Scarlett Johansson faces backlash for trans role

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

On 7/4/2018 at 4:08 PM, 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  

God stop. Why are you always like this? 

 

There's barely a scraping of any trans actors currently booked in Hollywood, then for a trans role to go again to someone who isn't even trans. Is very ironic and a slap in the face. Open your eyes.

[Haroon 49,685]

11 hours ago, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

God stop. Why are you always like this? 

 

There's barely a scraping of any trans actors currently booked in Hollywood, then for a trans role to go again to someone who isn't even trans. Is very ironic and a slap in the face. Open your eyes.

No need to get personal, things never go anywhere but downhill from there  

Someone being trans doesn’t mean they’re the only ones fit to play a trans role, that’s not how acting works  

[Claymore 671]

4 hours ago, Haroon said:

No need to get personal, things never go anywhere but downhill from there  

Someone being trans doesn’t mean they’re the only ones fit to play a trans role, that’s not how acting works  

You were given lots of sensible arguments for why representation is crucial for the trans community but you're still choosing to go with ''buT ItS AcTiNg” '' instead of being emphatic towards a highly marginalized group of people that are still struggling to be heard.

Pride was last month so I guess it's fine if we're going back to being our selfish selves.

[highongaga 913]

the whole point of acting is to take on another role and become someone else, so what the hell is the problem with her doing so? i stg people try so hard to stir up drama 

[Eggsy 8,280]

Isnt the entire point of acting portaying someone or something you are not? 

[Dayum 240]

Some of these comments are so naive... It is so unfair to give a role to a person because of their physical characteristics rather than merit. If trans actors were denied the role because they are trans, then there is a problem. This outrage is the total opposite of that: they want people to play a role solely because they are trans.

[Claymore 671]

15 minutes ago, Dayum said:

Some of these comments are so naive... It is so unfair to give a role to a person because of their physical characteristics rather than merit. If trans actors were denied the role because they are trans, then there is a problem. This outrage is the total opposite of that: they want people to play a role solely because they are trans.

Oh, so you think they scouted long and hard for some trans talent but they couldn't find ONE good trans actor that they had to get Scarlet Johansson as a last resort?

I wonder who's the naive one.

[Luzaleja 2,079]

17 minutes ago, Dayum said:

Some of these comments are so naive... It is so unfair to give a role to a person because of their physical characteristics rather than merit. If trans actors were denied the role because they are trans, then there is a problem. This outrage is the total opposite of that: they want people to play a role solely because they are trans.

That's the problem, though. Trans actors are denied roles because they are trans. They won't even let them audition for cis roles. So it's understandable why they'd be upset that the few roles that they can audition for are also often given to cis actors.

[Haroon 49,685]

5 hours ago, Claymore said:

You were given lots of sensible arguments for why representation is crucial for the trans community but you're still choosing to go with ''buT ItS AcTiNg” '' instead of being emphatic towards a highly marginalized group of people that are still struggling to be heard.

Pride was last month so I guess it's fine if we're going back to being our selfish selves.

To be honest I saw those on mobile when I wasn't able to properly reply back, now that I'm home and on my laptop I will be going through those and replying properly  I agree that there isn't enough representation of trans people in movies, but I also don't think just because a role is trans it automatically has to be filled by a trans person. Sure it'd be preferable but there are more factors in play than just matching gender identity/sexuality/etc. There's the commercial side and I can see why a casting director would want to cast a bigger name. It brings more attention to their movie and therefore it's more likely to do well. In the bigger scheme of things I think that has its own benefits because if it is successful then it reaches a larger audience and opens up their eyes to issues they had not understood properly before or really considered and so on

Pride is right now for London actually so this isn't a case of me acting differently during Pride than not, but if you want to make random assumptions like that you're free to

[moonboywow 3,136]

Let’s not forget that she also played an Asian woman. Like..that doesn’t make sense to me. Neither does her playing a trans character. Yeah. Let’s make her next role be a gay black man. Makes perfect sense. It’s just acting. Right? 

[Claymore 671]

1 hour ago, Haroon said:

To be honest I saw those on mobile when I wasn't able to properly reply back, now that I'm home and on my laptop I will be going through those and replying properly  I agree that there isn't enough representation of trans people in movies, but I also don't think just because a role is trans it automatically has to be filled by a trans person. Sure it'd be preferable but there are more factors in play than just matching gender identity/sexuality/etc. There's the commercial side and I can see why a casting director would want to cast a bigger name. It brings more attention to their movie and therefore it's more likely to do well. In the bigger scheme of things I think that has its own benefits because if it is successful then it reaches a larger audience and opens up their eyes to issues they had not understood properly before or really considered and so on

Pride is right now for London actually so this isn't a case of me acting differently during Pride than not, but if you want to make random assumptions like that you're free to

You can't say it's preferable then dismiss it altogether  

[Haroon 49,685]

16 minutes ago, Claymore said:

You can't say it's preferable then dismiss it altogether  

I think it should be based on acting ability, not what the person identifies as. Same as how I don't think only gay people should be cast to play gay people, and only straight people cast to play straight people, and so on  If there's an option of getting the best of both which is that you have an amazing trans actor to fill the role then great but I don't think they should be prioritised because they are trans, but again we need to take into consideration fame and the person's name and star power, which helps in promoting the movie to a wider audience.

If I had the choice between an LGBT movie played by non-LGBT people which skyrocketed to being well known and spreading awareness then I'd choose that over an LGBT movie played by LGBT people which was barely noticed and therefore did not spread anywhere near as much awareness

[Claymore 671]

8 minutes ago, Haroon said:

I think it should be based on acting ability, not what the person identifies as. Same as how I don't think only gay people should be cast to play gay people, and only straight people cast to play straight people, and so on  If there's an option of getting the best of both which is that you have an amazing trans actor to fill the role then great but I don't think they should be prioritised because they are trans, but again we need to take into consideration fame and the person's name and star power, which helps in promoting the movie to a wider audience.

If I had the choice between an LGBT movie played by non-LGBT people which skyrocketed to being well known and spreading awareness then I'd choose that over an LGBT movie played by LGBT people which was barely noticed and therefore did not spread anywhere near as much awareness

So it would be ok if a man were to play say Jackie O,  Ella Fitzgerald or other real people in a biopic about them?

[Haroon 49,685]

Just now, Claymore said:

So it would be ok if a man were to play say Jackie O,  Ella Fitzgerald or other real-life people in a biopic about them?

If they had the correct features then yes  It'd probably be difficult because of the voice and stuff though

I'm wondering how to phrase this post correctly so someone doesn't latch onto a mis-phrase and run with it  I think you're comparing apples and oranges in the question. A cis female playing a trans man is not the same as a cis male playing a cis female. The trans man has biologically female features and so a cis female playing it isn't out of the ball park because a cis female also has biologically female features.

[Claymore 671]

1 minute ago, Haroon said:

If they had the correct features then yes  It'd probably be difficult because of the voice and stuff though

I'm wondering how to phrase this post correctly so someone doesn't latch onto a mis-phrase and run with it  I think you're comparing apples and oranges in the question. A cis female playing a trans man is not the same as a cis male playing a cis female. The trans man has biologically female features and so a cis female playing it isn't out of the ball park because a cis female also has biologically female features.

Please let me know which current actress has the same features as these trans men?