not the only person who’s reading your argument that way, so I’m not convinced the problem is my perception here.

@aluchko

And you’re acting like I’m arguing there should never be a big-budget film with a transgender lead actor.

I’m not saying that at all. But if a transgender actor can’t get hired without experience, and can’t get the experience without getting hired… It’s a catch-22. Which means hiring patterns need to change for that to happen.

@aluchko

So you’re conflating a different issue, which is how you actually write a role for a trans actor.

Wrong. You don’t write a character for a trans actor. You write the character needed for a good story, and when you hire actors, widen the pool to include trans actors instead of hiring the same dozen pretty faces that always seem to get hired for lead roles.

@aluchko

That’s one of the reasons why you’ve gotten a bunch of stereotyped roles in the past, because writers haven’t figured out the formula to make those non-stereotyped interesting characters.

The failure of writers to create anything beyond stereotype isn’t really relevant to the discussion of casting. (Though that same tendency to play-it-safe-via-stereotyping is part of the nonsense Hollywood logic of we-can’t-do-it-because-it’s-never-been-done-before that excludes trans actors from getting cast.)

@aluchko

So what’s the alternative? Say “no cis-actor gets to play a trans person in a Hollywood film!” so no big film gets made because they’re not going to cast an in-experienced unknown trans actor. And then no TV series, supporting roles, or small budget films get made either because the public isn’t thinking of transgender stories.

So we’re supposed to believe that unless big budgets are involved, nobody will make any cinema, nobody will watch it, and nobody’s interested in watching it???

@aluchko

Jared Leto played that badly caricatured character in 2013, and then also in 2013 a trans actor was cast in Orange is the new Black and Transparent (a cis lead actor though trans people have been cast) in 2014. Are you confident the second two still happen without Leto’s role?

I am absolutely confident that such projects would have happened without Leto’s role. Do you truly mean to suggest that no projects or progress can be made unless the trail is blazed by “traditional” casting and writing first?

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” The fact that enough people objected to Johansson’s casting proves that viewers want something different. If Hollywood continues to ignore that, it will suffer. It’s beyond time to try something different. Most of us feel that it’s time for more diverse casting.

[tinoesroho]

[aluchko]

@navarro

where is this certainty in your assumptions coming from?

I have none. I could certainly be utterly wrong, I’m just arguing my best understanding of the situation.

@navarro

i admit to no such certainty in my position except that it has certainly proved possible for black actors to carry major films and for women to carry major films, and thus it seems reasonable that trans actor could do the same.

I think there’s some important things to note here:

1. Those specific black and female actors had opportunities to hone their craft before leading films, and the industry had time to learn to write for them (this second requirement was not as important as the first)
2. There are a LOT of black people and women. Finding those exceptional talents wasn’t a concern due to sheer numbers.
3. I won’t defend tokenism or gradualism in these cases, but it is actually what happened. We don’t actually know if a more aggressive approach would have worked or if it would have backfired.

@ficuswhisperer

Sure. Google is your friend here. Big directors will even seek out unknowns for the cred that comes with ‘discovering’ new talent.

I’m not going to do your research for you. Unknown does not mean untrained, even if they’re not famous they still need the experience to hone their craft.

@ficuswhisperer

which leads me to believe you’re more interested in agitation rather than honest discussion.

Well at least I now know that one of my opponents is wrong
I’m a bit of a contrarian who enjoys a good discussion, which isn’t a good thing, but I’m honestly not trying to agitate.

I believe in my position and believe it is the best way to improve representation of transgender people in the media and the number of transgender actors. I am giving consideration to the objections given to me and putting in way more effort than I intended.

So I want to try and explain my base motivation in this discussion.

Look at something like affirmative action. I support affirmative action, I especially support what affirmative is trying to accomplish. However, I’m not actually certain affirmative action is doing what I want it to.

Some years back I read a study claiming that affirmative action had actually reduced the number of black lawyers. The basic mechanism was that typically a mediocre black student would go to a mediocre school, a good black student to a good student and an exceptional student to the exceptional school.

But under affirmative action the mediocre student was now at the good school and the good student at the exceptional school. And then those students, being thrown into a tougher school than they could handle, ended up dropping out.

