Scarlett Johansson faces backlash for trans role

[FATCAT 59,982]

33 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Tbh I’m surprised a producer would think their wouldn’t be backlash to this...how thick ya gotta be? Isn’t it their job to be knowledgeable about the financials of these projects and what may affect them?

I mean, they know movies, not the intricacies of Trans issues. Bad on their part not to coordinate with someone who does..

[pink sushi 4,351]

I don't think this is that big of an issue tbh. It would be nice if they used a trans actor, but those aren't exactly in abundence.... Plus most most directors look for well established actors to take on lead roles in their movies. It attracts a bigger audience to the film. 

[JohnWayne92 2,151]

Dumb things to be offended about now #23440886485939 

[RepentingSinner 2,642]

Damn, people are so sensesetiv. Im speechless that we live in this world.

[RepentingSinner 2,642]

And it's acting! You don't need to get a real Dragon to play a fucihggg Dragon. Neill Patrick Harries played a straight man for years. Gosh.

[Poissonche 12,365]

The thing is, in this case, Mr. Gill has never actually transitioned. So even though he was identifying as a man, presenting himself as a man, dressing as a man, etc., he still had a female body. Hiring a trans man here would not actually work with the character. They needed a female body. You know, in Sense8, they hired a trans actress to play Nomi, a trans character who has already transitioned, and it's great. And I know the controversy here comes from the fact that Mrs Johansson is "taking a job" from a trans person. But why do people complain about that only when the played character is trans? I'm an actor myself, and if I were trans, I would assure you, I would be fuming to be only cast in trans roles. Cast a trans man as Super Man. Cast a trans woman as Amy Winehouse. I don't know. Cis people can play trans people, and trans people can play cis people. SJWs, just let Mrs Johansson do the job she was cast for, which is legitimate, and advocate for trans actors and actresses to get more jobs, and not only in trans roles! God! There is something wrong with the fact that there are no trans superstars at the moment, but targeting this project is an act of marginalization against trans people in itself. Why do y'all want trans people to be always put in a different category? Ok now I'm repeating myself so I'll shut up, and if you got offended, you misunderstood what I'm saying, read again. Trans people are people. Gay people are people. We're all people.

Ok yes thinking again they could have hired a trans man whom is not on hormones, but this is not my point in this post.

[SEXODUS 5,927]

Scarlett had an opportunity to play a role that can actually make a difference (for her, in terms of actually learn and act about such a sensitive issue, and for us as an audience) and she took it. But I guess someone actually took her, right? The job was given to her. Yes, the chances are she’s famous and there wouldn’t be any buzz around a project that has some unknown star in it, but she has no fault in whether a trans actor could or could not get the job, so I really don’t get why we’re mad at a woman who’s just doing her job. 

Hollywood sucks, what’s new? 

[LordEnigma 11,313]

36 minutes ago, LittleLocoCoco said:

And it's acting! You don't need to get a real Dragon to play a fucihggg Dragon. Neill Patrick Harries played a straight man for years. Gosh.

I guess the only thing is - would you cast a white actor to play a black role? Or be portrayed as a black character?

I don’t really have a problem if straight men play gay roles but it’s something to think about.

[Claymore 671]

2 hours ago, Haroon said:

Acting is acting  You don't need to face the same struggles or lead the same life as the character you're portraying. Also, at the end of the day the movie has to make money and famous faces are regularly used to promote movies.

I can't remember all of this backlash when Eddie Redmayne starred in The Danish Girl either  

Acting is acting unless you're a trans actor who's not even asked to play a trans role let alone other parts. Because being gay or trans is ok if it's make-believe and the audience knows that the actor is a nice, safe straight. Otherwise it becomes too real, uncomfortable and it won't make money.

 

[Mirages 20,259]

I don't see a problem here, people are so touchy nowadays. Good for her for widening her acting chops. The internet should just stop. 

[GagaMyBlood95 9,915]

3 hours ago, Haroon said:

Acting is acting  You don't need to face the same struggles or lead the same life as the character you're portraying. Also, at the end of the day the movie has to make money and famous faces are regularly used to promote movies.

I can't remember all of this backlash when Eddie Redmayne starred in The Danish Girl either  

It's a movie role, people are making a fuss over nothing imo..

