Eddie Redmayne now says starring in The Danish Girl was “a mistake”
Redmayne says the 2015 movie was made with "the best intentions," though
Aux News Eddie Redmayne
Eddie Redmayne is getting ready to star in a new production of Cabaret, and as part of his publicity tour for the gig, he sat down with The Sunday Times and addressed the longstanding controversy over his decision to play real-life transgender artist Lili Elbe in the 2015 movie The Danish Girl. The role got him an Oscar nomination, but criticisms of the casting (and of The Danish Girl in general) have made a more lasting impact than the movie itself.
Now, Redmayne flat-out says that it “was a mistake” for him to have played Elbe in the film. He says that, although The Danish Girl was made “with the best intentions,” he wouldn’t take on the role now. He believes that decisions like him starring in that movie happen “because many people don’t have a chair at the table” and that “there must be a leveling, otherwise we are going to carry on having these debates.”
To parse his statement there a bit, it seems like he’s not necessarily saying that cisgender people should never play transgender people (even if he thinks it was a mistake when he did it), but that transgender people—or at least more people in general—should have a say and be involved in these kinds of decisions.
This denouncement of The Danish Girl comes more than a year after Redmayne addressed the transphobic statements made by J.K. Rowling—who created the Fantastic Beasts series he stars in. At that time, Redmayne offered a disappointing suggesting that, while it’s “absolutely disgusting” to see how transgender people are treated online and out in the world, it is “equally disgusting” to see the way Rowling has been treated since she started saying transphobic stuff.
Fantastic Beasts 3, subtitled The Secrets Of Dumbledore, is supposed to be in theaters on April 15, 2022. Mads Mikkelsen is replacing Johnny Depp as the villain Grindelwald, so that’s cool at least.
217 Comments
If I wanted to hear insincere waffling about social progress from an Old Etonian, I’d watch literally any Boris Johnson press conference.
Would you say he’s a heathen from Eton, on a bag of Michael Keaton?
More like a softshell lobsterclaw doing a Señor Wences for a mix of thieves and morons. And yes, it’s waxy, old, dried butter. You don’t get people to discuss how much of a LobbyLobLobster you are without committing to the bit.Oh you meant the other guy. Seems bit of a prat who wants to work and will probably say most things to avoid traction as long as it appeals to the money. Dang, that’s the PM too.
Speak English, for fuck’s sake.
Lord Eton Beaver?
But of course! Second cousin, once removed, of Howard Feltersnatch.
Doing the Lord’s work there reciting from “Never Fight a Man with a Perm.” 😉
He hates me. I like that.
CONCRETE TO LEATHER!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-peppa-pig-cbi-b1962024.htmlHe’s starting to lose his populist touch.
So in just two years, the country’s destination has switched from Brexit’s sunlit uplands to Peppa Pig Land. Whatever you say, Great Helmsman!
I’m willing to accept the distinction based on “levelling” as I understand it.If, in these roles, the gender/orientation/race/etc. of the character is not anything other than something like hair color and there have been so many performers who do fit the gender/etc. cast that there are no longer any actors available to take the roles? Eh, sure.
I like to imagine that Redmayne does every interview as a whisper yelling combo like his Jupiter ascending character. “I now admit that….STARRING IN THE DANISH GIRL…was a mistake”
Better than the job he’s done in these FB films where he performs “awkward” so badly people genuinely think the character is meant to be autistic.He’s one of those generic Old Etonian actors who’s gotten by entirely by having an upper-class accent.
I can’t for the life of me work out why he’s considered “good”. He exudes “posh tit” energy.
people genuinely think the character is meant to be autistic.That’s every character Redmayne ever played. How did this idea materialize that he’s a great actor, I’ll never understand.Though my favorite of his is definetely Powder Blue, where he plays (with his signature amount of cringeworthy awkwardness) a pale mortician unironically called “Qwerty Doolittle”, who has a romance with Jessica Biel, who plays a stripper who’s unworthy of love because she’s a klutz (something we’re repeatedly told but happens entirely offscreen).That film is really something. I religiously rewatch it every Christmas, because it’s seriously meant to be a Christmas flick, even if it plays like Crash (the Paul Haggis one, not the Cronenberg one, unfortunately), but with an ending literally set in heaven. It’s so bad it’s endearing.
Everything about that movie sounds made up. Jesus…..
I can never stop talking about Powder Blue because it needs to be known more. There’s not a single choice by writer/director Timothy Linh
Bui that doesn’t feel hilariously misguided.For
starters, the film is literally blue. Like, that’s how 80% of
the scenes are shot, with blue lighting of some kind or other. The cast is top notch, there’s Ray Liotta, Lisa Kudrow, Patrick Swayze in his final film role (in a tragic blond wig, as a cartoonishly evil strip club owner). Forest Withaker, who also produces, plays a suicidal guy with an increasingly ludicrous back story who runs around handing a gun to random people and very politely but with manic energy asking them to shoot him in the heart.In one
of the first scenes, Jessica Biel, whose character is called “Rose-Johnny”, is returning from a date with some
nondescript middle-aged guy, and we’re told she’s been a bit awkward, so in the
end she begs the guy to grace her with a second date, and to let her kiss him,
but the guy is like, “Beat it, woman, I’ve got no use for you”. (And
it’s not like in the film’s universe we’re meant to think Jessica Biel
doesn’t look like Jessica Biel, since she’s the main attraction of her
stripping joint, with people coming from all over to see her dance, and not
because she’s that good of a dancer).Then
Jessica Biel meets Redmayne, who’s this sickly mortician who looks like
zombie Norman Bates, and again has to struggle to convince him to let her hug
him. They’ve just met, she doesn’t know anything about him, but their hug
triggers this hilariously overstated violin music, like it’s the culmination of
some epic romance.The
following exchange is actually in the film, verbatim:
Biel: I’m
a single mother with a kid in a coma, and I make my living by taking my clothes
off. I’m a klutz, and I spill everything.
Redmayne: I
work with the dead. I play with puppets. I’ve never had a real girlfriend in my
life, and I get nervous around people, which triggers my asthma.
And this dialogue happens while she’s naked in the bathtub, and he just
entered her apartment uninvited, then silently started washing her back. And
it’s just the second time they meet. This film is wonderful.
The more I read about this movie the less I believe that it exists.
All movies are made up.*Gets hit over the head from behind with a giant club and rightly so!*
i like what he brings to the table. i thought he was perfect for the role in Fantastic Beasts.
“qwerty?” Jesus christ.
