If a trans actress replaces her - it wouldn’t be much of an improvement.
6 Likes
All good points, but the logic I’m referring to is that people don’t necessarily play the roles that match their gender or sexual identity (obviously) – and I think there is less resistance to casting trans actors in cisgender roles that you would imagine, at least on the indie film side. Or, at the least, few actually question the, say, morality of it (which would have been the case maybe a decade or so ago), it’s more a question of practical issues – there are fewer of them, they may not be available, etc… but then the big one is the struggle on the finance side. At least that’s what my experience suggests…
If you want to see change, find out who the financiers are and email them or otherwise find a way to get their attention. Encourage them that there’s an audience out there for a) new talent, whoever they are, so long as they are good and b) that we want to see more diverse stories, and more diverse talent.
A lot of banks are involved in the film industry. Organise around them and let them know there’s an audience that wants to see diversity.
Because the industry can’t exactly bite the hand that feeds them – they’ll just get their lines of credit cut. But if the audience puts pressure on these various institutions (and individuals, as a lot of the money comes from high net worth people), then you’ll start to see things open up.
And to be honest, I don’t think the old argument that there’s a lack of audience for diverse films is the issue – if you look at public sentiment toward LGBT issues, for example, the tide has shifted rapidly, and the regions where it hasn’t changed enough that it might hurt box office are rather limited in size anyhow, so it’s not like if they boycott the movie it will have much impact (in fact, it might have a paradoxical effect, driving more people to see in a theatre rather than wait to see it on Netflix). The global market is pretty healthy for diverse content, it’s mostly the gatekeepers who can’t figure out how to price a movie right and are terrified of losing even a penny.
Trans actor. My bad.
1 Like
My question stands, where does it end? Can a Vietnamese actor play a Laotian character or have they taken an opportunity from a Laotian actor? what about 35 year old actresses taking the “mom of teenagers” roles from the 45 year old women? Anne Bancroft was only 35 in The Graduate. Don’t you see the fractal nature of this identity issue? It’s called “acting” because you are pretending to be someone you are not.
And historically certain people have been kept out of the industry, based on their race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or age. Again, I do think addressing that matters. Are you suggesting that we condone white washing films (with regards to roles for Asians), because it’s acting? Do we condone black face, because it’s acting? With regards to trans roles, why should ONLY straight, cisgendered people play those roles and why should trans actors not be hired to play any role, because they are actors. Right now, a trans person can’t get a role that isn’t a trans part, and all too often, trans parts go to cisgendered actors, when there are quite a few trans actors who could do that work, given the chance. The problem is that certain people have been under represented in that work place, because of deeply held prejudice.
Women who were older often were frozen out of jobs starting in their 30s. That’s been changing, slowly, but many women have talked about how aging means their ability to actually work dries up. Not so for men.
10 Likes
True but you’re not answering the question.
Oh, you haven’t fallen down on that slippery slope yet and cracked your noggin open?
Why are you ignoring me?
Do you also worry, now that gay marriage is legal, that we’re about to allow marriage between humans and animals too?
11 Likes
Well, you really didn’t answer mine, though. Again, I’ll ask. Why is it some sort of reverse discrimination for trans actors to want equal opportunities?
You want to know when it stops, how about when hollywood stops discriminating and calling it a “business” decision. Again, I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all. There are plenty of roles that can be “blind” cast - where the race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation of the actor/character don’t matter. More often than not, they are still defaulting to white straight and male. Why not make decisions that cast people who are not that, when all other things are equal, given the historic disparities that still exist in the industry.
And sorry, I added to my other comment to you, but I realized I had more to say on that particular point.
7 Likes
I’ll never ignore you!
6 Likes
It seems to me that you want to assume the border of this phenomena is binary. Cis or trans, white or not, male or female. The question about Asians playing different Asians is real and has come up. They actually don’t all look the same you know! You can always find somebody who has been denied the opportunity to represent their particular community.