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Haroon said:

Acting is acting  You don't need to face the same struggles or lead the same life as the character you're portraying. Also, at the end of the day the movie has to make money and famous faces are regularly used to promote movies.

I can't remember all of this backlash when Eddie Redmayne starred in The Danish Girl either  

Oh it was there. The trans community + allies were just less visible in the past than they are now. My trans friends and I make fun of this movie all the time, its actually a mess  The phenomenon of trans characters being played by cis actors is not new, and the criticism towards it isn't either, you just probably haven't heard about it because its not popular  

Also, its not about the concept of acting itself. If this were the reason, we'd have no reservations about the idea of white people being played by black people, or black people being played by white people. But we do - the former is seen as "reverse racism" () and the latter is black face. There's nothing inherently wrong with anyone portraying any other character with different lived experiences. This is about contextual, practical social issues that arise. If trans actors are never able to tell their stories and never seen as employable, there will never be any reason for studios to hire them, nor for representation of trans people to grow, and thus less acceptance/understanding. Cis people playing trans people (often badly) is not the representation the Trans community wants or needs. Ultimately, cis men playing trans women reads to an audience like "a man in a dress/make up" and while not as popular of a stereotype, the opposite reads as a woman with short hair and a binder; a lesbian, butch, etc. Both of these aren't "positive representation" they just enforce the idea that trans men aren't "really" the gender they say that they are.

About commercialism... I mean, I just don't think this point holds up. Not every movie has to gross $300million+ to be successful, many of the best, most inspiring, enlightening, etc. movies were Not commercially successful, critical success in this industry is highly prized (and can actually lead to commercial success in the long run). Independent movies are well respected, loved, and made with sometimes even greater care than the most expensive of films. Also, ScarJo is one of the most well paid actresses of the times, so you can bet her acting fee for this film will be through the roof  The trade off is a risk for them because its not like there's a huge audience for stories of trans men in the mainstream. The decision to cast her is about seeking commercial success over accuracy. It's not about helping portray trans characters in media, its about making money off those stories.

[Claymore 671]

18 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Oh it was there. The trans community + allies were just less visible in the past than they are now. My trans friends and I make fun of this movie all the time, its actually a mess  The phenomenon of trans characters being played by cis actors is not new, and the criticism towards it isn't either, you just probably haven't heard about it because its not popular  

Also, its not about the concept of acting itself. If this were the reason, we'd have no reservations about the idea of white people being played by black people, or black people being played by white people. But we do - the former is seen as "reverse racism" () and the latter is black face. There's nothing inherently wrong with anyone portraying any other character with different lived experiences. This is about contextual, practical social issues that arise. If trans actors are never able to tell their stories and never seen as employable, there will never be any reason for studios to hire them, nor for representation of trans people to grow, and thus less acceptance/understanding. Cis people playing trans people (often badly) is not the representation the Trans community wants or needs. Ultimately, cis men playing trans women reads to an audience like "a man in a dress/make up" and while not as popular of a stereotype, the opposite reads as a woman with short hair and a binder; a lesbian, butch, etc. Both of these aren't "positive representation" they just enforce the idea that trans men aren't "really" the gender they say that they are.

About commercialism... I mean, I just don't think this point holds up. Not every movie has to gross $300million+ to be successful, many of the best, most inspiring, enlightening, etc. movies were Not commercially successful, critical success in this industry is highly prized (and can actually lead to commercial success in the long run). Independent movies are well respected, loved, and made with sometimes even greater care than the most expensive of films. Also, ScarJo is one of the most well paid actresses of the times, so you can bet her acting fee for this film will be through the roof  The trade off is a risk for them because its not like there's a huge audience for stories of trans men in the mainstream. The decision to cast her is about seeking commercial success over accuracy. It's not about helping portray trans characters in media, its about making money off those stories.

[ryanripley 86,575]

i get that representation is important but why are we attacking scarlet instead of the director and casting crew?

they're the ones who make these choices and scarlet is a great actor at the end of the day, if she sees a challenge then she'll take it

[Suspiria 10,683]

The point of being an actor is that you are able to portray someone/something that you are not. You don't need to be trans to play a trans person.