If this was a small indie film, with unknowns for the parts, no one would have heard about it on the mainstream media, or on era.
How many indie films are made that no one talks about at all?
ScarJo reteams with GitS director for something else ill-conceived
- Thread starter Sweeney Swift
- Start date
- Status
How many indie films are made that no one talks about at all?
Why? It's fucking acting, the point is you play someone you're actually not. What's important should be how the LGBTQ person is portrayed, not whether the actor is actually LGBTQ.
I’m a trans writer/director that gave my lead trans girl role to a cis man. Why? Because he was right for the role. I’ve also given a trans girl role to a trans girl. The latter sucked and were horrible to work with. The point is, it doesn’t guarantee anything when it comes to something as complex as the creative process. I over valued the fact the latter actor was trans.
Acting is a craft that is literally about embodying someone else
Obviously it’s more complicated when oppression and lack of representation exist. Because trans actors tend to get nothing, they should at least get trans roles. But do they really want that? I’m not sure. They want to be actors.
We should be fighting for trans people to get cis roles. We are our respective genders. That would actually shift the perception of transness culturally.
Well they are acting in a movie, so they must me in real life too.
You are completely misunderstanding the issue here. Do you feel it is a normal and natural thing for male actors to play female roles in films and vice versa? Is this a norm? It isn't right? Why? It's just acting. It has even been done before. Why isn't it widespread? When you consider that, then you can get closer to understanding the context here. The problem being that Hollywood has the mindset that the gender a trans individual is born with is the right gender for it be portrayed in. That's not an angle the trans community accepts and it is harmful to how people who already have difficulty understanding trans issues to relate.
I don't disagree. In fact I agree. That said my point is that the way the industry operates does not dictate this will happen or is even a focus to support.
Actors chase roles. Name A list actors often have their own production companies and these seek out roles of interest from scripts "doing the rounds". Thus - as seems to be the case here - ScarJo simply got early choice on this and made the role hers.
If A list female actors are pursuing these roles and A list men aren't then the roles are going to go to Weiss, Johansson, etc essetially by default.
Of course casting can be "top down" at times with casting directors, etc. but this tends to be for smaller roles or where the director or other leads in the creative team want to seek out potentially new talent or less obvious choices. But the A list actors chasing roles cuts across this and does introduce bias as this allows A list actors who chose to operate this way to take ownership of roles early in the process and cut across casting direction that would make it easier to seek out a specific gender for a role. Which is a problem of course when trying to encourage proper representation.
It's not my view, let's get that very, very abundantly clear.
I think that this film will be a time bomb with ScarJo in it, and it would be better with someone more suited.
And her saying Leto, well times have changed even since then but it does not make that film nor his performance bad.
Where do we stand with The Crying Game now?
Is it relegated to a product of its time? Or just remembered for a twist and Davidson's performance forgotten?
I think someone transgender should play this role, but to be honest I would rather it was a documentary as it would hopefully keep things more realistic and non hollywoodified.
This argument that "Scarlett Johannson means more people will see this" is laughable. Even the highly marketed Ghost in the Shell flopped, so what makes everyone think this will suddenly be a hit because Scarlett stole a trans man's role? If anything, Marvel aside, I'd argue she's box office poison.
Point is - the people in this thread defending ScarJo have nothing to stand on. Tell us what you really think.
Point is - the people in this thread defending ScarJo have nothing to stand on. Tell us what you really think.
The Crying Game is a movie that every trans person I know on an anecdotal level hates. The whole "this person being trans is a twist" thing especially pisses people off. That line of thinking leads to the mindset that trans people are just trying to deceive people, which is a mindset that gets people killed.
Do they?
I need to ask the ones I know, it's never come up.
I think the twist hurts that movie big time, it's remembered as shlock and ruined more by Ace Ventura.
Also when a lot of people, including film critics at the time talked about that movie, they described the twist as "she's a man", so there's that extra element to it.
And if my trans friends hate The Crying Game, they loathe Ace Ventura. In half the "what movies really don't hold up" discussions we have, that movie comes up. Honestly, after rewatching that movie, I might not watch another Jim Carrey movie (granted, the transphobia is far from its only problem, but that's another chat for another thread)
The critics didn't help, but Ace killed that movie more than anything it was hateful.
And that naked gun movie that parodied it. Come to think of it, up until The Matrix, it might have been one of the most parodied movies of the 90s.
Oh it did didn't it.
No wonder Davidson backed out of the limelight, he said it made it hard looking for a guy as he looked so androgynous as it was and I am sure at that time it would have been worse from the general public.
See, I look at that movie for the central performance he did personally and it's amazing.
But I agree like this it's not about that, it's the bigger picture and more so perception of that performance.
And I don't see the issue with that at all. The problem I have is ScarJo playing Dante. She looks nothing like Dante. Lea Delaria would have been perfect for the role or any unknown Trans-Man to be given a shot.
