More Misrepresentation

JackTaylorFan

'Don’t debate us! Don't tell us it’s just a movie and these men are just acting. Listen to us!'

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-activists-urging-boycott-matt-bomers-film-anything#gs.sex.8=cknB0

Agreed, this **** needs to stop

gmisk

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

'Don’t debate us! Don't tell us it’s just a movie and these men are just acting. Listen to us!'

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-activists-urging-boycott-matt-bomers-film-anything#gs.sex.8=cknB0

Agreed, this **** needs to stop

The trailer looks abysmal I doubt anyone will go to see it anyway

JackTaylorFan

gmisk wrote: »

The trailer looks abysmal I doubt anyone will go to see it anyway

Doesn't matter if it's a flop or not. It's the precedence that continues to be set. Transactors aren't even considered.

gmisk

There is a definite lack of Hollywood casting trans actors, however less so when it comes to non-hollywood system.
A fantastic woman which won the best foreign film at the oscars this year had a trans actor in the lead and she was terrific.

JupiterKid

OP - is negative ranting your sole purpose of being on this forum?

JackTaylorFan

gmisk wrote: »

There is a definite lack of Hollywood casting trans actors, however less so when it comes to non-hollywood system.
A fantastic woman which won the best foreign film at the oscars this year had a trans actor in the lead and she was terrific.

Did you read the article? Just asking because they talk about A Fantastic Woman and why we should be supporting movies like that.

gmisk

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Did you read the article? Just asking because they talk about A Fantastic Woman and why we should be supporting movies like that.

I did I maybe worded that slightly wrong (was on a mobile) I was agreeing with point made in article, especially with regards a fantastic woman.
It is the same if not worse when it comes to TV
e.g. the main character in Transparent - though at least that show gave trans actors roles, at least with Jeffrey Tambor being fired it might give those characters a larger role.

LLMMLL

I think TV is better for this than film. Was pleasantly surprised to see that it was a trans actor playing a trans man in last week's episode of law and order SVU.

I'm sure Bomer will be thought of as "brave" for playing the role of a trans person. Much like Ledger and Gyllenhaal were for Brokeback Mountain.

JackTaylorFan

gmisk wrote: »

I did I maybe worded that slightly wrong (was on a mobile) I was agreeing with point made in article, especially with regards a fantastic woman.
It is the same if not worse when it comes to TV
e.g. the main character in Transparent - though at least that show gave trans actors roles, at least with Jeffrey Tambor being fired it might give those characters a larger role.

Cool!

Cool! Cool! Cool!

gmisk

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think TV is better for this than film. Was pleasantly surprised to see that it was a trans actor playing a trans man in last week's episode of law and order SVU.

You could be right Laverne Cox seems to be popping up in plenty of things since orange is the new black, in a wide variety of roles.

The only recent(ish) film that I can remember with trans actors in the lead though was Tangerine.

JackTaylorFan

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think TV is better for this than film. Was pleasantly surprised to see that it was a trans actor playing a trans man in last week's episode of law and order SVU.

I'm sure Bomer will be thought of as "brave" for playing the role of a trans person. Much like Ledger and Gyllenhaal were for Brokeback Mountain.

Just glad you used "brave" in inverted commas, to be honest


Besides from the issue of men taking roles from transwomen, one of the big issues with trans (mis)representation in movies is the trope that we are always somehow involved in sex work. Are these sort of harmful stereotypes still applied to gay characters? And since you touched upon it, do many gay men feel as uncomfortable about straight males taking prominent gay roles in film? Paul Rudd and Steve Coogan are about to release a movie where they both do Gayface - and admittedly, it kinda registers with me as being a little off.

gmisk

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Just glad you used "brave" in inverted commas, to be honest


Besides from the issue of men taking roles from transwomen, one of the big issues with trans (mis)representation in movies is the trope that we are always somehow involved in sex work. Are these sort of harmful stereotypes still applied to gay characters? And since you touched upon it, do many gay men feel as uncomfortable about straight males taking prominent gay roles in film? Paul Rudd and Steve Coogan are about to release a movie where they both do Gayface - and admittedly, it kinda registers with me as being a little off.

That is very true, trans characters in tangerine...both sex workers.

I think stereotypes are still definitely applied to gay male and female characters in general but there are signs of improvement again I would say especially on TV.

