Scarlett Johansson and her withdrawl of Trans role

We'd hardly discuss anything on internet forums if this was the guidance.

He didn't get my vote. However, if you are inferring that some Trump votes emerged due to a knee-jerk reaction against far-left authoritarianism, I am inclined to agree with you.

__________________

Depends on the subject, obviously.

All I'm saying is that if you ask me who's better at demonstrating authoritarian outrage between the marginalised group seeking improved representation in the public and the people who insist that this group's rejection of unsatisfactory representation is purely performative outrage for its own sake that may ultimately lead to actual fascism, then I'm going to have go with the latter.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I was just injecting a little irony as is my wont.
Sorry, would say it won't happen again but that's rather unlikely

If only transgender actors can play transgender roles, then do they agree that only cisgender actors can play cisgender roles? Wouldn’t this seriously limit their scope as an actor?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

As far as I can tell, there are different rules for one group or another depending on whether or not they're a minority group, or otherwise deemed a protected class by some non-specific, mostly self-chosen group of activists and advocates.

I wonder how other actors feel about this controversy?

A fair number of Hollywood type actors are liberal & activist, and normally would support transgender issues....But actors cherish the ability to play all types of roles, so I bet this causes a conflict in many actors.

I don't follow social media, and I don't follow news stories....so does anyone know of big name actors coming out in support of the idea that only transgender actors can play a transgender character?

How are we supposed to distinguish between a whitewashed cast / academy "patting themselves on the back" and genuinely good acting performances?

This whole thing is a mess.

I disagree that it would erase the transgender element even if that is the case and that experiences can be similar for a cross dresser or transgender.. this character most likely was a cross dresser before they was trans, maybe film makers choose to keep in this time frame for artistic license to get across a specific view point personal to them.. in any case I'll wait until the finished project before I say it comes from a place of "fundamental ignorance"

I find that a puzzling comment. Are you saying every movie telling a story needs to include an actor with a connection to the story / community / episode it is portraying?

Who was not treating trans people well in this scenario? The production company? Scarlett Johansson? I really don't get it.All they did was announce a film wasn't it? Apologies if I've missed a huge part of he story here.

I was careful not to make that comparison. I made the crude Jodie Foster example insetad.

So punish one contemporary film, it's producers and cast for Hollywood's previoius behaviour? Seems fair.

I don't believe there's active discrimination against hiring transgender people in the movie industry. If anything it's probably encouraged as movie makers are trying to have a diversified cast these days. Movie people are by and large very liberal and open minded, more so than the average person. Gay rights and gay marriage was supported by many well known actors and actresses. So I don't see them actively seeking to shut out transgender actors, just because they're transgender.

If it was a case of active discrimination, then I would be saying it was wrong, but I don't think it's discrimination. I think it's a case of sour grapes by an unknown transgender actor who would like to be handed the staring role in a major motion picture.

What is this "our stories" business? Wasn't Rub and Tug going to be about Dante "Tex" Gill? Sounds like it was his story to me. Shouldn't Tex Gill play the part? Otherwise, someone else is just benefiting from "his story", right? Sound dumb? That's because it is. Actors play these little things called roles, in which they *gasp* pretend to be someone else. Weird! Requiring actors to share the exact qualities of the roles they play borders on the absurd.

You ever hear the old saying: "You can't understand someone until you walk a mile in their shoes?"

It's kind of hard to walk any distance in someone's shoes if they gun you down as soon as you try them on. Then again, if I walk a mile in someone shoes, I don't care what they think about me - they are a mile away and I have their shoes.

Absolutely not. But it would be terrible if young filmmakers are put off making films because they can't find a 15 year old bisexual man for the part they need so give up making the film for fear of offending someone. Or is it only Trans characters this applies to? I'm still none the wiser.

@Camo

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Agree with a lot of what Camo said, particularly about how Hollywood largely adopts causes after it's safe. But I disagree with these parts:

I think there's an important difference here, which is that people's livelihoods and artistic visions are involved. The director who can't cast who they want--either because they genuinely want that person or because it'll help their art reach more people--is a significant causality in these culture disputes. And I don't think this...

...is a fair or reasonable response. "Tough luck, but you've got it easy compared to this group, so your film isn't your own any more." Particularly when the mere act of trying to make this film at all is probably already doing more for trans people than 99% of us. Which ties into this:

No group owns fictional stories about it. And it seems obvious to me that it's helpful to the trans community to have sympathetic films (of which I'm assuming this would be one) made about them, even if none of them personally help make it. This isn't Motown, where people are co-opting someone's unique talent and getting rich off of it.

Of course. But trans people saying "I don't like this" is obviously not the bulk of the response or the pressure. It's some of that, dramatically amplified by non-trans people complaining on their behalf and egged on by the usual cadre of paint-by-numbers editorials. And obviously it's reached a point where certain things are functionally disqualifying even if there are no written "rules."

If people want to say this doesn't count because there's no real rules, they can't turn around and make the opposite point when pointing out how few trans actors are cast, because I'm pretty sure there are no real rules about that, either. So either you recognize de facto rules via cultural norms, or not.

Why would he have looked for another actor if he thought he had the perfect actor for the role?

Thought this chain of convo was about Rub and Tug, as the thread title would suggest. Didn't realize it had diverged to include Dallas Buyers Club. My bad there.

Who mocked the shoes? Did Scarlett? I am not following here...