There are post on this page of the thread that explains why this mind set of hollywood contributes to violence against trans. See the issue now?
Scarjo looking nothing like Dante is nothing new. If they did choose a male for thw role he most likley look nothing like dante either they probably would choose somebody handsome.
Did you even read the post you're responding to? Trans men are men. Having a woman playing dress up portray them perpetuates the disgusting and bigoted idea that trans people aren't really the gender they say they are. People thinking trans people are liars who have tricked them can lead to trans people getting killed.
Still not a problem? I'd love for you to come back and clarify instead of doing a drive by on this.
Sounds reasonable. I've gotta say, I've learned a few things from this thread.
See it wouldn’t be an issue if everyone realized regardless of birth biology transmen are men and transwomen are women which you obviously get, but most people cannot get past that. If every non trans person could at least get that then you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong and it could just be the best person for the job. However most people think at best trans people are playing dress up, than the slope goes to we are freaks mutilating ourselves and up to killing us and getting to use the “trans-panic” defense. When that changes we can talk about actors playing pretend. But as long as many cannot even see the trans community as human these kinds of decisions just reinforce their existing beliefs.
ScarJo is really out to shit on every group that's still an "acceptable target" for a lot of people.
I look forward to her upcoming roles as Frida Kahlo and Rosa Parks.
After all, she does bring in 10 to 20 times as much money as anyone else *fart*
Edit: Also watch as this is literally the only male role she will ever accept...
I look forward to her upcoming roles as Frida Kahlo and Rosa Parks.
After all, she does bring in 10 to 20 times as much money as anyone else *fart*
Edit: Also watch as this is literally the only male role she will ever accept...
And a male actor will know much more easily why having a female body as a kid was a problem.
It's not representation when a cis woman is hired to play a trans man.
ResetEra is practically in diapers when it comes to talking about things like race, sexuality, orientation and body positivity.
It gets tiring to even open discussions such as these and you see the same old tired arguments. This place is skewed towards a certain demographic and it shows.
Last edited:
It is a mob movie, that is a genre that was based on hiring ugly dudes xD
And yeah, an ugly cis man is a much better choice than a "hot" cis woman.
Troublesome as some users are, it's a great improvement on most gaming/nerd culture type forums online.
There are a lot of good looking people in mob movies.
Are there any actors with even a slight profile that are not cis who can play it?
If they cast somebody as close to how Dante looks cool.
But the point of my post is dont cast a woman, hollywood casting hot looking people for roles is another entire issue separate from hollywood casting woman to play transmen, men casted to play trans women.
Chaz bono comes to mind, others suggestion have been posted a few pages back.
And that be the rub. I need at least one gaming based discussion forum and this is as good as it gets at the moment. It’s not perfect and could use lots of improvement, especially with trans issues, but it’s better than any other option.
Troublesome as some users are, it's a great improvement on most gaming/nerd culture type forums online.
It's interesting how quickly people forget that the "Scarjos" and "Jlaws" were once nobodies as well. Not many people think about Ghost World, or Winter's Bone anymore.
Actors get their start somewhere. They don't magically become household names. Hollywood puts in the work to make sure you, as an audience member, know who the fuck Chris Pratt, Scarlet Johannson, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender are. Because they want you to know who they are. They are in the business of making stars. Lawrence went from making $3,000 a week on Winter's Bone to making $20 million per picture because Hollywood wanted to make her a star.
If they gave a shit about building up minority and LGBTQ actors, they'd be casting them in roles. If they had the desire to make stars out of something other than white men and women, they could do it. A supposedly low budget biopic shouldn't have to have a Scarlet Johannson in it to bring people to the theater. An interesting movie will stand on its own. A well received movie will bring butts to the seats, and a well managed movie (in terms of budget and schedule), will make it's money if it's still quality. Sure, audiences do enjoy seeing their favorite performers in films, but if the movie looks bad, most of them won't go see it. I like the Rock, but I'm not going to see Skyscraper because it looks bad.
The LGBTQ community, much like other marginalized groups, wants representation in front of, and behind the camera. However, when the perfect opportunity arrises to highlight that talent, it goes to a white male or white woman. If you are part of the marginalized group, it becomes frustrating and exhausting. Every time a role like that goes to the usual Hollywood template, it's a major blow to marginalized communities.
I may not be LGBTQ, but as a black man, I totally understand where they're coming from when they say they want more representation. I'm not sure what character Scarlet is playing in this movie, but in general, it's frustrating to constantly see opportunities that seem tailor made for marginalized groups to get their chance to shine continue to overlook and ignore marginalized groups, while capitalizing and profiting off of their stories.
