More Misrepresentation

sexmag

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And? I dont know how that answers the point I made.

I think the point they are making is that if 4 times the population average of people who are gay, are represented in film it couldnt amount to discrimination

Annasopra

sexmag wrote: »

I think the point they are making is that if 4 times the population average of people who are gay, are represented in film it couldnt amount to discrimination

I am talking about discrimination against lgbt actors. The links I posted prove that happens. I dont see the relevance of the point An Toirpin is making. I havent seen any evidence that discrimination against lgbt actors doesnt happen. Juat a lot of random unconnected assumptions and statistics.

ixoy

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats a completely debatable point. I'm not sure why you make it as a statement as if it is "truth"

Here we see Ian McKellen acknowledging Hollywoods biases

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/pride/8457623/sir-ian-mckellen-talks-lgbtq-discrimination-hollywood-interview

Here we can see research that shows there is discrimnation against lgbt actors

https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sag-aftra_williams_lgbt_study_4.22_update.pdf

You're just making statements that make no sense

A study of 2014 films found LGBT depeicted in 16 percent of Hollywood films but less than 4% of the USA is gay.

No it didn't. Read it properly : 16% of films featured a gay character. This character can include minor characters. Films have multiple characters. So it's not at all a case where 16% of film characters are gay as is often implied.

hots

ixoy wrote: »

No it didn't. Read it properly : 16% of films featured a gay character. This character can include minor characters. Films have multiple characters. So it's not at all a case where 16% of film characters are gay as is often implied.

I don't think he suggested 16% of characters are gay tbf...

BattleCorp

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

sexmag wrote: »

I think the point they are making is that if 4 times the population average of people who are gay, are represented in film it couldnt amount to discrimination

I am talking about discrimination against lgbt actors. The links I posted prove that happens. I dont see the relevance of the point An Toirpin is making. I havent seen any evidence that discrimination against lgbt actors doesnt happen. Juat a lot of random unconnected assumptions and statistics.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

sexmag wrote: »

I think the point they are making is that if 4 times the population average of people who are gay, are represented in film it couldnt amount to discrimination

I am talking about discrimination against lgbt actors. The links I posted prove that happens..

If a LGBT actor doesn't get a role, does that mean that they have been discriminated against?

Or does it just mean that there was someone better/considered to be better than them?

Annasopra

BattleCorp wrote: »

If a LGBT actor doesn't get a role, does that mean that they have been discriminated against?

Or does it just mean that there was someone better/considered to be better than them?

If they dont get the job because of their gender identity or sexual orientation then yes in that case they have been discriminated against.

BattleCorp

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

If a LGBT actor doesn't get a role, does that mean that they have been discriminated against?

Or does it just mean that there was someone better/considered to be better than them?

If they dont get the job because of their gender identity or sexual orientation then yes in that case they have been discriminated against.

Agreed, but how can you know that's why they didn't get the role? It's not like they hand out letters to unsuccessful applicants saying that they didn't get the role because they were LGBT.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If they dont get the job because of their gender identity or sexual orientation then yes in that case they have been discriminated against.

this should surely work both ways then, in the context of the current debate

Annasopra

BattleCorp wrote: »

Agreed, but how can you know that's why they didn't get the role? It's not like they hand out letters to unsuccessful applicants saying that they didn't get the role because they were LGBT.

Did you not read the research that I posted that explained this in more detail.

BowSideChamp

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If they dont get the job because of their gender identity or sexual orientation then yes in that case they have been discriminated against.

What is your opinion on the mob discriminating against Scarlett Johansson getting a role based on her gender identity?

Annasopra

BowSideChamp wrote: »

What is your opinion on the mob discriminating against Scarlett Johansson getting a role based on her gender identity?

I'm a bit undecided on that issue to be honest. I'd like to hear more from trans people about why they feel so strongly about it. To be fair Johansson herself expressed gratefulness that she learned from the controversy and that it sparked a debate. So the idea of "a mob" seems to be manufactured.

sexmag

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be fair Johansson herself expressed gratefulness that she learned from the controversy and that it sparked a debate.

Of course she'll say that though to save face, anything else and she would have been attacked again but how would you feel if people bullied you out of your job?

BattleCorp

BowSideChamp wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If they dont get the job because of their gender identity or sexual orientation then yes in that case they have been discriminated against.

What is your opinion on the mob discriminating against Scarlett Johansson getting a role based on her gender identity?