Now I don’t know if that study was actually correct, or if it was missing something else critical.

But when it comes to these kinds of cultural issues it doesn’t really matter because if you believe in racial equality you’re supposed to support affirmative action and no one wants to end up on the same side as the enemy.

That’s my worry with what happened here, that someone drew the line “trans roles should only be played by trans actors” and everyone rushed to agree, not because the evidence said it would be better. But because no one wanted to be on the side that seemed to be arguing against transgender actors.

[FGD135]

I don’t know if this helps in any way, but I’d be available to play Scarlett Johansson if they do a biopic about her.

[aluchko]

@Nightflyer

Wrong. You don’t write a character for a trans actor. You write the character needed for a good story, and when you hire actors, widen the pool to include trans actors instead of hiring the same dozen pretty faces that always seem to get hired for lead roles.

There’s people arguing for different approaches. But if you’re writing roles for trans charactors, cis or trans actors, there’s going to be differences.

@Nightflyer

So we’re supposed to believe that unless big budgets are involved, nobody will make any cinema, nobody will watch it, and nobody’s interested in watching it???

No, but a big budget film can create a large audience that smaller projects can take advantage of.

@Nightflyer

I am absolutely confident that such projects would have happened without Leto’s role. Do you truly mean to suggest that no projects or progress can be made unless the trail is blazed by “traditional” casting and writing first?

I’m confident those or similar projects would have happened in the next few years (culture was ready) but maybe not on that timeline. Without a bunch of research I’m not confident that the Orange is the New Black producer didn’t say “hey, that Leto role is getting a lot of attention, lets add a transgender character”. Nor that Amazon didn’t give Transparent the green light because those other two succeeded.

[ChuckV]

@FGD135

I don’t know if this helps in any way, but I’d be available to play Scarlett Johansson if they do a biopic about her.

I call SpongeBob.

[Melizmatic]

I want to play Prince in the biopic.

[FGD135]

I’d watch that.

[Melizmatic]

I’m ready for my closeup…

[ficuswhisperer]

@aluchko

But under affirmative action the mediocre student was now at the good school and the good student at the exceptional school.

Oh, Christ. Not this shit.

That’s not how it works at all. Affirmative action isn’t about preferring mediocre students over good ones, it’s about making sure that equally good students of color are given equal opportunities. The privileged white students will be just fine and if they aren’t and blame affirmative action, then they probably weren’t as good as they thought they were.

[ficuswhisperer]

@aluchko

I’m a bit of a contrarian who enjoys a good discussion, which isn’t a good thing, but I’m honestly not trying to agitate.

The devil doesn’t need an advocate. Maybe listen to what actual trans people here are saying rather than engaging in contrariness (for the lulz I guess?) and whataboutisms. Just saying.

Most of us here disagree with what you’re saying, so instead of doubling down maybe take the time to understand why.

[Melizmatic]

@ficuswhisperer

The devil doesn’t need an advocate.

I want that on a tee-shirt…

[aluchko]

@ficuswhisperer

Oh, Christ. Not this shit.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

I wasn’t endorsing the study, I wasn’t saying that I don’t agree with affirmative action. I was saying that a plausible mechanism was proposed whereby affirmative action might be backfiring and hurting minority students. And the difficulty with exploring this hypothesis was that because of the political optics anything that argued against affirmative action was perceived as an argument against minority students (even when the research suggested minority students were being hurt).

And then how do you respond…

@ficuswhisperer

That’s not how it works at all. Affirmative action isn’t about preferring mediocre students over good ones, it’s about making sure that equally good students of color are given equal opportunities. The privileged white students will be just fine and if they aren’t and blame affirmative action, then they probably weren’t as good as they thought they were.

The study I talked about never said anything about white students, it was exploring whether affirmative action actually hurt minority students. You’re just so convinced that anyone arguing against affirmative action is just trying to protect white students that you missed the entire point of what that study.

These researchers were concerned with trying to increase the number of African American lawyers (those were the students they focused on). Their particular study suggested the answer was less affirmative action. Now they may have been mistaken in their conclusion, but their motive was not to protect the “privileged white students”.