First: Did you just tell a Jew that Moses was fictional? I didn’t take you for the bigoted type until now.
Second: You really have no idea who Nicoleño was.
You almost hit upon, but just miss (either by intent or just by poor word choice), what the real issue is with representation.
There are plenty of roles for for trans folks; producers and directors just choose to not cast them.
It’s not that “people can’t play characters who are of different race/gender/etc/etc”. The problem is that that sentiment historically has primarily been applied to non cis/het/white/(thin) performers. Hollywood or Broadway have had little trouble casting white people in all sorts of roles, but struggle to give any role that is “supposed to be white” to non-white performers.
The problem with Scarlett Johansson in this role is not that she can’t reasonably play a trans character, but that openly trans people are shut out of most/all roles that are not specifically trans characters. So, taking one of the rare opportunities a trans actor might have to land a role and giving it to a ciswoman further communicates that there is no room for trans actors in Hollywood.
That’s the usual line but in this case, istm that the number of trans actors and trans specific roles are so minimal that even with good intentions, it’s never going to be much.
For reference, how many cis people do you personally know,?
There is nothing bigoted about calling Moses fictional. He probably was:
The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical, although a “Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C.”
Quite a few atheist Jews I’m sure would say the same. The historicity of Jesus and Muhammed are better attested in increasing order of certitude, but hardly 100% certain themselves. Homer almost certainly didn’t exist( or at least not as a sole author ).
I personally do believe Moses existed, but I can’t prove it and I don’t see the point in trying. That’s basically my approach toward religion in general.
Really? I could’ve sworn he won. :smack: My bad.
But I think my point still stands. You don’t have to be the very exact specific ethnicity of the character you’re playing.
And just as not all Africans are alike or all Asians, (and I would never say they are), nor are all Europeans. Same with all North/Center/South Americans. (Another good example – Raul Julia, who was Puerto Rican, yet he was cast as Oscar Romero, an El Salvadoran.) I can think of a GREAT many actors and actresses who played parts of different ethnicities, and did so very well. You don’t even have to LOOK like the part you’re playing (look at all the make-up they put on Gary Oldman to play Winston Churchill!)
Was this the right choice for Johansson? I don’t know. What angered me was the outright harassment she got, and then people started claiming, “oh good for her, she finally got ‘woke’.” No, she probably got tired of all the shit she was getting.
…nobody argues this. MostlyClueless did not argue this. Read their post carefully. You are missing the nuance. Nobody has said that trans people should be restricted to what would be defined as a “trans role.” The very least you can do is not present an argument completely made out of straw.
Facts aren’t bigoted.
Didn’t address that asinine argument at all. Nor will I now, except to say
a) I think you meant to say “who *the *Nicoleño were”
b) I didn’t say Mandela had to be played by a Xhosa with Khoisan ancestry. I wasn’t narrowing ethnicity down *that *much. Any Xhosa or Zulu actor would do. I’m OK with “Close enough” - I just, apparently, have very different ideas of what “close enough” means for Black people, compared to non-Africans.
Raúl Juliá is an especially good example, a terrible loss to the profession.
You agree that there is no such thing as a “trans role”?
And this is by far the biggest problem.
The bias against trans people is wide and deep in many places and making a huge fuss about ring-fencing “trans roles” (whatever they might be) to my mind, does not touch upon the problem at all, it merely prolongs the myth that they are “other”. It has a hint of the patronising about it.
So your response to a wonderful black actor a playing black character in a major film production is…“sorry, not black enough” or “not the right sort of black”? I have visions of you holding up a colour chart against the actors during the casting session. Yay! that sounds like progress.
So you seem to have problem with make-up. Compared to some physical changes made those appear to be very minor indeed.
We are getting to the point where a character’s skin and physical features can be altered post-production so that a near-enough resemblance could be achieved without any physical changes at all. That should hopefully allow people to pass your blackness test without having to physically have their skin darkened or nose made bigger.
Will that help matters?
I raised the issues of a radio play before. No requirement for a physical resemblance at all. Would you have any problem then with actors playing a part not of their own ethnicity?
Personally I don’t care. The only thing that should matter is the quality of the performance. Any traits central to the character that can be tweaked by make-up, costume or post-production should not form any part of the casting process. Yes, including skin colour, features, height and weight. As an actor you are playing a completely different being to yourself in the first place, that’s the biggest change. The physical appearance is just window dressing.
