# A politically correct can of worms



## JohnD (Aug 16, 2018)

This whole diversity thing is sure confusing. Consider the flak Scarlett Johansson got for accepting a role of a transgender person.
RUB & TUG
I can understand the idea that a transgender character should be played by a transgender actor BUT, doesn't that also mean that transgender actors should only play transgender characters? Where is the diversity there?
By the same argument, Linda Hunt should not have won as Oscar for her role in* The Year of Living Dangerously.* (BTW is was an amazing performance and was deserved.) I can fully understand that Al Jolson blackface is no longer acceptable but where do you draw the line.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 16, 2018)

Sort of denies the concept of acting.


----------



## gafftaper (Aug 16, 2018)

As I understand it, the problem is that trans actors find it almost impossible to get cast in roles as non-trans characters. So when the very rare big movie based on a trans character comes up, it's upsetting to the trans acting community that a non-trans person get's cast. It's similar to "white washing" films where white actors are cast to play people of color or characters are changed race from the original story to white. Yes the idea of acting and becoming something you aren't is important. But we all know the decision to cast Scarlet Johansson as a Trans character wasn't made for artistic integrity and to push her talents as an actor, it was made because the producers said Scarlet playing a trans character will sell more tickets. Dismissing the concerns of a marginalized group in order to get a bigger box office, when you are making a movie that is supposed to be supporting that same marginalized group is pretty shady.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 17, 2018)

I don't have a side in this but in support of lbgt and trans-sexuals in this case, is it better the film is not made or made and seen by many fewer people, than seen by many even though the lead character is only acting?
I probably would not see it either way simply because I rarely go to the cinema. (And if the next leads in a Star Trek were lbg or t - character or actor or both - it wouldn't stop me or even cause me to pause.)

Not sure I've ever seen Scarlett Johanson in anything so doubting the whole story.


----------



## gafftaper (Aug 17, 2018)

Yeah, I too would be highly unlikely to see this movie. If it isn't Sci-fi, I'm unlikely to go.

However to me, the key issue is it's possible to do the right thing in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. I believe how you do things and why you do them is just as important as the actual doing.

Questions I have never had to ask myself :
Where do I fit into this culture?
How does the rest of society see me?
What do others think of my life because of how I'm portrayed in the media?
Why can't I just be accepted for who I am?

If you are a generic mixed European white hetero male like me, you have probably never asked yourself any of those questions. We are blind to the struggles that millions of others face on a daily basis. It's easy to throw a "that's just being politically correct" label on it and ignore it because it doesn't effect you. It's very hard for us to understand the importance of being properly represented in a film or society in general, because we are never improperly represented.


----------



## Footer (Aug 17, 2018)

gafftaper said:


> Yeah, I too would be highly unlikely to see this movie. If it isn't Sci-fi, I'm unlikely to go.
> 
> However to me, the key issue is it's possible to do the right thing in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. I believe how you do things and why you do them is just as important as the actual doing.
> 
> ...



Pretty much exactly that... If you have tran's friends having a trans actor in a movie about a tran's person would be huge for them. Having a hollywood starlett who wants to get another indie film under her belt play this role is not what they are looking for. 

and it turns out she figured this out too.... https://www.thecut.com/2018/07/scarlett-johansson-leaves-her-role-in-rub-and-tug.html


----------



## Colin (Aug 17, 2018)

Since this and the original "discrimination" thread are really about privileged people struggling to accept their privilege and work in solidarity with the disadvantaged, mods might consider merging them.

Logic can always support privilege as long as it wears a certain set of blinders that denies social, political and plain ole human decency factors. There's a logic to saying that if people who are trans are the only ones who should play trans characters (not sure many even against SJ's participation would take that stance unequivocally) then only cisgendered people should play cis roles and so on. But that's not what this is really about unless you're only interested in protecting your privilege. I bet all or most reading here have more compassion, so let's get to work.