I feel like you were just mad libbing the worst possible film but google tells me otherwise. Good. Lord.
He *is* autistic, (or, more accurately, has Asperger’s,) according to the actor that plays him. I don’t know if that’s what’s on the page, or if he took it upon himself to portray the character that way, but it’s too close to be a mere accident. That’s not to defend the rest of his acting career, which I have not seen.
He claimed years after the fact he thinks the character may have it, so yeah sounds like covering for terrible acting than a genuine attempt to portray it (given how his portrayal is like every bad stereotype of the condition), especially in a film that came out at a time when Rowling was still desperate to push the idea she was socially progressive yet no marketing was made out of having an autistic character.
Not a fan of Redmayne’s acting or the Scamander character, but Redmayne talked about it two years after the first Fantastic Beasts movie because that’s when he was doing press for the sequel (in his place, I doubt you’d spend much time talking about the Fantastic Beasts movies outside of contractually-mandated junkets, either). Your comment is self-contradictory: if he wasn’t trying to portray a person on the spectrum, why the heck would he incorporate multiple ASD symptoms in his portrayal? They may be stereotypical symptoms, but they’re fairly specific. Whether or not that part of his performance was Rowlings’ intent or just Redmayne trying to do something interesting with a poorly written character is anyone’s guess.
They’re stereotypical symptoms people think of when they think of autism or practically any “sympathetic” mental condition but many of them are just also generic neurotypical traits too.Also his comments were that he thought the character might have ASD after Rowling described the mannerisms to play in the film, so it wasn’t meant to be autism from an as written standpoint (and this was still the time when Rowling was claiming her creations were intended that way the moment fan interpretations became common). His acting was just so bad that being shy/odd/awkward came across to a few people online as “hold on, is he playing the character as having autism”, and then when asked about it he gave a non-confirmation answer of thinking the character “might” have ASD at one press junket.If it was deliberate it would’ve been in every press release before the first film even came out quite frankly.
At least he didn’t say “definitely time for Wapner”.
Again, I don’t think it’s a good performance, but no one’s doing that much external acting in 2016 to indicate that their character is neurotypical. Hell, even viewing the issue in that way is crediting Rowling and Redmayne with greater sophistication and knowledge than her script or his performance suggest they have. And to what purpose?I think our view of Rowling is skewed by the period between the end of the Harry Potter books and the beginning of these movies, when she thought she was through writing about these characters and just blabbed every damn pseudo-woke post-it note idea she ever had about the stories. But the reason she had all those half-baked thoughts to “reveal” is because she considers herself a subtle mystery box-style writer.
Like I say though, given neither have explicitly confirmed the character is neurodivergent, the closest being Redmayne saying he thinks he may be, and the fact the traits in question are pretty common outside of autistic people to it does feel like another “oh, well, we intended that” moment.
Yeah, I REALLY don’t get the dude’s appeal. Like, at all.
“Haha, silly autistic people! Don’t you know that’s just the failure mode at playing a Real Person?”
Maybe don’t weigh in here.
Talk about your mistakes, yeesh. That movie was one of the most mesmerizing trainwrecks I’ve ever seen.
Mesmerising is a great word for it. I’ll take a memorable engaging trainwreck that has some actual identity and sense of mad scientist failure over a drab nothing failure. Eddie Remdayne was shockingly bad in that film, but for me it’s the only performance that I actually enjoy of his.
I assumed the reason Eddie Redmayne’s character wanted Earth because he heard it was 80% water and he’d might like to try some, some day.
“Next year I’ll be starring … IN A NEW COMEDY! It will be a fun romp … FOR THE ENTIRE FAMILY!”
Watching that movie while extremely high was one of the best decisions I ever made.
I kind of loved seeing it. A friend and I saw it in a deserted cinema and we spent the whole film just laughing at it. The wachowski sisters may have made a bad movie there, but it sure wasn’t boring.
I’ll be honest, that’s how I imagine he talks normally.
Jupiter Ascending has caused more head-shaking disagreement in our household than any other film, except maybe Southland Tales. I love them both. Heavens, I know they aren’t GOOD movies, but they fizz with raw potential. I want to know more about the world and how it became that way. I guess I’m just a sucker for swing-for-the-fences worldbuilding.
Since that movie role I have dubbed Redmayne “The Most Dehydrated Man in Hollywood”. Get this poor guy a glass of water already!
To parse his statement there a bit, it seems like he’s not necessarily saying that cisgender people should never play transgender people (even if he thinks it was a mistake when he did it), but that transgender people—or at least more people in general—should have a say and be involved in these kinds of decisions.Which seems fair. In a perfect world, you’d cast trans actors in cis parts as easily as you’d cast cis actors in trans parts. Just like you can currently cast hetro actors in gay roles and gay actors in hetero roles, because their sexuality offscreen is no one’s business but their own. But, the world isn’t perfect yet and there needs to be more roles and accommodation of non-cis individuals. More roles given to those actors.
For every cis or cishet actor cast as a trans character in a film, there had better be at least 2-3 trans actors in equally meaty roles in the production.
Wouldn’t star as a transwoman years after he did because it’s no longer oscarbait that’s wrong but will still take a very lovely paycheque from a transphobe suggesting transwomen are predators and defend her from blowback for being an outspoken bigot to play a role.Classy stance there Eddie…
And it drives me nuts that THIS was the film Alicia Vikander won her Oscar for, when Ex Machina was…right…there!
Dear god, yes. Ex Machina is a great film and she is fucking brilliant in it. Without her, that movie doesn’t work. I’ve taught that film in so many classes and students always love it.
What a joy it was to see that film. It was one of the few instances I can recall where I left the theater convinced I had seen a new major star emerge.
I didn’t see it in theaters, but instead got an awards screener, and it was still an exhilarating experience. The number of times that movie made me take a breath or shake my head in wonder…it is just so, so good. You put it exactly right. It is/was a joy.
That movie’s just so fucking good in general. Looks like the AI works!Also, life lesson: Don’t rely on a socially awkward, easily manipulated dude to test a hot woman robot’s capacity for duplicitousness. Or at least don’t do it alone, in isolation.
Question about Ex Machina, it shows each successive model learning more about human behaviour and becoming more sophisticated but I honestly thought the guy helping her against Oscar Isaac (though at least partly for his own motives) was going to teach her one more lesson which was his realising he could profit more even in the short term by selling her out and hence the final harsh lesson about humans, duplicity then betrayal followed by disassembly and the cycle repeats. To be honest, I would have both preferred that ending due to thinking our millennia of honing our skills of deceit being more than a match for a newly formed and still you’d think naive AI. What are your thoughts?
