Halle Berry no longer seeking to play a transgender man after backlash: "I vow to be an ally"
Aux Features Halle Berry
Halle Berry—apparently having never heard the words Scarlett and Johansson—was recently pursuing a film that would cast her as a transgender man. After getting an earful on social media, that is no longer the case. “Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to discuss my consideration of an upcoming role as a transgender man, and I’d like to apologize for those remarks,” reads a written statement posted on the Academy Award winner’s Instagram story Monday evening. “As a cisgender woman, I now understand that I should not have considered this role, and that the transgender community should undeniably have the opportunity to tell their own stories.”
To figure out how we got here, we have to go all the way back to before all our pets hated the world: On July 3, Berry did an interview on Instagram with hairstylist Christin Brown in which she revealed she was in talks to play “a character where the woman is a trans character, so she’s a woman that transitioned into a man…. She’s a character in a project I love that I might be doing…. This woman is so interesting to me, and that will probably be my next project, and that will require me cutting all of my hair off.”
Over the next few days, Berry faced a lot of criticism for misgendering the character, in addition to backlash for considering the role in the first place. “I am grateful for the guidance and critical conversation over the past few days and I will continue to listen, educate and learn from this mistake,” Berry’s Instagram story statement continued on Monday. “I vow to be an ally in using my voice to promote better representation on-screen, both in front of and behind the camera.”
If you want to support LGBTQ youth, consider donating to GLSEN, which promotes anti-bullying initiatives and gay-straight alliances in schools nationwide, and The Trevor Project, which operates a confidential hotline staffed by trained counselors who provide crisis-intervention and suicide-prevention services.
172 Comments
OK so now we are taking film roles from women of color. AND OVER THE AGE OF 50. Disgusting.
This movement will eat everyone.
You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. True, the omelette is nowhere in sight, but I’m sure we’ll eventually #cancel our way into one.
Lol, fuck off.
Halle Berry will be perfectly fine and trans women of color over 50 exist. NO NEED TO YELL, 50 is not that old.
And she has Type 1 diabetes , ableist bastards!!!
Or a trans actor of color over 50 could have this part. Someone with less privilege than her.
Groveling to the mob for forgiveness.
Just this inbred incel’s daily tantrum, nothing to see here folks.
I hope you killed yourself
I’m sorry, but I disagree with this backlash. While it is definitely necessary for more representation for trans men in Hollywood, it is acting. It’s not like she’s playing another race. There should be no reason for Halle Berry to receive backlash for considering or even playing this role, at most the studio for not seeking out trans men as actors.
Part of the problem is that trans actors are already typecast, so when even the roles they’ve been pigeon-holed into get taken, there’s nothing left.You’re right in that it’s on studios to improve diversity, but that doesn’t mean cis actors shouldn’t get some side-eye for their complicity, especially when you’d need to live in a bubble to miss the conversation around it.
Part of the problem is that trans actors are already typecast, so when even the roles they’ve been pigeon-holed into get taken, there’s nothing left.Also it can’t be fun seeing that you can’t get a role, but you can represent a Fascinating Acting Challenge.
This is clearly the “maybe I can get an oscar” role, because of how hard it would be for her to play this, and how important the story is. But we can’t have someone tell their own story.
But how is only playing trans characters not pigeonholing them further? Shouldn’t they want to be cast for roles where gender isn’t the focus?
Also, the article above doesn’t involve the full quote I saw, but Halle misgenders the character a few times and even called him “it” which … yikes. She (Halle) seems willing to learn, which is great, but that kinda shows why she shouldn’t have been in consideration for the role in the first place.
I remember it was news that trans actors were in Spider-Man: Far From Home and Jessica Jones but, ideally, it would be nbd.
But wouldn’t only casting trans actors in trans roles be typecasting? Shouldn’t the goal be to cast trans actors in cis roles? Or to cast trans actors, but not make a point in the movie about the character being trans?
“It’s not like she’s playing another race.”
How do you possibly NOT see this as the *exact* same thing?
It hasn’t been cool to have white actors play black characters for decades (though it was disgusting well before it stopped becoming socially acceptable).If they want to show a character pre-transition, there’s a way to do that. In OITNB, Laverne Cox was confident she could play pre-transition Sophia but Jodie Foster took a look at the makeup and such and said nah. What they ended up doing was casting her musician twin brother for those parts of her backstory. Not every trans person has a cisgender twin, but you see how this could work.Trans actors only get opportunities by being cast in things where studios would otherwise go with someone better known. Nicole Maines had a degree of notoriety (for lack of a better word) before she went into acting. Alexis Arquette had a number of credits and kept working after transitioning.Unfortunately, casting directors generally look for cisgender people by default the same way they look for white people by default unless there’s some story reason or tokenism going on.