I don't think It's right that she was hounded out of the job. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is against.

An_Toirpin

ixoy wrote: »

No it didn't. Read it properly : 16% of films featured a gay character. This character can include minor characters. Films have multiple characters. So it's not at all a case where 16% of film characters are gay as is often implied.

So basically I quoted the study correctly :pac:. Don't put words in my mouth again, thanks.

Discrimination is a major claim and requires hard evidence.

LLMMLL

BowSideChamp wrote: »

What is your opinion on the mob discriminating against Scarlett Johansson getting a role based on her gender identity?

What’s your opinion on a white actor playing a black role?

An_Toirpin

LLMMLL wrote: »

What’s your opinion on a white actor playing a black role?

If it is meant to be a creative reinterpretation then it is fine, black actors play white roles all the time. If it supposed to an authentic interpretation then it is lazy casting.

LLMMLL

An_Toirpin wrote: »

If it is meant to be a creative reinterpretation then it is fine, black actors play white roles all the time. If it supposed to an authentic interpretation then it is lazy casting.

When do black actors play white roles?

An_Toirpin

LLMMLL wrote: »

When do black actors play white roles?

Robinhood is one example. Another is Spiderman, Avengers, I am Legend, Thor, The Shawshank Redemption, the Kingpin, Men in Black, Annie, Harry Potter, a Cinderella remake, the 2004 Manchurian Candidate remake and I think Greatest Showman too. In theatre, it is very common. For example in Shakespeare which has no actual black roles but it is a reinterpretation and that is fine. Art is not supposed to be rigid.

LLMMLL

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Robinhood is one example. Another is Spiderman, Avengers, I am Legend, Thor, The Shawshank Redemption, the Kingpin, Men in Black, Annie, Harry Potter, a Cinderella remake, the 2004 Manchurian Candidate remake and I think Greatest Showman too. In theatre, it is very common. For example in Shakespeare which has no actual black roles but it is a reinterpretation and that is fine. Art is not supposed to be rigid.

Spider-Man and Thor? Haven’t seen a film where they are black.

Any examples of a black person playing a character in a movie who was white in that movie?

Annasopra

Mod

The racial stuff is off topic. Can we get back on topic please?

An_Toirpin

LLMMLL wrote: »

Spider-Man and Thor? Haven’t seen a film where they are black.

Any examples of a black person playing a character in a movie who was white in that movie?

Zendaya Coleman as Mary Jane Watson in Spiderman Homecoming. Idris Elba as Heimdall in Thor. Both examples were originally white roles.

LLMMLL

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Zendaya Coleman as Mary Jane Watson in Spiderman Homecoming. Idris Elba as Heimdall in Thor. Both examples were originally white roles.

Hope I’m not breaking the mod instruction here so I’ll link it back to trans roles.

While you do find a black Annie for example you don’t find a black person playing Annie with Annie being white in that movie. Annie is black in the movie.

So reimagining Annie as black is completely different from a cis person playing a trans person.

It might be the same if you reimagined a trans role as a cis role but that would be hard in the case of Scarlett johanssons movie as Being trans is an integral part of that character.

BowSideChamp

LLMMLL wrote: »

Hope I’m not breaking the mod instruction here so I’ll link it back to trans roles.

While you do find a black Annie for example you don’t find a black person playing Annie with Annie being white in that movie. Annie is black in the movie.

So reimagining Annie as black is completely different from a cis person playing a trans person.

It might be the same if you reimagined a trans role as a cis role but that would be hard in the case of Scarlett johanssons movie as Being trans is an integral part of that character.

The comparison is ridiculous. It is impossible to act a different skin colour.

If trans people can only portray trans characters it surely would mean:

- only gay people can portray gay characters
- only straight people can portray straight characters
- trans people cannot portray cis characters

Should actors provide their sex and gender orientation to casting directors before applying for roles?

AndrewJRenko

BowSideChamp wrote: »

The comparison is ridiculous. It is impossible to act a different skin colour.

And yet, there was a long Hollywood/entertainment industry tradition in doing exactly that for decades, up to the 80s.







https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-28018302

An_Toirpin

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And yet, there was a long Hollywood/entertainment industry tradition in doing exactly that for decades, up to the 80s.







https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-28018302

Quite a few ladies have convincingly pretended to be men to act as men in big films and I wouldn't take an issue with that either.

ixoy

An_Toirpin wrote: »

So basically I quoted the study correctly :pac:. Don't put words in my mouth again, thanks.