Shows with really stereotypical gay characters

"The 100" - it has a gay male couple, and lead is female bisexual but not really made a thing of.
"Orange is the new black"
"Sense8" - very LGBT diverse cast, I suppose not too surprising given the Wachowskis are involved

There is a show in america called "this close" which I have enjoyed, it has a gay male character as one of the two leads, who are also both deaf, it is really nicely played, and breaks down some boundaries.

"Looking" was excellent also from a gay male perspective I thought (same guy who did the film Weekend).

Even very mainstream shows like "grace and frankie" dont tend to go in for stereotypes to the same degree as shows in the past might have IMO.


Possibly some of this may be down to LGBTQ people being involved in developing these projects, Ryan Murphy, Greg Berlanti, jenji Kohan, Jill Soloway etc

JackTaylorFan

gmisk wrote: »

That is very true, trans characters in tangerine...both sex workers.

Yeah, and I won't be watching that... Next...

gmisk wrote: »

I think stereotypes are still definitely applied to gay male and female characters in general but there are signs of improvement again I would say especially on TV.

Shows with really stereotypical gay characters

"The 100" - it has a gay male couple, and lead is female bisexual but not really made a thing of.
"Orange is the new black"
"Sense8" - very LGBT diverse cast, I suppose not too surprising given the Wachowskis are involved

There is a show in america called "this close" which I have enjoyed, it has a gay male character as one of the two leads, who are also both deaf, it is really nicely played, and breaks down some boundaries.

"Looking" was excellent also from a gay male perspective I thought (same guy who did the film Weekend).

Even very mainstream shows like "grace and frankie" dont tend to go in for stereotypes to the same degree as shows in the past might have IMO.


Possibly some of this may be down to LGBTQ people being involved in developing these projects, Ryan Murphy, Greg Berlanti, jenji Kohan, Jill Soloway etc

Well, I'm glad to hear some positives on that front, at least. I assumed gay representation was getting better throughout all media - but a lot of trans stuff is still stuck in the 90s - even on TV. Recently watched an episode of the rebooted X-Files, and lo and behold, a trans sex worker at a truck stop. Played by a prominent drag queen - which again is all kinds of wrong.

Annasopra

JupiterKid wrote: »

OP - is negative ranting your sole purpose of being on this forum?

Mod

No need for this personalising the discussion.

gmisk

I can see why you wouldn't want to watch Tangerine.... but.... it is well worth a go it was directed by the same director as 'the Florida project' plus shot on an iPhone

JackTaylorFan

gmisk wrote: »

I can see why you wouldn't want to watch Tangerine.... but.... it is well worth a go it was directed by the same director as 'the Florida project' plus shot on an iPhone

No, seriously, don't... it's perpetuating the stereotype that we are all involved in sex work. It's dangerous. It's a message that gets across to the mainstream, to the viewers, and an attitude that gets instilled in society - that transpeople are all about sex. I respect your contribution to this thread, but don't ever suggest I watch that. Thanks.

gmisk

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No, seriously, don't... it's perpetuating the stereotype that we are all involved in sex work. It's dangerous. It's a message that gets across to the mainstream, to the viewers, and an attitude that gets instilled in society - that transpeople are all about sex. I respect your contribution to this thread, but don't ever suggest I watch that. Thanks.

No worries totally understand

JackTaylorFan

The 33-year-old actress said in a statement to Bustle: “Tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto, and Felicity Huffman’s reps for comment.”

The level of disrespect for the people she is planning to misrepresent is trash

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/07/04/scarlett-johansson-sparks-outrage-by-playing-transgender-man-in-new-film/

JackTaylorFan

It's a small victory, but hopefully with it being such a high profile actress having a change of heart this sets a precedent for change. I doubt it, but who knows..

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jul/13/scarlett-johansson-exits-trans-role-rub-and-tug

martingriff

I am wondering does it all ways have to be a trans person playing a trans person. Is it not more important to be good real showing of a trans person. Yes if it can be a trans person sure bit does it have to be?

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

I am wondering does it all ways have to be a trans person playing a trans person. Is it not more important to be good real showing of a trans person. Yes if it can be a trans person sure bit does it have to be?

I think it is absolutely, especially given the prejudice against trans people, anything that throws in being trans with basically putting a man in a dress, or cutting a woman’s hair short and giving her a fake mustache is highly suspect.