Always ask first, who has the power? Does the cisgendered person need that role? Does the highest paid woman in Hollywood need it? Is she more qualified than a talented trans actor? What can be done to elevate talent and authentic experience over established star power? The star doesn't need the role. On the topic of authentic experience "versus" acting, acting isn't merely about pretending to be someone you're not. Respectfully (I do mean that) that's a simpleminded and foolish concept of the artform. The channeling of personal experience is fundamental, and as this and plenty of other conversations illustrate, cisgendered people have a harder time figuring out trans identity than perhaps any other aspect of humanity. So why not give trans talent a chance to tell their own stories?

I wasn't immensely bothered when I heard about this Johansson story because I'm aware of collaborations between trans and queer and cis and straight people that have been really thoughtful and compassionate and complicated and truthful, like _Transparent_ until Tambor acted a fool, and also I'm a cisgendered straight white man so that helps dull the urgency. That's how this works. But it does bother me that people deny there's a problem. I've done my best to support several trans students through their transitions and it's nothing short of a miracle to see them emerge from their "dead" selves into their true identities - so much confidence and light and happiness and productivity when we love who they really are. It's pretty painful to lose opportunities for them to contribute to our artform, and specifically opportunities to represent their own identities. Equality doesn't equal equity. When disadvantage is so pronounced, equality isn't functional - elevate for equity.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 19, 2018)

The question remains not "does the star need the role".

It's "does the picture need the star".

Objectively, if it's a Scarlett Johanson pic, it's gonna pull 10 times as many of the 'straights'.

Objectively, you either care more about casting one of your own, or about getting the message out further.

Doesn't matter which, but let's be honest and clear about it. That's a dichotomy, and I don't believe it's a false one.


----------



## gafftaper (Aug 19, 2018)

Jay Ashworth said:


> The question remains not "does the star need the role".
> 
> It's "does the picture need the star".
> 
> ...


You make a great point Jay. There's a fascinating discussion here about representation of minority points of view, but the truth is if the producers don't think it'll sell enough tickets, the movie won't happen. The Hollywood movie system exists in order to sell tickets, not to do the noble thing.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 19, 2018)

And you make an even better one:

it might pull *infinity times* more, if the pic won't ever get made to start with, without a name star attached.


----------



## RonHebbard (Aug 19, 2018)

Colin said:


> Since this and the original "discrimination" thread are really about privileged people struggling to accept their privilege and work in solidarity with the disadvantaged, mods might consider merging them.
> 
> Logic can always support privilege as long as it wears a certain set of blinders that denies social, political and plain ole human decency factors. There's a logic to saying that if people who are trans are the only ones who should play trans characters (not sure many even against SJ's participation would take that stance unequivocally) then only cisgendered people should play cis roles and so on. But that's not what this is really about unless you're only interested in protecting your privilege. I bet all or most reading here have more compassion, so let's get to work.
> 
> ...


 * @Colin* Please take pity on a near-blind geezer; Google has let me down. Please define your term "*cisgendered* straight white man" for the benefit of educating a compassionately innocent and aging white geezer who was shocked to read the freely handed out Village Voice and their page of acronyms and explanations provided monthly while I was living diagonally across from Macy's for six weeks back in the fall of 1990 when the legendary Macy's parade wended past my 11th story apartment. 
If you're not familiar with their acronym "*GAFP*" @derekleffew MAY explain it for you 'cuz you definitely won't find me printing out the Village Voice's literal definition for your education and elucidation. 
Toodleoo! 
Ron Hebbard


----------



## urban79 (Aug 19, 2018)

@RonHebbard Cis-gender simply refers to someone who identifies as their birth gender - it's the "straight" version of gender basically.


