Why does society want actors to be similar to roles they are playing?

Tools    





Honestly in the case of Ghost in the Shell I think it was more ignorance of the source material that caused the outcry and people weren't prepared to back down from that position.

As I said I think theres a difference between general advancement of greater representation across cinema as a whole and the increased focus on tokenism in recent years.



Welcome to the human race...
There was also the matter of the other film changing a real-life trans man to be a female cross-dresser in the film.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
There was also the matter of the other film changing a real-life trans man to be a female cross-dresser in the film.
Are we talking about the Scarlett Johannson one?



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
What if for the movie, instead of getting Scarlett Johannson, they got known male actor and dressed him up as a woman? Would that be better with the public?



It's probably inaccurate to say that society wants actors to be similar to roles they are playing? As we can see by the responses on this thread, views vary widely and there's no clear consensus. It's more accurate to say it's a point of contention among the public.



Still have a standing offer to anyone who'd like to answer this:

I think it's more than the definition not being "locked." I think there's literally nothing left to form a definition from. The only things that could even possibly make up a coherent definition have been ruled out.

Even hypothetically, what would it be? Take a crack at it. Open offer from the other people I've talked to (well, let's be honest: tried to talk to) about it to attempt this, as well.
Or reconcile this:

For example: the idea that girls were supposed to wear dresses or act feminine used to be called "gender roles," and was criticized for reinforcing stereotypes. Now, the entire modern concept of gender not only reverses this, but places more importance on specifically reinforcing gender roles than any crusty old Mad Men era cliché ever thought to. I've yet to hear a definition of gender that is based in anything other than whether a behavior is historically considered masculine or feminine.

So, the purpose of pointing out how sudden this change is is to emphasize how completely at odds it is with the last round of things that were considered essential to social progress, and it's fair to wonder whether this stance, too, will be similarly jettisoned because it, too, was never tethered to any thought-out, coherent view of the world.
These seem like really basic, ground-zero questions that someone would need to have some kind of answer to if they were going to even have an opinion on this stuff, let alone a strong enough opinion to go around arguing with (or even "correcting") people. And I've literally never been able to get a clear explanation/response on either.



I strongly anticipate having to link back to this post when people weigh in and start arguing with people in other threads/contexts about this. I think a lot of people are jumping right into the "I have a strong opinion" stage of belief-forming while somehow completely skipping the part where they interrogate that belief even a little, or even ask themselves what the words they're using are supposed to mean, which is pretty bizarre.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well as far as the issue of transgender actors not getting enough roles, I feel that their shouldn't be this mentality that cysgender actors should not be allowed to play transgender roles. Because then because of that, transgender actors are only going to be limited to transgender roles, and will not be able to play cysgender, society feels it should be that way. Am I wrong, in thinking that perhaps?

I mean some people who object to Scarlett Johannson playing such a role, seem to be equating this issue with say "blackface" as the example was mentioned.

But if transgender people are not going to be allowed to put on "cysgender face" for a role, they are not going to be getting any cysgender roles then.



I mean, they just straight up say that underprivileged groups need different rules/standards to counteract social imbalances, so I'm pretty sure that's all you're going to get in terms of answers. Right or wrong, it's obviously not supposed to be consistent or work both ways; putting a thumb on the scale is the whole point.

I think the more relevant point, however, is that if you say only trans actors can play trans characters, you're not going to empower trans actors. You're just going to make sure fewer things with trans characters get made.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I think the more relevant point, however, is that if you say only trans actors can play trans characters, you're not going to empower trans actors. You're just going to make sure fewer things with trans characters get made.
Yeah, that's what I meant, if that's true



Mostly because those same people have a hard time getting roles as it is. So when a role they could very easily play comes around and you just pass it off as well, it’s a bit of an issue. Personally, I like how diverse Hollywood is becoming. 15-20 years ago, we would never have gotten a movie like Black Panther with so many Black actors. Even Blade, had a majority White cast. Other races could benefit from seeing others, who look like them, on the big screen. It inspires
__________________
Admiration is the furthest thing from understanding



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Are you sure we couldn't have had a movie like Black Panther 20 years ago? Cause there were movies back then with a lot of black people in the cast, like the Friday movies, or Menace II society, or Boys in the Hood, or New Jack City, etc. I thought that movies with large black casts have been around since the 90s, with a more of them being in the 70s, as well.

So I thought they would have been able to make it 20 years ago, if they wanted to.



Are you sure we couldn't have had a movie like Black Panther 20 years ago? Cause there were movies back then with a lot of black people in the cast, like the Friday movies, or Menace II society, or Boys in the Hood, or New Jack City, etc. I thought that movies with large black casts have been around since the 90s, with a more of them being in the 70s, as well.

So I thought they would have been able to make it 20 years ago, if they wanted to.
Those movies, though they had majority Black casts, had nowhere the amount of marketing nor budget Black Panther had. You would have a hard time proving to me a studio in the 90s would toss200 million at a movie with a majority Black cast



Mostly because those same people have a hard time getting roles as it is...
How do you know that? Do have a link to a reliable poll or other source of hard information? If not you're just speculating.

I can speculate too: with the current Hollywood trend of more diversity and the recent Scarlett Johansson incident, I speculate that a talented trans gender actor would have a better chance at landing a role over the many 1000s of unknown actors. Just because a film featuring a trans gender actor would get publicity, which would then make more money, and many directors are aiming for more diversity in their films too.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Those movies, though they had majority Black casts, had nowhere the amount of marketing nor budget Black Panther had. You would have a hard time proving to me a studio in the 90s would toss200 million at a movie with a majority Black cast
But Black Panther was a comic book that already had a fan following compared to a movie like Friday, which did not have a prior following. So the prior following already guarantees more of a sucess than Friday, even with 200 million dollars, it's still more guaranteed to make it's money back compared to a complete original lower budget movie. The lower budget one, with less of a following, and less marketing is the bigger risk.

Another movie in the 90s with an all black cast, accept for one white character, was Set It Off, and that movie was a box office hit, because of the black cast, and that is why people went to see the movie. So an all black cast makes a movie a hit, not a risk.



I agree Black Panther, in its general state, could not have existed 20 years ago. Not sure that's a relevant fact in this particular debate, though, particularly since the discussion is less "hey wouldn't it be nice if..." and more "is it okay to reflexively picket any examples of people not doing the thing I think would be nice."

This kinda switcheroo (intentional or not) seems to come up in all these debates.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
How do you know that? Do have a link to a reliable poll or other source of hard information? If not you're just speculating.

I can speculate too: with the current Hollywood trend of more diversity and the recent Scarlett Johansson incident, I speculate that a talented trans gender actor would have a better chance at landing a role over the many 1000s of unknown actors. Just because a film featuring a trans gender actor would get publicity, which would then make more money, and many directors are aiming for more diversity in their films.
Well since there doesn't seem to be any celebrity or known transgender actors in Hollywood, if a trans actor got the part, she would have to come out say she was transgender to promote the movie, and you use their transexuality as a market promotion tool therefore, right? Wouldn't be a lot of pressure for a newcomer actor to have to do that?



Well since there doesn't seem to be any celebrity or known transgender actors in Hollywood, if a trans actor got the part, she would have to come out say she was transgender to promote the movie, and you use their transexuality as a market promotion therefore, right? Wouldn't be a lot of pressure for a newcomer actor to have to do that?
Gee I don't know? I really don't.

I should have said unknown trans gender actor going up for a role in a movie against unknown cis gender actors. Obviously leading roles in big budget movies usually go to well established stars.