I am hoping I have found a forum for logical people who understand the business. Inst anyone here discouraged by the fact that the character Scarlett was cast to play was born a woman and then transitioned to a man, and that was deemed unacceptable? Both Scarlett and the real live person were born with vaginas. She is completely qualified to play this character.
shareI'm saddened because I briefly looked into the character who was the subject of this film, and she seems to have been a butch lesbian and not actually trans. She called herself "Tex" and wore men's clothing, but never had any sort of medical/hormonal treatment or claimed she was a man, so if the story of her life in crime was ever made into a film it would be authentic to cast a woman to play her.
I'm also saddened because she was solid and plain, and the filmmakers cast a pretty feminine little thing like Scarlett Johanssen to play her, rather than anyone who bore the slightest resemblance to the real person! Rosie O'Donnell would have more the style.
/I'm also saddened because she was solid and plain, and the filmmakers cast a pretty feminine little thing like Scarlett Johanssen to play her, rather than anyone who bore the slightest resemblance to the real person! Rosie O'Donnell would have more the style./
this, Scarlett was not the right choice for the role anyway.
The whole project sounds like a mess that's in the hands of the wrong people, sometimes you can tell this far in advance.
They made Charlize Theron's character very unattractive and believable in Monster.
shareyeah i was talking more about height difference, and no disrespect to Scarlet but Charlize is just a better actress and that's the main reason she 'killed it' in Monster (see what i did there? lol)
shareCharlize Theron is, or was, an incredibly inconsistent actress. She can be monumentally good, as in "Monster", just okay, or as bad as she was in most of her pre-Monster films.
Johanssen is consistently bad.
Only trans people can determine whether it is or not acceptable, because they are the ones that risk judgment based on the wrong representation that media sells into the subconscious of the people. They are the ones concerned and to listen to if the film tries to be true to reality. When filmmakers decide to make a film based on reality, they usually consult real experts to know whether it is authentic or not. Scarlett merely listened to the right people, decision was hers as a producer, it is not the majority, but the minority she represents, there's always fewer experts than lay men when it comes to some subjects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_oqeXz7vbc&t=294s
But I agree that if the character it is based on is not trans, the whole issue is just misguided, issue about nothing. But I understand trans people's point of view if they thought it was trans. Well whatever.
This is a business and a movie made for profit. It has to appeal to more than trans to be a success. Instead of casting talent, they risk settling on PC. I'm all for whoever can play the part best, regardless of gender or color. We will kill our movies if we cast for social reasons before resume.
shareThen it's better the movie is not made at all, because it can be an extremely serious matter resulting in nothing but death and depression, which is contantly happening based on research, our culture influences our mindset. Sell the right idea or not at all. Scarlett was aware of its seriousness, nothing to do with PC, but information that can be dangerous. Maybe it can be fine in 10 years from now, but not now. That's why there's MPAA, that's why some films are not financed, that's why films like Boys Dont cry can't be made anymore with a female acctress, etc. People evolve, everything has its own timing, and I think the sociologists could understand this a bit more. If it was an independent small film, it would not matter, but if it's aimed for the wider audience, it's better to wait or not make such a film at all. As an allegory in a way, we dont talk to suicidal people carelessly, we make sure to make things better for them, that's all what it is about. It's the same why Stallone didn't make a Rambo film about ISIS, because it was perhaps dangereous for him, some things have timing. This so called pitchfork mob are people this film is representing, it's about them, they didnt force anyone, they were merely listened to the same like any consultants. This has everything to do with art, and the artist became more awakened and aware how to do the art. This has been happening since the begining of cinema. Some people don't seem to get the bigger picture.
shareI have a huge issue with the "if it isn't PC, then don't make art at all" mentality. Make a good movie first, if it is respectful to the character, it probably wasn't a good movie.
shareThanks God this has nothing to do with political correctness, but authenticity... which matters, just like Scarlett said.
shareOh give me a break. That's Scarlett being PC herself. She still has a career to think about, what's she supposed to say?