Actors get their start somewhere. They don't magically become household names. Hollywood puts in the work to make sure you, as an audience member, know who the fuck Chris Pratt, Scarlet Johannson, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender are. Because they want you to know who they are. They are in the business of making stars. Lawrence went from making $3,000 a week on Winter's Bone to making $20 million per picture because Hollywood wanted to make her a star.
If they gave a shit about building up minority and LGBTQ actors, they'd be casting them in roles. If they had the desire to make stars out of something other than white men and women, they could do it. A supposedly low budget biopic shouldn't have to have a Scarlet Johannson in it to bring people to the theater. An interesting movie will stand on its own. A well received movie will bring butts to the seats, and a well managed movie (in terms of budget and schedule), will make it's money if it's still quality. Sure, audiences do enjoy seeing their favorite performers in films, but if the movie looks bad, most of them won't go see it. I like the Rock, but I'm not going to see Skyscraper because it looks bad.
The LGBTQ community, much like other marginalized groups, wants representation in front of, and behind the camera. However, when the perfect opportunity arrises to highlight that talent, it goes to a white male or white woman. If you are part of the marginalized group, it becomes frustrating and exhausting. Every time a role like that goes to the usual Hollywood template, it's a major blow to marginalized communities.
I may not be LGBTQ, but as a black man, I totally understand where they're coming from when they say they want more representation. I'm not sure what character Scarlet is playing in this movie, but in general, it's frustrating to constantly see opportunities that seem tailor made for marginalized groups to get their chance to shine continue to overlook and ignore marginalized groups, while capitalizing and profiting off of their stories.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/04/entertainment/scarlett-johansson-transgender-role-trnd/index.html
Ruby Rose has also been mentioned. She is genderfluid (non binary) and came very close to transitioning to male in her younger years.
Figboy This is a good point. No one knew who Ruby Rose or Laverne Cox was before Orange is the New Black, and no one WOULD HAVE known them if they hadn't been cast in those roles.
Last edited:
What I said is partly because I’m frustrated that discussions that should, for all intents and purposes, be positive, are met with constant dismissal.
I ask you to please not downplay it.
Oh trust me, I know. It's frustrating as fuck to talk about any women's issues (or queer/LGBT+ and race) and just get met with constant dismissals from people who have clearly not read the OP, the linked story OR any of the thread. Sorry if it came off like I was trying to downplay it
Thanks. I’m sorry if I sounded rude or aggressive. It’s just like...I’ve seen this like three times in short succession where the replies don’t even bother to understand where the OP is coming from and start to dismiss it.
Kinda like how Scarlett could have chosen not to perpetuate this mess, yet here we are.
Yeah, a lot of disengenuous arguments everywhere. It's not like there was a casting call and she was the best person for the job; this is her personal pet project and she's given a public response that's basically a middle finger to LGBTQ+ people so fuck her.
If they kiss even once in the movie, I dread the "hot lesbian" takes that will come forth.
People are still overlooking the fact that days ago this project was presented as being about a "butch lesbian." Those were the rumors before this all blew up in their faces. The original write ups about the synopsis all misgender the character and use his dead name and the people behind the film seem to have done little to correct those mistakes.
I have actually seen very little that suggests that the creators even knew they were making a film about a trans man until they were called out for it. So when people ask, "Is it better if the project dies all together?" I would say that if the alternative is to have it made by people who didn't care enough to do the research, then yes.
It would be better if it didn't get made than to be made in such a disrespectful manner.
I have actually seen very little that suggests that the creators even knew they were making a film about a trans man until they were called out for it. So when people ask, "Is it better if the project dies all together?" I would say that if the alternative is to have it made by people who didn't care enough to do the research, then yes.
It would be better if it didn't get made than to be made in such a disrespectful manner.
You don't see how portraying a trans person as the sex they were assigned at birth rather than the gender they are is a problem? That's a very transphobic view you just espoused.
Rose is a good shot, but would need a ton of make up and padding.
Mind you so would ScarJo
The point you're missing is that ScarJo is a cis woman. Rose is not. She is genderfluid. She has struggled with her gender identity. Her protrayl of Mr. Gil will be a LOT more authentic. It will also be less offensive to the trans and queer community, and give more visibility to trans and non binary people. As I've noted everywhere before, we get makeup to turn actors into blue fucking aliens, it's not a big deal nor is it hard at all in this case.
ScarJo is a fucking awful pick all around. Mr. Gil was a rather short and stocky guy. ScarJo is a gorgeous Holywood sex symbol of a cis woman. She might as well play a lumberjack dude in her next film, or the Penguin in the next Batman movie. And at the rate she's going, she probably will.
No I never missed that, I have always said she is the wrong choice.
But OK.
"as a black man"
lmao do you have any reading comprehension
good to see shitting on trans people is acceptable still
why don't we just let white actors do blackface
let's go back to the shakespearean norm of women not being aloud to play
fuck it, no more minorities, clearly it doesn't matter who plays who, "it's about who's best for the role!" Right?
- Status