Nobody wants to see the creepy dude win
Some of that might also be contracts.
He signed onto Fantastic Beasts in 2015, which is a couple years prior to Rowling being revealed. Being released from the multi-picture contracts is likely a challenge.
he did win the oscar for playing Hawkings a year before this
You’re sooooooo brave and ahead of the curve. Also you have absolute zero insight into any of this. Your existence makes me very sad.
He has the most punchable face I think I’ve ever seen. I can’t stand to watch anything he’s in.
I’ve somehow seen most of his filmography, and I liked exactly three films he’s in: My Week with Marilyn (though mostly because of Michelle Williams), The Aeronauts (though mostly because of Felicity Jones), and The Trial of the Chicago 7 (though mostly because of the entire ensemble cast he happens to be a part of).
Even in good movies, he’s the worst part of it. He’s the weakest actor in Chicago 7 by a considerable margin. It’s not helped that he has the most absurdly Oscar bait speeches in that largely enjoyable movie.
I thought he did a decent job in “the theory of everything”. Other than that… I’ve never been much of a fan. That said… he is spectacular (for all the wrong reasons) in Jupiter Ascending.
Gonna cut up your knuckles on all those sharp angles.
I really don’t expect actors to know any better when it comes to roles like this. If it even occurred to them to ask if it was fine, their agent probably said, “Yeah, it’s totally fine.” It’s the casting director who’s responsible for knowing what’s socially and politically up.
I kind of wish people paid more attention the the people actually making the casting decisions in this. I’m not saying actors should get a pass, exactly, but the fact is, they don’t cast themselves. If no one is looking for Eddie Redmayne to play a transwoman, he doesn’t. On the other hand, if a casting director/director/producer is looking for an Eddie Redmayne type, then even if Eddie Redmayne type, then even if he doesn’t take the part, it’s not going to the right person.I guess what I’m saying is if we paid attention to the people who actually have the power in the situation.
I also generally find it more reasonable to blame the person in charge of hiring than the person looking for work.
This. So much fucking this. Which isn’t to say there is no responsibility on the actor in any situation. ScoJo was at a point in her career where she didn’t need Ghost in the Shell in order to get work; she was already a blockbuster star. But people really forget that actors are nearly always in danger of never working again. It’s one of the most fickle and mutable professions in the world. And if they aren’t an absolutely A-lister with a decade or more of multimillion dollar roles in the bank, then they will nearly always take an interesting, dramatic role that’s offered.
I’m reminded of how Ed Skrein (also British and named Edward) was initially cast as Ben Daimio in the 2019 Hellboy movie and then backed out when he learned the character was supposed to be Japanese-American.
He did, which is great and the ideal situation when an actor is cast for a role they shouldn’t be in. Like I said, I’m not saying actors should get a pass or that they shouldn’t turn down a role.Just that they’re not casting themselves, and that the other side of the equation basically never feels the same criticism, even though they’re the ones with the real power to make sure the right person is in the role.
To clarify, I was agreeing with you. Should have expressed that better.
No worries! I just wanted to be clear. Ed Skrein was absolutely a class act about that.
I mean, a bit of internet searching would turn up some thinkpieces about the issues with cis actors portraying trans characters, and I assume Redmayne can access wi-fi somewhere.
It’s always wise to remember that most actors are attractive dumb dumbs.
So much this.Many years ago I was flying somewhere on business and ended up seated next to a B-movie actor. I doubt anyone would recognize his name; I certainly did not, and honestly I don’t even remember it anymore. He was flying coach, so make of that what you will.He was good looking, more or less. He basically kept talking about the last movie he made (pretty sure it was a direct-to-video something-or-other), how pretty his co-star was, how he fucked her, and so on. On a 4 hour flight, this was basically everything we discussed. How he was looking forward to his next movie, how he hoped his co-star in the next one was hot, and how he was considering banging her.At one point I mentioned I’d done some tech consulting for some Hollywood types. Suddenly he was interested in me, but a brief conversation made it clear that I was in no position to hook him up with anyone important, so he redirected the conversation back to something he found more interesting (himself).I did so much drinking.
Also wise to remember that most actors don’t really have the ability to turn down jobs for political reasons. Unless you’re already a giant name with a ton of heft in the industry, you gotta take pretty much every job you can get or else you’re done.
Agree. It doesn’t necessarily let Redmayne off the hook for taking the role, but it’s hard to blame him for “taking” the role from a transwoman when it was unlikely any transwoman was going to be considered for the role in the first place.
Saying this on a publicity tour of Cabaret where he portrays The Emcee is an interesting side note.
Got to be better than the summer I spent tearing tickets in Kuwait. Everybody sucking sand…
Well lets just say my opinion on the matter has changed a little bit since 2015. Back then I saw it as merely lame Oscarbait and yeah it was. Now? I think its bizarre, it was based on a fictional novelization of a real life person who was both trans and a lesbian. The latter part got written out for reasons I can’t fathom. The real story of Lili Elba is far more interesting then the Danish Girl and yeah I would prefer a trans actor to play her. Not the guy who has made wishy washy comments about JK Rowling. Get bent Eddie.
Yeah he owes you something right?
Hot take: Eddie Redmayne was a mistake
I still maintain he’s a thinly disguised reptilian.
If by mistake, you mean splicing James Franco and Dennis from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, then I agree.
Are you his mother?
No, but I’m just as disappointed as she is.
That’s by no means a hot take.
Remind me again why the first season of Transparent, starring Jeffrey Tambor, was hailed by critics as a groundbreaking masterpiece, while The Danish Girl, which was released one year later, was deemed a hate crime due to its casting before it was even released?
It helps that it’s a fucking terrible movie.
Sometimes that helps.