Have you seen the documentary Disclosure? Have you done ANY research looking into why trans actors don’t want cis actors playing their roles? There’s a danger in letting cis actors play trans characters, because then people watch those movies and think that being trans is just like putting on a dress. That these aren’t real people and that these are just “men in dresses trying to trick you”.
very misinformed, it’s not just about proper representation, it’s that it misinforms the public about trans people (like it truly is just dress up) and perpetuates violence against trans people by cis washing and erasing trans identity.
But you’s gotta admit, that Swordfish is da’ bomb!
Remember what Scarlett movie? Wasn’t it great? Oh it never got made? Exactly.I get it, more jobs for transgender in Hollywood but pick your battles. Decide which is the better choice – 1) a movie about transgenders that paints in a positive light, will teach America and those that are ignorant of their struggles in a way that only movies can that stars a non-transgender person because that is the only way the movie will be made or 2) no movie at all. Don’t pretend there is a third option. That option is movie gets made with transgender person as star. That movie isn’t seen by mainstream America because they go “who is in it? Never heard of them.” That is not how the economics work. That movie is an art house film that makes no money. Since no money will be made, that movie will not be made.
So sadly because of short term goal without long term view, this will join the dogpile of failed scripts with “remember that Halle Berry movie? Oh it never got made.”
Is playing gay characters while straight also an issue? Should Hanks apologize for Philadelphia? I totally get why Mickey Rooney shouldn’t have played Yunioshi, but portraying discriminated populations isn’t *just* about providing acting opportunities to the population in question; it also is about reminding the public at large that these discriminated populations exist, and a star is helpful to that.
But why not actually show the real discriminated populations if your goal is to showcase that they exist. Probably get some of the story right. You are a breath away from, “We don’t have a famous enough Asian actresses, let’s get Scarlett Johansson.”
What part of “that is not how the economics works”. Because of the economics, that is why white people keep getting cast in roles that should have been Asian. You have to recognize the barrier to overcome the barrier. I and others, are talking in terms of what gets the ball rolling. Your starting approach should be “how do I get the Make American Great Again crowd AND the Never Trumpers crowd want to see my movie about the hardship of a transgender person? Because that is usually the starting point for most studios on which films to make, mixed with heavy dose of “how can I get China, Russia, UK… etc. to show this.”If your perfect casting can’t overcome that hurdle, its a non-starter. Thus when introducing controversial social issues to people via fiction (and transgender is considered controversial in most of the US and the world), the default starting place is throw A-list names at the roles, because historically that has worked. Its mean, but simple math. How it should be has nothing to do with it. If we went with how it should be BLM wouldn’t need to exist, global warming would have been solved in the mid-80s and a host of other pipe dreams would have been achieved. I say take the realistic approach but whatever. Its clear that the community agrees with our, that the how it should be approach is the one to go with. Let me know how that goes.
Been there. Done that. Cis people have been playing trans characters in movies since 1975. Most often making trans people look like villains, monsters or prostitutes. In recent memory Dallas Buyers Club and The Danish Girl got a lot of more attention in the public consciousness.Pretending this is about money is myopic. A movie the size of this is going to make $20-$40 Mill on a good day no matter the stars. We aren’t talking about a summer blockbuster or an Avengers movie here. This is a niche drama coming out to try to snag some awards. This isn’t about getting the biggest audience possible.You want some names to help get funding, they can be literally any other person in the movie. That’s actually a common practice when introducing new lead actors like in Haywire or Boyhood. If your goal is to educate people unfamiliar with the trans experience, casting Halle would only do harm to that effort. Giving them a false perspective on how trans people looks and act.
By today’s standards, that Tom Hanks has yet to apologize for taking a job away from a gay man that should have got the role is the true crime. All the progress that movie helped for the AIDS and Gay movements reach mainstream status at the time is incidental because the conditions were not met correctly. The conditions matter most now. Got to dot those “i”s just so or its all for nothing.
Remarkably there is a third option — let’s call it The Crying Game option — where a virtually unknown androgynous cisgender actor is cast as a transgender character.
I think Mona Lisa is a thoughtful handling of the subject matter, but its still telling that the reason that casting made it through the studio was the fact the reveal of that character’s penis was the movies big plot twist.
Are you talking about The Crying Game or Mona Lisa Smiles? I’ve never scene Mona Lisa but didn’t know a trans character was in it. And I always had my theories about Julia Roberts. We all did. We all did…..