----------



## Duncan Milne (Aug 19, 2018)

I don't think the "well, it won't get made without Scarlett Johansson, so then everyone will miss out" argument really holds water. This could be applied to any kind of discriminatory or offensive depiction. At some point we have to say we're going to try to get it right. And what we can say is that a badly made and stigmatising version will probably not make anything better, whereas a low budget indy production with values might - but the indy production won't get funded if the big budget production goes ahead. I think we need film-makers to challenge themselves to do better, and to recognise the effect their portrayals have on society. And having a big budget studio film not go ahead may not be the end of the world.
Sure, acting is pretending to be someone you're not, but it's more than that - it's a statement about people's lives, and about the value of those experiences. And casting decisions are a statement about who we should see on screen, and thus who we should admire and acknowledge. This might seem like a big statement, but I believe it. Casting is part of the message. It matters.
And @RonHebbard - cisgendered just means you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth. It's used to mean kind of the opposite of transgendered (some folks say trans* to reflect the variety of experiences of non-cis folks in the complex world of gender, identity and sexuality), and to reflect the idea that many cisgendered folks can be blind to the challenges (and joys) of being trans*, because they live in the comfortable majority where the middle-aged straight white men (like me) hang out.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Aug 19, 2018)

Frankly, I'm surprised that she took the role in the first place after the flak she received from Ghost in the Shell.


----------



## Colin (Aug 19, 2018)

Okay yes let's try to... straighten... out the terminology. If you want the term for "not transgender" then that's "cisgender". "Straight" is correctly used in reference to a sexual orientation in which a person feels attraction to the opposite sex, and it's even tricky to say "opposite" when present understanding of sexuality and gender has moved entirely beyond binaries. A transgender person may be straight or gay or another sexual orientation. All transgender describes is that a person's sex assigned at birth (usually due to what's between the legs) doesn't match their internal sense of identity. Sexuality is who you go to bed with, and gender is who you go to bed as (an oft-used explanation not my own).

If anybody (@RonHebbard) wants to have their heteronormative and cisnormative minds scrambled up, go and figure out the gender unicorn. And beware, there are even more complex models out there. You may find it unnecessary to define yourself in these ways. That's probably your privilege doing its thing. You don't have to flog yourself for it but you should work on dismantling it. One thing that helps is to find language that doesn't privilege your experience as "normal". Fixing the language not only welcomes all varieties of humans but also infuses some reminders for those of us holding cultural and other types of power in our day-to-day that we are not "default" humans in relation to some deviant other.


----------



## Colin (Aug 20, 2018)

Duncan Milne said:


> I don't think the "well, it won't get made without Scarlett Johansson, so then everyone will miss out" argument really holds water. This could be applied to any kind of discriminatory or offensive depiction. At some point we have to say we're going to try to get it right. And what we can say is that a badly made and stigmatising version will probably not make anything better, whereas a low budget indy production with values might - but the indy production won't get funded if the big budget production goes ahead. I think we need film-makers to challenge themselves to do better, and to recognise the effect their portrayals have on society. And having a big budget studio film not go ahead may not be the end of the world.
> Sure, acting is pretending to be someone you're not, but it's more than that - it's a statement about people's lives, and about the value of those experiences. And casting decisions are a statement about who we should see on screen, and thus who we should admire and acknowledge. This might seem like a big statement, but I believe it. Casting is part of the message. It matters.



This is it. Don't accept that the solutions to disadvantage will come from giving benevolent privilege a chance to fix it independently. Fruitful alliances are possible but way harder than typically advertised. Urging disadvantaged people to trust privilege to represent them is at best naive and at worst code for "get back in your place". Someone always has some short-sighted proof that "radicalism" backfires, but history doesn't really support that. Don't be a savior - get out of the way.


----------



## RonHebbard (Aug 20, 2018)

Colin said:


> Okay yes let's try to... straighten... out the terminology. If you want the term for "not transgender" then that's "cisgender". "Straight" is correctly used in reference to a sexual orientation in which a person feels attraction to the opposite sex, and it's even tricky to say "opposite" when present understanding of sexuality and gender has moved entirely beyond binaries. A transgender person may be straight or gay or another sexual orientation. All transgender describes is that a person's sex assigned at birth (usually due to what's between the legs) doesn't match their internal sense of identity. Sexuality is who you go to bed with, and gender is who you go to bed as (an oft-used explanation not my own).
> 
> If anybody (@RonHebbard) wants to have their heteronormative and cisnormative minds scrambled up, go and figure out the gender unicorn. And beware, there are even more complex models out there. You may find it unnecessary to define yourself in these ways. That's probably your privilege doing its thing. *You don't have to flog yourself* for it but you should work on dismantling it. One thing that helps is to find language that doesn't privilege your experience as "normal". Fixing the language not only welcomes all varieties of humans but also infuses some reminders for those of us holding cultural and other types of power in our day-to-day that we are not "default" humans in relation to some deviant other.