Transparent was hailed by cis media critics (as was the Danish Girl). There were plenty in the trans community who had issues with a cis actor playing the role. Jill Soloway has said she’ll never cast a cis actor in a trans part again because of the criticism she received around casting Tambor. Also, no one called The Danish Girl a hate crime. Even if what you stated was true, and it had been hailed by the trans community as a groundbreaking masterpiece (it wasn’t), that doesn’t mean that the portrayal of trans folks can’t evolve and change for the better. You seem to want the trans community to sit down and shut up forever because some people liked Transparent. That’s never going to be the case. From an interview with Soloway“Having dealt with backlash for casting Jeffrey Tambor to play a trans character, do you think about casting trans roles differently now?‘Yes. I would unequivocally say it is absolutely unacceptable to cast a cis man in the role of a trans woman. Ever. I know that sounds ironic coming out of my mouth, but at this point I would throw that down as absolute.I think when you look back at what went on for us over the past few years, we did everything and anything to make it OK, and I can name four reasons, story-wise and show-wise, that Jeffrey was the right person. You know, I think a lot of people will give you those [reasons]. They’ll say Jeffrey is a great actor. They’ll say that as a famous cis man he got the kind of attention for the show that we never would have gotten [with a trans actor]. I could personally tell you that in terms of my own parent’s gender presentation, that Jeffrey looked and felt much more like my parent than a trans woman or a fully transitioned person would have, because my parent was at the beginning of their transition, as was Maura.I could come up with a lot of cis-cuses—cis excuses—about why my choice shouldn’t be questioned. But I actually feel the opposite. I feel like our choice should absolutely be interrogated. And we’re in a post Transparent world. We’re in a post Tangerine world. We’re in a post Dallas Buyers Club world. Nobody should be that ignorant right now to cast a cis man in this role. If anybody has been reading the Internet they understand how awful it is for trans women to see cis men portraying them. It’s an insult.’https://www.tvinsider.com/98392/transparent-creator-jill-soloway-on-casting-cisgender-actors-in-transgender-roles/
I realize it was 10 years prior, but Ledger and Gyllenhaal were both widely praised for their roles in Brokeback Mountain. It’s reasonable to think the social earth moved under Redmayne’s feet more quickly that he expected.
That’s entirely possible. The frustration doesn’t come from people not knowing, it comes from them not engaging with the community they want to portray and getting defensive instead of listening to feedback from that community.
Notice everyone takes these brave progressive stands long after the checks have been cashed.
You might not be aware, but Jill Soloway transitioned and is now Joey – I think they use they/them pronouns. It’s ok if you didn’t know that. I didn’t know until someone pointed it out to me.
I didn’t know that! Thanks for the info. My apologies to Soloway for not using the correct name and pronouns.
Part of it was due to marketing, with ads trumpeting a “real-life” story, when the film was actually adapting a novel’s fictional take.
I also think the Danish Girl presents Redmayne’s character as a jekyll and hyde character, constantly jumping in and out of costumes that dangerously equates being trans as something you can slip in and out of like a dress.
there are people who are trans non binary that treat their gender that way. Not to say this character has that view on their gender
The Danish Girl received multiple Oscar nominations. Redmayne was nominated for Best Actor, and Vikander won Best Supporting Actress.
because people are hypocrites and latch on to whatever the latest crusade may be. back then this whole issue wasn’t front and center. now it is.more succinctly, people are insincere and full of shit.
Transparent also had a lot more participation from trans people in front of and behind the camera (maybe not at the beginning, but certainly by the end) than The Danish Girl ever did. Granted, the trans people involved with the show were not given a safe space, but at least they had a few seats at the table.
you’re an idiot, “Good Cop”
I’m not a Redmayne fan, but he played the role with sincerity and commitment and what else should one expect from an actor? I knew nothing about the original story but – owing to this production – I learned more. Isn’t that a worthy goal? To inspire viewers to seek instruction and find empathy? Aristotle wasn’t wrong. It’s fairly obvious why Redmayne is doing this, though – which is why I’m not a fan.
Do you think a trans actor is not capable of playing the role with sincerity and commitment?
What trans actors do you have in mind?
I’m not the casting director, but considering that Pose managed to fill a cast with trans actors that were amazing, an actual professional casting director should have no problem. Thanks for the bad faith question though, especially since you didn’t bother to answer my good faith one. Your response just shows that your entire original post was based on bullshit bad faith questions (it’s on me for actually giving you the benefit of the doubt). Clearly you just wanted to say that a trans actor could not possibly have played this part well. It’s bullshit. I don’t have to cast the part for it to be bullshit.
Is it a brilliant mistake? I don’t think your anger has anything to do with me, so…. best wishes.
My irritation has to do with bad faith questions. Here’s some more info for you. “Sealioning involves jumping into a conversation with endless polite, reasonable questions and demands for answers, usually of entry-level topics far below the actual conversation (e.g. “please prove sexism exists”). This tactic differs little from harassment; instead of discussion, the point is to derail discussion, receive criticism (for their ignorance) so as to look like a victim, or to make someone feel overwhelmed and quit talking.”https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
That’s kinda the point.
I’m quite curious to see the answer to this myself.
That’s part of a wider problem, that trans actors don’t get those opportunities – trans people are denied the stardom Redmayne can get, because they don’t get called into the room for any roles. Off the top of my head, Jamie Clayton.
The fact that you personally don’t know of many trans actors is proving the point that there is a problem in Hollywood of undercasting them. You haven’t heard of them because they haven’t been cast. Get it?
hell, i’d put jen richards in every movie and tv show because i think she’s awesome. but i’m not a casting director.
Do you not think any actor could be capable of playing the role with sincerity and commitment? Would you also limit trans actors from non trans roles?
It’s not a question, at all, about whether non-trans actors can play the part well. Trans actors have been limited in what they can play for decades, to the point where they haven’t been able to play themselves. Hollywood is fine telling the story and reaping the profits while slamming the door in the face of the marginalized people they are cashing in on. It’s the same false equivalence that’s trotted out for when previously white roles are recast with POC. We’re nowhere near true inclusivity in terms of hiring either before or behind the camera.
I love the idea of hiring trans actors for any role they are right for, but I also believe that this crusade against acting itself is counter productive. According to you Meryl Streep’s entire career was evil. I want more inclusivity, but I also want people to still be able to act.In this black and white view of the world that’s not possible. The issue isn’t that your wrong, it’s that people go too far almost out of the starting gate. Meryl Streep wasn’t wrong for playing a Polish Jew even though she is neither and this idea that only Polish Jews should play Polish Jews, which is 100% what you’re saying here, is wrong. And if you think I am exaggerating, Scarlett Johansson was attacked for playing a Caucasian character by millions because someone on the internet lied and said she was playing an Asian character. Her character was canonically Caucasian, she played the shell not the ghost, but all it took was one idiot who didn’t know the source material and out came the pitchforks. (Yes, she and the movie were terrible, but it’s a good example anyway). The simple point I took too long to make is that absolutism here is the issue. It’s MUCH BETTER that a trans character can be found to play a trans character, it’s not a moral imperative.