Read my own post carefully, and please don’t snip out of context.
The bit you quoted is a statement of my own beliefs not a claim of what **MostlyClueless **said and the initial part of the full post and the preceding back and forth between us makes it clear that I know full well what they think. I got that by asking a straight question and getting a straight answer.
Yes, you do. Most people really don’t care that much.
The story and performance is what matters the most Otherwise we’d never be able to watch a performance of “Anthony and Cleopatra” without thinking “that Pyramid is cardboard” or “that actor is never North-African”
…I read your post VERY carefully. For full context here it is.
Lets take that bit by bit shall we?
Nomi Marks is a “trans role.” To quote the wiki page: “Nomi is a proud transgender woman and lesbian, happily living with her wife Amanita.”
Its a “trans role.” It objectively is 100% a “trans role.”
You don’t “buy” that its a “trans role.” But how on earth can you dispute it?
You are simply wrong.
Already dealt with.
Who is disagreeing?
There was only one way to take your quote in context.
**MostlyClueless **took your quote in exactly the same way as I did because what you wrote is what you wrote. If you only intended to make a statement of your own belief then there was no need to quote **MostlyClueless’s **post. Because all that did was imply that that was a position that **MostlyClueless **held and you were asking them to defend it.
Not sure what you are saying here. If you are putting forward the startling revelation that some people depicted on screen are trans people…well duh. This thread wouldn’t exist were it not for that very mundane fact that I accept fully. But if that is the definition of “trans role” that you think I am challenging then I really can’t help you.
As you say you appreciate clarity , I don’t buy that there is any such thing as a “trans role” where “trans role” means “must be reserved for a trans actor”.
What do you mean when you use the term “trans role”?
You don’t need to read anything into what I wrote. I gave a response to what they wrote and gave a statement of my own.
If I were asking them to defend anything or challenging them I will, you know, ask them directly. You’ll know it when you see it. It’ll have one of these “?” on the end.
FWIW I already received a perfectly straightforward response from MostlyClueless. I’m perfectly clear that, like me, they are generally in favour of ensuring all roles are open to as wider group as possible. I’m exploring a little further why then “trans roles” should be treated any differently (I don’t think they should, MostlyClueless seems to arguing that they should…clear so far?)
So thanks for the help but I’m getting all the responses I need already.
You say it like that makes it OK…
To you.
And the implicit assumption there, anyway, is that you wouldn’t be able to find a capable South African actor to play Mandela which - yeah…let’s say no, shall we?
Depends on if it’s stage or screen, I make a lot more allowances for the former, but yes, I’d expect more than cardboard pyramids and poor casting choices from a modern film production of the same.
Most of them are not bad choices, by themselves. Well, Morgan Freeman now would be a terrible choice. Terrence Howard was always a terrible choice.
Go back to my original statement: I don’t like that they keep casting non-South Africans. As a constant thing (I can only think of one movie recently that had a local)
I think it is OK. The public know that the actor is not going to be of the exact ethnic make-up of the character. That’s fine. There are so many things about an actor that will not square exactly with the character portrayed. Absolutely fine. It is *pretend *you see.
Yes. Would I prefer to see an actor of exactly the “correct” ethnicity play a part or one who bears just a superficial resemblance to it?
Answer…I don’t care and would pass judgement purely on the quality of performance.
No, that’s not something you can infer from what I wrote. I’m sure that you could find an South African, I just don’t think that you should feel in any way *obliged *to.
Why is an artistic production on the stage less subject to your principles?
Particularly as Simone was quite vocal about black-on-black discrimination and the favoritism shown to lighter-skinned blacks compared to darker ones such as herself. It’s not Saldana’s fault - I think she’s a fine actress - but this was a spectacularly offensive miscasting. There were other capable actresses who could have carried the role without all the “blacking up”.
Since no one’s mentioned it: there was a UK six-episode series in 2012 called Hit and Miss, featuring Chloe Sevigny as a pre-op transwoman contract killer. There are several full-on nude scenes (all I can say is that the prosthetics are quite realistic). I’m not aware of any issues with the trans community over the casting (although I’m not sure I would have seen them), but it was six years ago and things have changed even in that short period so perhaps there would have been had it been cast and shown now.