shareIn my view she said what was quite obvious, she didn't know how inauthentic it would be if she continued... nothing to do with being PC nonsense, but research into the subject. Authenticity is closely related to timing, what was authentic 100 years ago would not be today for example, and that is also related to what people sometimes mistakenly refer to as being PC, a good actress can play a transsexual but it would be less authentic than having in the current climate the real trans actors playing those roles, this is the same like male playing female or white playing black these days, which is okay, but not if Females and Black people were discrimated against in Hollywood and not given the equal chance, it's also not like a heterosexual playing gay, race and gender is more on the eyes. No matter how good of an actor you are, it still can become perceived as inauthentic by casting itself, when you make a special effects out of an explosion, people tend to prefer practical effects these days, not CGI, because it is more real, there's no acting in a real explosion, it is happening, acting is only in the way it's used how to tell the story, not the effect itself. It's the same reason why some filmmakers use real people, and not actors (recent Eastwood's film for instance), so the film would "feel" more authentic. They're not there to be so-called great actors in order to please their ego, but they're there to convey authenticity, the casting itself already made the acting and film more authentic. Acting is in the way the story is told, and how such people are used. That's the acting=pretending. Audience sees the difference very often.
On a side note, transsexual people or gay/lesbian people tend to "look" and "act" different than others, I know most people won't see the difference, but some do, biological body is different, so no matter how good of a method actor we are, there are always limitations. It's the same reason why filmmakers are coming up with better CGI or 3D, just to make the experience more authentic. I think most people would always go for an auhenticity than just to see a fitting great actor playing the part that becomes fake in their eyes. It's also the same reason why some Vietnam films couldn't be made in the 70's, it is related to money, and to timing based on readiness of the public. I am always for no censorship, and no boundaries in our artistic expression, and no MPAA rating to keep children away, but I also believe in human compassion behind our art, and individuality, and that's always been a key factor throughout the world, not just in Hollywood.
So yes to me it is always more "authentic" to hire an actual transsexual "at this time" like in the case of a French film Fantastic Woman. To draw in the bigger audience the filmmakers don't always rely on the main lead to be a famous star, but the co-lead, there's been many examples of this happening in huge films. To me what Scarlett said is what she truly felt in the heart and knew was true, there was no other way around it once the issue becomes understood.
There is no logic to support that. She obviously took the role with an understanding of what it was about. Clearly she had no issue with it until the social outcry forced her to go a different route. And by your logic, should gay people not play straight people?
shareThat is exactly what I said in a previous comment is not what's about, what I wrote explains everything, and why decisions like this have been made for decades.
shareSpeaking in general term, it's possible to fake authenticity in a movie!
Good historical films can't star people who actually lived in that era, for instance, but they should star actors who are capable of learning about the daily life, thought patterns, politics, and mannerisms of an era they've never lived in. That's what acting should be about, learning so much about people other than yourself that you can almost literally become another person. So for the most part, IMHO the best thing to do is to just hire a really good actor, and help them understand whatever sort of person they're playing. A good actor can play a murderer even if they've never murdered anyone. A good actor can play a monarch, even if they've never inherited a kingdom. And if you accept that, there's no reason to state that a good actor who knows how to research a role* can't play a transsexual.
* Which rules out Scarlett Johanssen, obviously.
My problem with this project is that they managed to make the wrong decision on all fronts at once - authenticity, PC-ness, and, talent! Because Johanssen just isn't a good actress.
And BTW, the real person the film was about never transitioned to a man.
I know, the issue is misdirected anyway, which boggles the mind.
shareIt's not just saddening, it's alarming. Allowing a pitchfork mob to determine what an artist does is disastrous for art and, thus, by extension, the culture at large.
shareWelcome to liberal America.
shareI don't know that I'd call this liberalism, though. It's an infection in the left wing, definitely, but the very word 'liberal' contradicts what this particular cult stands for.
shareThat's fair. It's extremist enough to be something new,but it is a cancer in our society.
shareYes, it's very destructive. That's its purpose. Hopefully the majority wakes up. One thing that needs to happen is that parents stop sending their kids to liberal arts schools where this death cult thrives.
shareAmericans are VERY fical. Shit swings in wide arcs. I don't think this will continue much longer. When everyone is the enemy, we will have no enemies.
share