Scarlett Johansson and her withdrawl of Trans role

Yeah, this is where I think things break down a little. It seems like the mocking in this point comes from the non-specific "Hollywood." Which seems like an obvious disconnect if none of the specific people involved (and adversely affected) by all this were actually part of that.

YES!


Dig up the body and shoot the film Weekend at Bernie's style

I think that's a bit unfair.

The issues are different. There is one of artistic integrity and one of gender progression. Some, like me, want both.

Pointing out something that I see as inconsistent or puzzling doesn't automatically make me a critic of one of these.

Sorry, I was talking about the Rub and Tug film. Why would he want a trans person playing the role, like you said, if he thought he had a perfect actor in Johansson?

What other "issues" am I fine with ? There seems to be alot of assumption in this discussion.

I'm not fine with any group / community / ethnicity / minority being underprivelaged or oppressed.

Nor am I fine with any art form being muted.

Hmmm. Ok. Well, what it's also done is pull Johansson's production company from the film, as they were financing it. I hope the story gets told and is a good one. I just think this was an over reaction.

Not sure I can say anymore without repeating myself.

It's a real shame, that that is the conclusion you have come to.

That's the last post in this thread from me, and possibly for a while.

Camo, I agree with a lot of what you have said but not this 'past five years' bit. What about films like Boys Don't Cry,Transamerica, Breakfast on Pluto, All About My Mother, Hedwig...? (Despite not having trans actors in the roles). I don't think there's been this sudden flip from trans characters being the butt of a joke to being a hot topic in the past five years. I think there's been a more gradual shift in portrayal. Whether the shift in portrayal comes from general social attitudes or whether movies have actually helped in changing these attitudes is a bit of a chicken and egg question.

The other issue (and I remember this argument from when people complained about Eddie Redmayne being cast in The Danish Girl) is that movies about trans people sometimes focus on the transition which might not be something a trans person wants to relive for the purposes of a movie; it may be that there aren't trans actors queuing up to play parts which require them playing the gender they don't identify with for a lot of the movie.

It doesn't surprise me that they are criticised. Nobody claimed that any of them showed some kind of perfect representation, I don't doubt there is plenty in all of them that is problematic. But even that review you quoted says "evolving slowly as trends shift", which is the point I was trying to make. There's a difference between something that is trying to get it right (even if it doesn't quite succeed) and something like Ace Ventura. And it's something that has evolved over twenty years or more, not the last five.

And I'd say all of Almodovar's portrayals of all people teeter on the cruel joke ledge.

Homicidal (1961)
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Kiss of a Spiderwoman (1985)
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
Boys Don't Cry (1999)
Flawless (1999)
Normal (2003)
Transamerica (2005)
Peacock (2010)
Pariah (2011)

Quite frankly I feel like they make way too many LGBTQ films. The subject matter has been done to death.

Thank god I read you right when I liked that post of yours

Here's a (possibly tangential but serious) question... why does only Hollywood 'count'? I don't just mean for the purposes of this thread, but in general. Why are people (any people, not just transgender people) so desperate for Hollywood's approval? If people don't feel like Hollywood represents them, why is the answer always to complain about and lobby Hollywood rather than look for or even make independent films? If people put more of the energy they put into complaining about Hollywood into supporting independent or 'foreign' films, if they voted with their wallets and watched those instead of paying to see Hollywood blockbusters just to complain about them, perhaps Hollywood wouldn't have all the power anymore. I'm slightly surprised that social media etc. hasn't done more to further the interests of non-Hollywood films. Especially in light of all the recent scandals of women being treated horribly by Hollywood moguls, the narrative still seems to be Hollywood must be sorry and we can still love it rather than Hollywood can sod off and we'll all go and watch a Claire Denis film.

I mean, I know the answer to this really. It comes down to money = power (and distribution). And mainstream appeal. But I do sometimes wonder why when I see people saying there have been hardly any XYZ films and then go 'oh I only meant Hollywood' (this is not aimed at you Camo, I understand the context in what you are saying). Just go and watch films that aren't Hollywood then! It's almost like people are limiting themselves on purpose. Even if Hollywood did have more films about [insert marginalised group here] they'd still be pretty 'Hollywood'. And maybe a film not made within the sort of system which propped up Weinstein for so many years might just be better at representing anyway.

And as regards Scarlett and this particular film... well they can go ahead and cast an unknown transman in the role now. They've successfully stirred up enough clickbait headlines and twitter outrage. Their marketing job is done. I wonder if 'uncasting' is going to become a trend.