I find the issue of casting diversity in roles that do not have endemic identity very important too, but unrelated to this.
Yes, but we’re not talking about a Malaysian actor playing a Japanese charactor… we’re talking a white person playing an Asian (in the case of ScarJo in Ghost in the Shell). I think Asian and Asian American actors are numerous enough to fill roles that are Asians or Asian Americans. I think it’s even better if someone can play their actual ethnicity, too, but I don’t think it’s as big a deal as Asians or Asian American characters being played by white people.
And again, WHY is seeking to remedy that and be MORE inclusive a form of reverse discrimination? Do you honestly think that more minorities (of whatever variety) is going to take away from roles from white, straight, young actors? Do you not think there is enough roles to go around for everyone? Do you think that roles that are specific to a race, gender, or gender identity shouldn’t go to someone of that race, gender,or identity? Should Lana Wachowski NOT have cast Jamie Clayton in the role of a trans woman and instead should have given that role to a cisgendered woman?
Do you think that means we should ignore it and that hollywood shouldn’t strive to be more inclusive?
[ETA] But if you want me to answer you question about “how far does it go,” then I’ll say when we have a culture that recognizes the full humanity of all of us, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability (thinking about things like various forms of dwarfism, and how Peter Dinklage is one of the few actors I can think of who gets casted in roles that are not based on his specific condition), etc. The reality is that people who are not “default” human in American culture, and that still needs to be addressed. Hollywood could play a major role in that by committing to hiring more diversity in production and in executive positions. More diversity in all aspects of the industry is going to translate into more diversity on the screen, too. Again, this isn’t something that’s hard to do, it really just takes someone making those choices and acknowledging that they haven’t done so in the past.
You could also ask some of the non-cisgendered members of what they think of this issue and what they’d consider “far enough” with regards to these issues. I can only speak for myself, what I’d like to see, and what I’ve heard/seen others say about the issue who do have more skin in the game than I do.
Do YOU have an idea about what would be “enough” in your mind with regards to casting various kinds of minorities (either in roles about that particular minority or in blind casting)? Perhaps you should (in addition to answering mine) answer your own question, too?
11 Likes
How about when movies are made with individuals from any race, creed, gender or sexual orientation being able to play their natural race, creed, gender or sexual orientation? Think if hollywood could basically move an order of magnitude beyond where it is today and approach that level it would satisfy your need for whataboutism?
10 Likes
Imagine that!
That future, that world:
10 Likes
What, base jobs purely on ability and aptitude…?
(It would be nice though, wouldn’t it?)
5 Likes
Unfortunately, I suspect the community represented in this scenario will figure out in a month or two that the movie will now never get made, at any scale. Then, the question becomes much more difficult.
when movies are made with individuals from any race, creed, gender or sexual orientation being able to play their natural race, creed, gender or sexual orientation
They make those movies. They’re called documentaries.
Plus, there’s a big difference between “can play”, and “must play”.
2 Likes
I can live with that. Someone will do a less problematic project in the future.
I’m not losing any money on the deal.
4 Likes
Hey Millie Fink that’s a nasty straw man you’ve set up there. Urbanicus was taking the ‘it’s called acting’ role in this debate, and you were taking the other side (although your position frankly wasn’t as clearly stated as it usually is.) This is a common debate. The ‘slippery slope’ argument is usually used by the ‘it’s called acting’ side (ie should actors always be required to personally match the roles they are portraying?) The opposing argument is most commonly stated in terms of access to roles, and this is naturally a reasonable argument as well. The usual straw man on this side of the debate is to compare portrayals made in seeming good faith (ie the actor has no malice or condescension towards the role portrayed) with portrayals done with malice or mockery (ie Rooney in Breakfast…). This argument already often starts to jump the track a bit, but to suddenly suggest that the ‘it’s called acting’ position is on a spectrum sliding towards homophobia is just jumping the shark.
1 Like
10 Likes
Any examples?
2 Likes