That’s one hell of a straw man you’ve got there. The statement “According to you Meryl Streep’s entire career was evil” is laughable nonsense. It’s a simple concept: include trans folk on and behind the screen when you are making media that portrays them. Engage with the marginalized communities you seek to portray. Trans actors, having being excluded from the process for so long, should, at the very least, be able to participate in the depiction of their own lives. And it is a moral imperative to be more inclusive. To have the conversations surrounding how trans characters are portrayed, who tells their stories, and who profits from their use.
Chris Pratt is being called out for playing Mario in the movie about the video game as not being Italian. I am not exaggerating when I say people take something reasonable and correct like Trans People should get more roles to only Italians can play Italians. People can’t do subtleties anymore.
I don’t give a single solitary shit about whether Pratt plays Mario or not. The idea that trans people should sit down and shut up about their marginalization because people don’t like Chris Pratt is straight up nonsense.
And when did I say they should? I said it would be best of they were able to play more of these roles. My point was that people ARE taking, not a hypothetical slippery slope, are taking this way too far and attacking the very idea of acting itself. “No one should play something they themselves are not”.
People being mean to Chris Pratt has no bering on trans folk, or any other marginalized group, continuing to advocate for their rights. This kind of pearl clutching on behalf of a rich, straight, cis, white man who has been utterly unaffected by any kind of marginalization is derailing nonsense. Crying “won’t somebody think of Chris Pratt” is derailing.
Wow. I would have to work very hard to be that literal. I am saying the intention is good, but it’s being taken too far and that will cause a back lash and that will hurt the cause. You are so blinded by ideological literalism you can’t (won’t) see what I am saying. NOTHING you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote. You somehow think I am saying trans folks can’t be advocated for because it might hurt a rich guy. I can only assume you had your answer written in your head before skimming what I wrote, because you are not discussing, you are preaching. Good luck.
It’s not literal to avoid derailing nonsense. We can’t have a discussion about the marginalization of trans people without someone bargin in with “WoN’t SOmEOne ThInK oF tHe rIcH CiS WhItre MeN.” If you want to be an ally, don’t derail. If people aren’t engagin with your trollery the way you want, it’s because your nonsense isn’t worth engaging with. To repeat:It’s a simple concept: include trans folk on and behind the screen when you are making media that portrays them. Engage with the marginalized communities you seek to portray. Trans actors, having being excluded from the process for so long, should, at the very least, be able to participate in the depiction of their own lives. And it is a moral imperative to be more inclusive. To have the conversations surrounding how trans characters are portrayed, who tells their stories, and who profits from their use.That’s what’s being discussed. Try not derailing with stuff that’s not at issue. It’s exact total opposite of being an ally.
We agree, but you feel the need to argue a point I agreed with several times. The issue is that people take something good, like Trans Folks should get more representation and jump directly to Chris Pratt can’t play a video game character because he’s not Italian. That’s not worrying about protecting HIM. I couldn’t care less about HIM. It’s me worrying about idiots appropriating the good cause of Trans Representation and harming that good cause. The average person will now associate the idiocy of worrying about who plays a carton plumber and Trans Folks getting more visibility in Hollywood. They will see them as the same stupid PC cause instead of one of basic fairness, which it is, and we could see less visibility for Trans People, not more. Your ideological literalism lead you to think I am defending Pratt. Because then you can disagree with me and tell me how much better your point of view is. You need me to be wrong because you can’t passionately defend your beliefs if I am not.
This is straight up concern trolling (google it!). It’s inaccurate, derailing, and unhelpful. Chris Pratt’s hurt feelings do not have any bearing, at all, on trans people working towards better representation. If you truly want to help stop concern trolling, stop pearl clutching, stop derailing.
Again, as long as you keep insisting I care about his feelings, you are missing the actual point I am making. The only explanation here is you didn’t actually read what I wrote. Honestly, if you READ what I wrote, you couldn’t have written what you wrote.
I have read everything you wrote. You are not making the great subtle point you have deluded yourself into thinking you are making. You are concern trolling and derailing. You want to be an ally, act like one and stop doing it. Once again, the point, which I will continue to stress every time you pop up to derail it. It’s a simple concept: include trans folk on and behind the screen when you are making media that portrays them. Engage with the marginalized communities you seek to portray. Trans actors, having being excluded from the process for so long, should, at the very least, be able to participate in the depiction of their own lives. And it is a moral imperative to be more inclusive. To have the conversations surrounding how trans characters are portrayed, who tells their stories, and who profits from their use.The effect on cis white men is not the point.
I assume then that you can’t read what I wrote. That your mind is changing my meaning over and over again. The fact you think I was talking about the effect on cis white guys is literally crazy at this point. good luck.
I read and fully, completely, 100% understand what you wrote. What you seem unable to either comprehend, or google, is how you are concern trolling. Maybe learn it and then think twice about derailing? That is, think twice if you are being sincere about being an ally, and I am actually extending you a HUUUUUUUGE benefit of the doubt here by allowing the slimmest of slim chances that you do actually want to help and are cluelessly stumbling into concern trolling. Want to help? STOP EMPLOYING TROLL TACTICS whether you mean to or not.
Listen, go ahead and over play your hand and demand that only Italians play Italians and only Jews play Jews and so forth and you will lose the real justifiable battles too. That also means that Italians can ONLY play Italians and Jews can ONLY play Jews and Trans people can ONLY play Trans people, and that seems awful too. You lose a lot of people when you attack people who aren’t doing anything wrong. I am not trolling. I am saying that too many people take this stuff so far that all issues of representation get tainted. That too many people can’t tell the difference between black face and Chris Pratt playing an Italian and by equating these things, you lose half the country. Don’t believe me, assign to me some negative motive. IDGAF. Good luck.
I never said that Italians can only play Italians. For someone who complains about reading comprehension in others, you should really get some. “ I am saying that too many people take this stuff so far that all issues of representation get tainted.” This is classic, unadulterated concern trolling. maybe you don’t intend to be doing it (again, I am extending a huge benefit of the doubt here), but you are definitely doing it. If you want to be the ally you say you are, educate yourself on it and stop. What I am saying, again is:It’s a simple concept: include trans folk on and behind the screen when you are making media that portrays them. Engage with the marginalized communities you seek to portray. Trans actors, having being excluded from the process for so long, should, at the very least, be able to participate in the depiction of their own lives. And it is a moral imperative to be more inclusive. To have the conversations surrounding how trans characters are portrayed, who tells their stories, and who profits from their use.That above may, in some irrational fantasy of yours, cause people to be mean to Christ Pratt and by some even more illogical sequence of events cause people to no longer support trans people advocating for their rights (because people were mean to Chris Pratt?) is straight up concern trolling nonsense.