Then there’s the inevitable “oh wasn’t so and so brave for taking on a trans role” in the coming up to awards season ****e.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think it is absolutely, especially given the prejudice against trans people, anything that throws in being trans with basically putting a man in a dress, or cutting a woman’s hair short and giving her a fake mustache is highly suspect.

Then there’s the inevitable “oh wasn’t so and so brave for taking on a trans role” in the coming up to awards season ****e.

In relation to your last paragraph do you think they be pulling that stuff if it was a trans person. Look at it this way would you rather a movie with a well known actor/actress to play a trans person well and get raving positive reviews for the potrail. As I said yes a trans person would be great but if they are not great at the acting it could hurt the film

o1s1n

martingriff wrote: »

In relation to your last paragraph do you think they be pulling that stuff if it was a trans person. Look at it this way would you rather a movie with a well known actor/actress to play a trans person well and get raving positive reviews for the potrail. As I said yes a trans person would be great but if they are not great at the acting it could hurt the film

Exactly. People should be hired for their ability to do the job, and in this case, act. Not because of 'what they are'.

Where does it end? Should Daniel Day Lewis not have played Christy Brown? Dustin Hoffman's rain man? Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman?

If you've an issue with the script, fair enough. That should be addressed at that level. Let actors do their job and act.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

Exactly. People should be hired for their ability to do the job, and in this case, act. Not because of 'what they are'.

Where does it end? Should Daniel Day Lewis not have played Christy Brown? Dustin Hoffman's rain man? Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman?

If you've an issue with the script, fair enough. That should be addressed at that level. Let actors do their job and act.

Except ability to do a job is probably never the main reason someone gets hired to do a movie.

Take any role you want and there’ll be numerous people within a minority who can do a great job in that role. You think ScarJo is the only actor who could bring this particular role to life?

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

In relation to your last paragraph do you think they be pulling that stuff if it was a trans person. Look at it this way would you rather a movie with a well known actor/actress to play a trans person well and get raving positive reviews for the potrail. As I said yes a trans person would be great but if they are not great at the acting it could hurt the film

So get a great trans actor

martingriff

o1s1n wrote: »

Exactly. People should be hired for their ability to do the job, and in this case, act. Not because of 'what they are'.

Where does it end? Should Daniel Day Lewis not have played Christy Brown? Dustin Hoffman's rain man? Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman?

If you've an issue with the script, fair enough. That should be addressed at that level. Let actors do their job and act.

I remember a number of years a new reboot of Ironside was coming out where the main character is in a wheelchair. There was loads of protests from disability groups. Now I am in a wheelchair and did not give a crap just that it would be good as I liked the original (played by the actor who played Perry Mason(also not in a wheelchair). Never saw it but lasted only 3 episodes.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

So get a great trans actor

I would agree. can you please name me 1.

martingriff

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except ability to do a job is probably never the main reason someone gets hired to do a movie.

Take any role you want and there’ll be numerous people within a minority who can do a great job in that role. You think ScarJo is the only actor who could bring this particular role to life?

It's not you think they do not go for the best. Yes if it is down to a few they may go for the person they know best or have worked with but in the main I say they would go with someone who will make the movie a success

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

I would agree. can you please name me 1.

There was a trans man actor on law and order svu a few months back. He seemed quite good. I’m sure there are loads who haven’t had the opportunity to attain the fame ScarJo has.

LLMMLL

martingriff wrote: »

It's not you think they do not go for the best. Yes if it is down to a few they may go for the person they know best or have worked with but in the main I say they would go with someone who will make the movie a success

For me it’s the same as political quotas. It’s often argued that the best should get the job. What even is a “best” politician. The concept makes no sense.

The idea of a “best” actor is the same for me. Once you get to a decent level, one actor isn’t necessarily better than another. There’s probably thousands and thousands of actors who could play any major role excellently and bring different things to the role. The idea that one could be “best” is silly to me.

JackTaylorFan

o1s1n wrote: »

Exactly. People should be hired for their ability to do the job, and in this case, act. Not because of 'what they are'.

Where does it end? Should Daniel Day Lewis not have played Christy Brown? Dustin Hoffman's rain man? Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman?

If you've an issue with the script, fair enough. That should be addressed at that level. Let actors do their job and act.

When it's a level playing field and trans actors are giving the same opportunity to audition in good faith for cis roles, then we can have that discussion. Until then, nah, your false equivalencies are null and void.