 * @Colin:* 
*1*; *Seriously*, THANK YOU for your replies and eloquently elucidating explanations. 
*2*: From your quoted post: "*gender has moved entirely beyond binaries*." I'm still quietly giggling at the concept of "binary" genders with my mind drifting off to thoughts of digital Vs. analog sex. 
*3*; On the plus side, at least I'm managing to giggle quietly with my lips pursed rather than chortling loudly with my mouth open and drooling from my neatly trimmed beard. 
*4*; I'm greatly relieved to learn I "*don't have to flog myself*" 
*5*; Thanks again for furthering my education. 
Toodleoo! 
Ron Hebbard


----------



## Colin (Aug 20, 2018)

RonHebbard said:


> I'm still quietly giggling at the concept of "binary" genders with my mind drifting off to thoughts of digital Vs. analog sex.



Haha "check out the bits on that one!" Gender awareness doesn't preclude sexism it is good to recognize. Just remember keep your one in your pants because zero means zero!


----------



## Colin (Aug 20, 2018)

Seriously though, when we're working on this issue we need to decouple gender from sexuality, at least long enough to acknowledge how that coupling has and is used to dehumanize people who don't conform to the dominant culture. One of many things that's icky with SJ's casting here is that a woman who has frequently been marketed as a female sex symbol is put in this role playing a trans man as if to “make it sexy”. This may or may not be the intent, but the optics stink and somebody should have realized that. There isn't a strong likeness between SJ and the real world person she was to depict. There isn't a gender correlation either. It's just a bizarre choice, unless you explain it with the well established prejudicial assumption that queer people are sex-crazed deviants, and it'll be necessary to play to that prejudice in order to appeal to a wide audience. The story winds up being entirely about a sexy cross dressing woman who runs a sex business, and that's going to be our major motion picture introduction to trans people. No thanks.

If a cis person were to be cast for one reason or another (let's imagine a bunch of talented actors who are trans were auditioned but didn't perform as well - doubt it) then it probably should have been a man in the role, because Tex Gill _was a man._ It's diminishing to that person and to all people who are trans to continually center the fact that they were assigned an incorrect gender at birth. That fact tends to be a big part of a trans life because of how bad our culture is at handling it, not because the trans person is obsessed with "sneaking around" or "passing" or being “different”. I recall reading early press about Rub & Tug which referred to Mr. Gill using female pronouns and called him a “lesbian”. The historical record is a little fuzzy because gender terminology was still being sussed out, but it's clear that he preferred male pronouns, and I recall a family interview stating the same. So casting a woman in the role shows several layers of misunderstanding.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 21, 2018)

Now *that's* a valid argument, to me, Colin -- though depending on the timeframe, it might actually require two actors to pull off, no? -- and depends on specific facts about the film and situation with which I wasn't acquainted; I was pretty much arguing the general case.


----------



## Richard Niederberg (Aug 22, 2018)

In my role as a Producer of Live Theatre, and an attorney for Film and Digital Origination entertainment investors, Return of Investment and Return on Investment are key to cast AND 'above the line' crew selection. If the numbers don't pencil out, investors will pass on an investment opportunity, even if it is a Politically Correct one.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 22, 2018)

Sure, Richard; that's basically the argument I was making.

Those arguing the other side said, effectively, "that's fine, we're willing to argue the larger point -- if that's true, then it's Wrong, and we're happy to find investors for whom it's a feature, and take the hit".

Or, they asserted that those involved would say that, which is slightly different.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 22, 2018)

In other news, looks like ScarJo wlil be busy anyway:

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/scarlett-johansson-cast-as-first-black-james-bond/


----------