“This is classic, unadulterated concern trolling.”You can used made up terms all you want, but backlashes are real and they are created by taking things too far. “because people were mean to Chris Pratt?” your inability to see past the extreme literalism in use here is almost commendable. But persistence is only a positive trait when you’re right. The inability to understand comparison and need to take the comparison literal is a trait that all ideologs share. They say it’s also sign of low intelligence to be unable to understand things abstractly, to understand connections, but I think in your case it’s ideological blindness. Like my dysgraphia can seem like low intelligence unless you know it’s true cause. Anyway, since you’re literally unable to read what I actually wrote, I will move on. Good luck.
Concern trolling is an actual term that I did not make up. Google it, you’ll learn something. Mostly you’ll learn that you fit the exact definition of it. And I guess I am being literal because I recognize that concern trolling is literally what you are doing, with the exception that I have been very generously extending you the benefit of the doubt about motives. However, motive don’t excuse you from the harm you are doing with this behavior. Again, if you want to be an ally, stop derailing, concern trolling and pearl clutching. You are not helping. https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/concern-troll/
You’re being literal by saying over and over that I care about Chris Pratts feelings. You said it numerous times. That you think this example was more than just an example. You don’t understand how comparisons, or citing an example, work because you are overly literal. Like all ideologs. And all terms like that are made up. I didn’t say YOU made it up. You are just repeating it.
I bring Pratt up because you brought up as though it were relevant. It isn’t. So stop pretending that Pratt has anything to do with the conversation at hand besides derailing. Don’t cite it as an example, because it’s not an example of anything except your unwanted attempts at concern trolling. And if all terms are made up, then it’s particularly dumb to bring it up as relevant. I’m repeating it because it’s accurate. Again, this is the point. It’s a simple concept: include trans folk on and behind the screen when you are making media that portrays them. Engage with the marginalized communities you seek to portray. Trans actors, having being excluded from the process for so long, should, at the very least, be able to participate in the depiction of their own lives. And it is a moral imperative to be more inclusive. To have the conversations surrounding how trans characters are portrayed, who tells their stories, and who profits from their use.What’s not the point is irrelevant concern trolling. Want to be the ally you say you are? Act like it.
“It’s a simple concept: include trans folk on and behind the screen when you are making media that portrays them.” We agree here at least.
You think this is some sort of mic drop moment but it’s actually just sad posturing from a loser who doesn’t understand acting to the extent that you think the lead role in a movie like this could be played by any random trans person on the street because “lived experience” or whatever. You speak exclusively in buzzwords and it’s idiotic.
There was a very thoughtful bit in Disclosure where Jen Richards discusses this. Her fundamental point is that Redmayne was, with all the well-honed skills he possesses, cast in a role that required him to play trans-”ness,” And that’s what he plays. What if a trans actress were in the part instead? They wouldn’t be “playing” that, they’d be playing everything else about the character.
That documentary was absolutely fantastic. Wish there was a way to get the average clueless individual to watch it.
I don’t consider myself a clueless individual on this topic, but I am going to check out Disclosure!Lol! I guess I am kind of clueless since I hadn’t heard of this documentary before, though…
Im sure your not. That comment was meant for people that actively ignore or don’t want to engage with any trans related media. AKA people that live where I am.
I am very lucky to live in a mostly open and accepting city. I have family and friends in the trans community and try my best to be a good ally. Which is why I welcome the chance to educate and expose myself to as much trans-related media I can.
I am truly befuddled by people who are so hung up on other people’s lives, loves, and sexuality.
I’m only guessing by your username that you are part of that community, and if so, I wish you the best in your area. I hope you are happy and safe.
I am but only recently. Let’s just say living in rural Ohio isn’t a place teaming with people open to new ideas. But thank you, I certainly try to not get hurt.
Oh shit, I’m from rural Ohio! Xenia to be exact. Thankfully my Mom moved us out west when I was a tween. I’m now in Portland Oregon, which is quite a bit different than rural Ohio.
But I still have family there, so I know there are some open people around. (although I also finally had to cut ties with my childhood best friend after not only did she vote for Trump once, but she planned to vote for him again)
Ah I know Xenia. Johnstown here, which I think went 70 percent Trump. Yeah its one of those places.
So the meaning of your last sentence there is…what, exactly? Because it SEEMS like you’re saying you dislike him for having a mature stance on this.Going out on a limb and guessing you might be a hugely transphobic piece of shit, but feel free to prove me wrong, you piece of shit.
It’s weird that you’re not a fan of Eddie Redmayne, but you feel compelled to defend him from criticism by…Eddie Redmayne.
Eddie Redmayne: Fierce protector of trans people, and also of people who vehemently hate trans people.
He’s on everyone’s side!
That must keep him busy.
Y’know what? I actually liked Redmayne’s performance in the Danish Girl. I say that as a trans woman. He’s totally right, that trans voices need to be included when making trans content, but he honestly put in a very thoughtful effort into the role.There’s a scene where he looks into a mirror, and just such a simple act becomes such an emotional experience. Most cis people who watch it will never notice it, no less understand it. That a cis actor nailed something so profound about the trans experience really speaks well of him, and his research in making sure he’s doing justice to the part he’s playing.
Poor bastard he wasn’t thinking about the future, every decision you make has to be considering if 10 or 20 years from now would still be the right choice.
“Mads Mikkelsen is replacing Johnny Depp as the villain Grindelwald, so that’s cool at least.”Depp pretty much losing his career because of a lying and abusive partner is absolutely NOT ‘cool’.
his face creeps me out
Took him this long eh! This guy is the worst.
Speaking as a trans woman, I think he’s saying the right things after far too long saying nothing. But also, that getting a cis actor to play a trans person going through transitioning isn’t necessarily the wrong choice.I don’t think casting could’ve ever saved The Danish Girl, that was a bad idea from the jump, and nowhere near enough trans people were part of it. But if you’re depicting a transition journey, you do generally have to pick what point in that journey you cast for. Do you get (in this case) a trans woman and ‘man her up’ for the start, or do you get a cis man (or pre-transition trans woman, but that’ll be a difficult one) and gradually feminize?