You are perpetuating a double-standard and racism. Either accept that everyone is equal and that all roles are interchangeable or that none are. However, "the you can go one way but not the other in terms of replacement bit" is racist and it only perpetuates the very focus on a non-factor, the color of one's skin, that most liberals claim they want to end.


I did not vote for Trump in 2016, but I am damn well voting for him in 2020. The insanity of today's left is toxic, racist, sexist and any other identity politic-ist of which you can think. It is also fascist and divisive.


We are all human beings and our color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. don't matter one whit. Stop trying to play the collective guilt, collective blame and collective shame game. I refuse it all because it is merely a construct of people who are equal (and who have been for decades and decades), but who are trying to still be victims.

This basically sums up the entire left vs common sense debate.

__________________

You didn't ask for "positive" portrayal's a highly arguable point but rather that they were treated like jokes. So I went with the assumption that you didn't want a film with drag queens.


moving on



Pariah is about a transgendered person, she's a female who dresses like a male to get with women. The film is about her coming to terms with her sexual identity...now you might not consider aggressives transgendered but it's really splitting hairs.


But really what you are arguing for is not good film but propaganda. Putting checks into who can play the characters, forcing the stories to go in certain directions...all that stuff is beside the point.

Ok, this thread is basically in the toilet at this point, as one of the main contributors to the conversation has run through the thread deleting all their posts. I will leave it open for now, as there are still some ancillary conversations that are intact, with the caveat that after some mod discussion, this might get locked.

__________________

Perhaps, but I don't like the odds of that. Ghost in the Shell had to cook up a whole story to justify why Scarlett was playing a character who was originally Japanese and even then it still came across as a flimsy excuse for casting her more than anything else.

This just reminds me of Malcolm X's quote comparing systemic racism to being stabbed in the back:

If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.

In other words, no, it is not good enough to act like everything's okay now and anyone who still cares about race at all is being just as racist as the original racists (if not more so). I already outlined why established systems of power complicate the notion that everyone is equal by not letting them be equal, but your response is to go "actually you are the racist" simply for pointing out that one race has historically benefited more than any other. The key to equality isn't simply a matter of ignoring race so much as it is about accepting it - they may seem the same, but they are not.

"Straight white male" is itself a set of identity politics and, historically speaking, championing it above all others is literally the worst kind of identity politics - the left (and maybe even part of the right) is not insane for daring to oppose that out of a sense of the greater good. If you do decide to support Trump, a man who built his presidency on said identity politics, then you effectively forfeit the right to complain when people associate you with his own considerable toxicity.

Unfortunately, "I don't see colour" and sentiments like that just come across as naive and condescending nowadays since it means actively ignoring major parts of a person's identity (which is a big part of what it even means to be human). Your refusal is itself a reflection of the privilege you gain by being the societal "default" that is a straight white man - not everyone is lucky enough to be able to consciously opt out of dealing with constructs that make them personally uncomfortable.

Because nothing says common sense like complaining about other people making themselves into victims while also complaining that straight white men get treated so unfairly.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

This is clearly a motte-and-bailey. The objection is not to someone simply noting that "one race has historically benefited more," and I think you must know that. The objection is to:

a) noting this in the service of advocating some kind of specific change in policy, either through law or with cultural pressure.

b) assuming this is the primary (or even only) consideration in any given situation.

I see my post was prophetic

Yes I blame extremist like this movie issue for partially giving rise to Trump...BUT in the same vein the extreme actions of Trump and his more fervent followers causes a backlash in the left. Which gives us the old chicken and egg, who causes these backlashes first? lefties? righties? No to both...

I suspect the vast majority of outrage didn't come from the transgender community, it came from bored kids in their mom's basement typing out social justice messages on Twitter & Facebook, stirring up the pot and trying to feel important.

I'm not a fan of social media, it's like a world wide extension of the old high school BS conformity. Back in the day when kids grew up and left school, they left the idea of conforming to peer pressure behind them. But thanks to Twitter and Facebook, this peer pressure (aka PC think) goes way beyond high school and has more effect than it should.

All I know is that you don't combat this stuff by becoming more like it. So if your problem is that Trump overstates things and thinks you can justify any kind of rhetoric so long as it leads to you winning, because winning is all there is and how you win doesn't matter, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to beat it back with that same posture. Becoming like something to stop it is a Pyrrhic victory.