It's disingenuous. 16% of films portrayed LGBT being at odds with 4% of the population. The thing is the number of characters we're exposed to, and their screen time, is far less than 16% as a result. It's a representation that can genuinely matter because it lets people, who are in the more marginalised groups, relate and identify. It's gotten better but TV's far ahead of Hollywood in this at least.

When it comes to actors, it's a tougher one because that's their job. The reaction by some to Ruby Roses's casting in this instance is disgusting, on both sides. I was disappointed because I think she's a poor actress IMO.

Manion

Do we all like Rocky horror? Pretty iconic influence queer culture. Tim curry, cisgendered, heterosexual, male.



I often find these debates come from a very ugly and judgmental place.

Annasopra

Manion wrote: »

Do we all like Rocky horror? Pretty iconic influence queer culture. Tim curry, cisgendered, heterosexual, male.



I often find these debates come from a very ugly and judgmental place.

Cisgendered isnt really the correct term - its like saying heterosexualised - cis or cisgender are more the correct term to use

breatheme

I agree about giving more roles to transgender actors is something we need in order to get better representation. There is also (at least for me) a lot of nuance here. But for me (a cis gay man), a major problem I have is that it is usually cisgendered men playing transgender women, or cisgendered women playing transgender men. It perpetuates the notion (that a lot of my not queer friends have) that it's impossible to have a good transition, and that even after you transition you're going to look/be perceived as your birth gender. That you can "spot a trannie". I'd have less of an issue with cisgendered women playing transwomen, or with cisgendered men playing transmen*.

*Less of an issue: depending different factors, such as: where the film was made, budget, whether it is reasonable for me to expect them to find a transactor, etc. Again, nuances.

JackTaylorFan

Replying here as it seems more appropriate:

JupiterKid wrote: »

What do you think of the film Transamerica OP? Did you think it was offensive because a cis woman played the role of a trans woman? Personally, I thought Felicity Huffman was superb in the role.

IMO if the actor is good at playing a role, that should matter far more than their gender or the gender/sexuality they play in a given film/TV show. As another poster opined, Hollywood moves at a glacial pace in representing minorities but trans actors and characters will increase over time.

Have you ever seen the 1980 UK TV documentary George and Julia?

Transamerica? I thought it was cliched and full of tropes, to be honest. It was released nearly 14 years ago, so I give the casting decision a little leeway - I guess for the time it was somewhat positive, at least having a woman play the part, and not a man. Hollywood has gone backwards not forwards since. So, overall, it's really depressing.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/09/third-class-citizens-trans-actors-see-stereotyping-and-exclusion-in-hollywood

And this is from an interview with Hilary Swank from the Guardian, and she nails it.

Swank says there are people, “who have said I shouldn’t have done Boys Don’t Cry”. She understands this. It is complicated, and consciousness has grown a lot in the past two decades, thanks in part to the conversation her film started, back in an era when the script didn’t even use the word transgender. “At the time, the whole community was grateful that I did it because they said, had it been someone who was from this experience, people would have said: ‘Oh, you’re just telling your personal story.’” Fewer people might have bothered to see it.

That was the uphill fight in 1999. Today’s battleground is different, having shifted from awareness to access. “What’s hard is that not everyone is given an opportunity, and that’s where I think the struggle is,” says Swank. Producers should take a risk on giving unknown trans actors a shot at stardom. The argument is often that there aren’t any trans actors who are famous enough to get a project made. But “nobody knew who I was when I did Boys Don’t Cry,” says Swank. “I was a newcomer – and the movie did well.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/30/hilary-swank-on-grit-love-trans-rights-and-her-three-year-screen-break?CMP=fb_gu


So yeah, I would be more open to your argument of best actor for the role, if there was equal opportunity for trans actors in the first place, but there is not. Trans actors can't even get auditions for trans (our own) roles, and we certainly will not be considered for cis roles. And if you think that is fair, well you need to reevaluate some things. Truth is, we are not anywhere near that point, and so, no, I can't agree when you say the best actor for the role.

And if you think this is only a problem in Hollywood you are very wrong. It's an attitude that trickles down in society that deters trans people from even participating in acting. I, personally, have been deterred from trying out things like theatre and drama because of the general attitude towards trans people.

And to the last question: no, I have not seen George and Julia. For historical reference purposes I may seek it out at some point. Thanks.