I can completely understand the decision to cast a cis man in that scenario, especially as we’re talking about someone who didn’t exactly have the same means for transitioning as most modern trans women have. The problems with The Danish Girl are myriad, but Redmayne isn’t necessarily the worst of them, just the most visible….although at the same time, I think in talking about that, I’m also kinda jumping ahead way too far in the overall dialogue. There are a lot of things that have to be faced and improved on before we get to the point where we can seriously discuss a theoretical point where it is a good idea to cast a cis actor as a trans character.
Only cast trans actors with cis identical twins, like OITNB did.(this is a joke, obviously)Can’t speak for the whole community but I’d be more comfortable with a trans actor getting manned/womanned up than the opposite
OINTB is a good example of them engaging with a trans actor to figure this shit out. Cox said they discussed various ways to show her in flashbacks, including her portraying the role, before deciding to cast her twin (a cis man) in the role. Like you said, it was sheer luck to have a twin that could play the role, but it would also be a case where casting a non-related cis actor could be OK. It’s really about working with the community you’re trying to portray rather than any rule cast in stone.
Lol it’s so clear that people like you have never created anything in your life and have no clue what considerations go into actually shooting a movie/tv show.Keep using those buzzwords though. Sooooo brave and impressive.
I saw an interview where Laverne Cox was really into the idea of playing her character in flashbacks and they were trying all sorts of things to pull the look off and it just wasn’t working. Then the makers of the show found out she had an identical twin and asked if she’d mind if they’d ask if he was interested in the role. The interviewer then astutely asked the question as to wasn’t it a good thing that she couldn’t convincingly pull it off and they both had a good laugh about that.
wouldnt that fall into the same problems as dead naming?
What I specifically wonder is whether that would be a triggering experience for a trans actor, the answer invariably being “probably for some %, and probably to varying degrees” and that runs into problems, too.
Yeah, probably for some percent. Which is why (as brilliantmistake said in a different response) they should work with the actor to figure out a solution.
OITNB had some INSANE luck on that front, and used it well.I think in most cases I’d agree with you on getting a trans actor and cracking out the makeup for the pre-transition phases, but in some cases going the other way may be more effective or plausible for the story being told. But it’s also a discussion that has to happen far further down the road, when getting trans stories and representation at all isn’t most of the fight anymore.
I agree, if I understood your last sentence correctly: When representation isn’t the fight, we can look more at casting cis actors for early-in-transition trans characters – I don’t know if I agree with Disclosure’s argument of embodying transness vs performing it (I think method acting is overrated and it kinda feels like a bit of a method argument – YOU NEED TO EMBODY YOUR ROLE PERFECTLY TO PLAY IT). The problem is just that as of right now, that’s not the case.
or pre-transition trans woman, but that’ll be a difficult oneCurious why you think it would be hard to find a pre-transition trans woman? Or at least mid-transition. I would guess that tens of thousands of people begin transitioning every year in a country the size of the US or the UK. Is it like a shyness thing you’re thinking of? People not wanting to be seen in a film at that stage?
I imagine that the pool of pre-transition trans actors (who are also good actors) would likely be vanishingly small, especially accounting for other requirements for any specific role (age, race, etc). And if you’re talking about transitioning during the show, I have to believe that’d be a logistical (and possibly medical) nightmare.
That’s what I’m asking though. Would that pool be vanishingly small? I haven’t seen any numbers on it, but just from my social circle, it seems like gender transitioning is becoming a lot more common lately as it’s becoming more socially accepted and there are more available gender affirming therapists. Unless there’s some specific reason why trans people early on in the transitioning process would be less available than trans people who are further along, it sounds like an excuse to me.
I think the pool of competent acting talent that is in the middle of transition at any given point is too small. Ultimately, if your goal is to hire the best actor for a role, the more you limit your pool, the tougher it is to get the film made.
But that’s the same excuse that people have used for decades to avoid casting people in roles that are appropriate for them. Fill in any minority group—black, asian, gay, disabled, etc.—and people in Hollywood have claimed at one time or another than the pool was too small to find someone talented enough for the role. Given that they were wrong all of those previous times, I find it difficult to believe that they’re right in this case. But again, I’m no expert on trans culture, which is why I asked sincerely if there’s something I’m missing.
Casting trans is, in my mind, equivalent to casting gender: a female actor can play a pregnant woman in a film without actually being pregnant on camera.
That’s not really the same though. Pregnant actors aren’t a minority group that’s being denied roles. If pre or early transition trans people can’t even hope to be offered roles specifically written about such a character because studio heads will say that it’s too hard to find them or they’re not good enough to play someone going through the same struggles that they’re going through, then what hope do they ever have of finding a job?
It’s absolutely the same thing.Being “in transition” is a temporary part of a trans existence. A trans actor before, during, or after their transition, whether they elect to undergo gender-affirming surgery or not, should be equally eligible to play a trans character.Pregnancy is a near-perfect comparison. Some women will be pregnant in their lives, and some not, and whether you ever are, ever plan to be, currently are, have been before, or will be in the future, you should be able to play a pregnant woman if you are the best qualified woman for the part.
Or, to be more applicable across the board, casting for identity (race, gender) is not only fine but should be pursued. But casting specifically for a temporary life event (that is/can be part of, but not the whole of, that identity) is another thing, and a bridge too far. Once you start doing that, it’s no longer acting.
Being “in transition” is a temporary part of a trans existence.That “temporary part” can take several years. Not at all comparable to being pregnant for nine months and being able to work for at least some of those. I guess by your logic they should just not work for those years, while paying for expensive hormone therapy in many cases and expensive surgeries in some? A trans actor before, during, or after their transition, whether they elect to undergo gender-affirming surgery or not, should be equally eligible to play a trans character.I’m not even sure what you’re arguing here. I’m not saying that a trans person who is past a certain point in their transition shouldn’t be allowed to play a character from an earlier point. I’m saying that that part shouldn’t be played by a cis person. you should be able to play a pregnant woman if you are the best qualified woman for the part.It’s a terrible comparison because we’re not talking about a woman who isn’t pregnant playing a pregnant woman. We’re talking about a cis man playing a pregnant woman.
and this is why trans representation matters both infront and behind the scenes. cis people (of which i am one) are still stuck in those binaries of pre-/post or passing/not passing and can’t see beyond that.it’s something like colourism, where you only get to see a very specific hue of black and brown folks in movies/on tv, or very specific skin tones always denoting good and bad characters. because there’s a lot of white people in charge of casting/writing these roles.
I think shyness and not wanting to commit a very strange and private part of their life in film form is a big part, but there’s also the struggle that, in this case, it’s definitely a SAG or other union process (I’m not sure what the UK situation is like). That narrows your pool significantly, and so you have to rely on some wild luck that someone in that pool has publicly come out as trans but has not yet transitioned, and is also well-suited for the kind of story you’re trying to tell.And then you have to take into account the physical effects of transitioning if the person you find wants to go through with medically transitioning before the film is done. For trans women that’s not the world’s biggest problem (but might cause some headaches for long-term continuity), but for trans men the changes can be pretty drastic in rather less time than you expect.
Interesting. Thanks.
Your dialog shows exactly why a trans person needs a seat at the table here. The nuanced discussion you just laid out here just can’t happen otherwise.
Oh, yeah, exactly. This is the sort of conversation that should happen after trans representation both in front of and behind the screen has become so standard that ‘just getting a seat at the table’ is no longer the most prominent challenge.
I think he’s just saying the thing that people want him to say now that he has a light on him for something else.
I hear you, though I still just prefer it if they look to hire gender diverse folks for any gender diverse roles so they’re actually getting work and we’re seeing trans/nonbinary faces in more mainstream productions (but hey, disclaimer, I’m not a trans woman – I’m agender – so I recognize that how I feel about casting for trans women isn’t necessarily top priority here 😉 ).
Anyway, I’m glad Eddie said this. Part of my brain wants to kinda jump to more beyond this given his HP involvement but you know, I don’t think I need to really- just this statement is a great start. He said the right thing here, and I appreciate that he said it. I always felt bad because he SEEMED like a nice guy but I was mystified by a few of his choices (yes, I know actors need to make money I guess!).
So Eddie is gonna give back the money, right?
On the Rowlings subject it amuses me that man can define a woman for not allowing men to redefine “woman”
“whaa”?
Let’s not limit this to The Danish Girl. Eddie Redmayne starring in any film is a mistake.
What is this kid? The Jake Lloyd of our generation?
As a lgbtq+ person with gender dysmorphia ( light case). i can F everyone. He was very nice in the movie. Who else should you pick to play the role? Would a real trans person be a more “appopriated”pick. Yes. But to find one that fits the role. In that case….should we also ban all gay actors/actresses from acting straight?See people like the lovely Kate mckinnon only play gay characthers now?Should neil patrick harris say sorry for playing barney stitson?
No one should have out themself for a role. For all we know Eddie is a trans woman or Scarlett Johansson is a trans man. These people do not have to out themselves for you.
Wait, are we still shitting on Johnny Depp?
Yeah and he’s not even Danish!
He doesn’t have a cartoonishly long penis that he uses to fight crime and injustice?
He also can’t use it to plug holes in, um, earthen water control structures.
I’m sure that Lea DeLaria isn’t remotely disappointed.
He may have had pastry ancestors.
Really the dude’s a scone if I’ve ever seen one.
Buttered.
Cool, so we can set a precedent where only trans folk can play trans characters and only cis folk can play cis characters … Right?
Equality of outcome has no place in acting.
I should think the the story of a person born male who transitions into female, should be open to anyone who was born male or is currently female.
Being “born male” isn’t how being trans works
I was talking about sex not gender.
There’s no difference between the two
Mmm So people are NOT born with genitals? Good to know.
Genitals do not determine gender
Which is LITERALLY what I said. Sex not Gender.
There’s no difference between the two
You can have, or have had, a penis and yet still be female. Stop being anti-trans.
Ok so you’re a troll because I didn’t say anything to the contrary
You said Sex and Gender were the same thing. That means that if you have a Penis you are male. That is not accurate. Sex is biological, gender is fluid.
Nope that’s not what that means at all
So a person with a penis can’t identify as a She? I think they can.
Again, things nobody said
You said “There’s no difference between the two” which means a persons sex determines (or has to match) their gender. It does not.
Nope that’s not what it means at all
If they are exactly the same thing, then YES it does.
Nope
wow. this world is so ridiculous. people are offended over an actor portraying someone who isn’t themselves. that is the whole point of acting, apart from the actual storytelling. why do some think it is somehow necessary for a only transgender person to play a transgender person?! it’s just acting… just telling a story. not every move (not a typo of ‘movie’) made today needs to be political or needs to address every single special group in the exact way that group may wish.
the world needs to pull the stick out of its collective butt.
This guy can equivocate with the bet of ‘em.
I was wondering what to be outraged about, today.Thanks for providing me an answer, AV Club.
I really love this movie and the character that he played. While it would be great to have a trans woman play that role, to me it actually makes more sense for the role to be played by a cis male. The reason being: the actual transition being visible from start to finish (a sizable part of the movie is him as a cis male experiencing femininity). If a trans woman had played the role, it probably would have been difficult to show that visible progression since HRT has already affected their body fat placement IRL. I dont think we should be demanding apologies from actors for doing their jobs, and bringing visibility to the trans community should be celebrated. Period.
I think it’s a mistake to apologize for artistic choices. Does the trans community deserve and need a seat at the table? Most certainly. Should the industry aim to represent minorities? Of course. Should directors aim to include more LGTBQ+ actors in prominent roles? Definitely. To do this, we need those minorities to have access to decision-making positions, and that’s where we should focus our attention. As gay and liberal as I consider myself to be, I can’t make coerce myself to somehow censor, curtail or limit artistic freedom. Nazy Germany, Soviet Russia, Mao’s China are all examples of regimes that actively tried to censor artistic expression to fit within the mold of what they deemed acceptable. Freedom of expression should trump all other considerations in my opinion. I don’t ever want to be in a position where I tell an artist what they can do, or not do. The only exception to that is in the case of hate speech. If today’s unreasonable standards applied to the recent history of moviemaking, we would be without the incredible and tasteful and important portrayal of Sean Penn in Milk. We would also be without the iconic performance of Daniel-Day Lewis in 1989’s My Left Foot. If we had the same rules back in the early 1990s, Tom Hanks would have been prevented from playing the hero in Philadelphia — another lauded performance that allowed the actor to forever be an advocate for LGTBQ+ rights and the fight against AIDS. Lastly, we can’t forget what we are talking about. An actor is, by definition, playing pretend. Acting is precisely that. Acting has never been an exercise in playing ourselves. That is a job for reality television (not that those people actually play themselves). So yes, let’s aim to cast more trans and more gay and more lesbian actors. But let’s cast them in whatever. Let’s have them play superheroes, or pirates, or evil antiheroes. I do not want my artists in a box, whether they’re straight, gay, or whatever.