Sorry its late, i was referring to the Crying Game.
So you need to see someone’s privates to prove they are trans or cis?
My post was sloppy — I was referring to the Crying Game, not Mona Lisa — so let me be as clear as I can: I think the penis reveal scene is exploitative. I don’t believe that was the intention of the filmmaker, who was making a point about the self delusion of the character (played by Stephen Rea) seeing the reveal, though to my mind using the reveal that way is also problematic. But the fact is the movie was sold on its shocking twist — that the androgynous character (and love interest) played by Jaye Davidson has a penis, something Stephan Rea’s character, the protagonist, never suspected and is repulsed by. That bothers me, especially since the story is told from the perspective Rea’s character, a white cis man who comes to accept a gender fluid person and his own sexuality. It is not a bad film, but one of many where marginalized people are used to tell a story that is really about a white, “straight” person.
Yeah, that’s worse. That’s way worse. We don’t need to defend an old movie that goes out of it’s way to villainize trans people as horrible monsters looking to deceive innocent horny white guys. That movie sadly exists in several variations. Just going to walk away before this is a garbage fire.
Whatever, you engaged me. I couldn’t be more explicit about how exploitative the film is and understanding the filmmaker’s intent— which is also problematic— doesn’t make it one iota less so. In fact its more insidious because its bigotry that doesn’t recognize that its bigotry, given the sheen of well meaning prestige drama. It’s how one gets highly problematic films like The Green Book and The Help. That’s not an endorsement, its a recognition of a reoccurring trend.
Preach! Just watched it the other day and what a powerful movie! All four main characters, Forrest, Rhea, Jay and Miranda just slay it when it comes to their acting.
Alternatively, cast a trans actor in the lead and get an A-list actor in a supporting role.
Back then Hollywood wasn’t all about name and face recognition. They took more risks then. It’s a different ballgame now.
Bihhhhhhhh…… Like, what if the star was trans playing a trans character but the supporting cast was cis?? Can that not happen? If the actors were true allies, they’d be like, “Sign me up, ho!” Money made.
So what you’re saying is, only established actors should get work?Congratulations on identifying part of the problem, only to ignore the fact that it’s a problem.
Kingdom said – “I don’t see what she said is necessarily wrong.”In reference to J.K. Rowling on July 5th. This person sucks.
Source
They used “transgenders” as a noun right off the bat, so… yeah.
Didn’t say that. In short I said something is better then nothing. You had something – a movie to represent transgender problems, now you have nothing. Congrats on the victory.
Says the guy who has no problem defending TERFs…
wtf are you talking about? Who’s “you”?Are you buying into some culture wars bullshit here, or just trolling?
There was a third option. Scarlet was a producer on the film. It was her movie. She could have easily found a trans actor, cast him as the lead, write herself a nice cushy supporting role for her to play, and than get accolades as an ally supporting trans actors while also netting herself a potential Best Supporting Actress nomination.
“A” producer. Not “the” producer.
You said everything I came here to say much better than I could.
I know, right? this is what qualifies as victory to some self-styled progressives. Hey, there’s no movie at all now, but at least we can sit around feeling smug about ourselves.
“Hey, there’s no movie at all now, but at least we can sit around feeling smug about ourselves.”
Yeah, isn’t it incredible that people prefer actual representation to NOT representation. AMAZING, huh?
OK just for starters, don’t call trans people “transgenders”. It’s not an ethnicity.And btw there have already been movies along the line you describe – TransAmerica comes to mind, which had cis woman and famous criminal Felicity Huffman playing a trans woman – and while it was a well-done movie it wasn’t great then to have a cis person playing a trans person, and it certainly isn’t any better 15 years later.
So you can’t cast a transgender actor in a film about a transgender character because there are no transgender stars? How do you suppose actors become stars? By never being cast in anything?Here’s a hot tip: Google “transgender stars” and you will probably be surprised by the results, given that you obviously can’t think of any.
Exactly.
Same way woman, blacks, gay, lesbians, etc. have done it – one role at a time in whatever form it comes when the opportunity comes with each one building a bridge to the next with the occasional hit (financially or critically) providing the occasional leap forward. A-list stars like Denzel Washington and Will Smith didn’t happen by themselves. There is a legion of shoulders they stood on. (Sidney Poitier comes to mind as an example of those shoulders). Not saying its a good approach, just saying its one that does work and currently not much in alternative methods. The current dream (roles everywhere!, transgender cast as leads in 3 summer tentpole movies!, look its A-list transgender actor XYZ coming in now!) is currently a pipe dream up there with winning the lottery. Technically feasible but not really going to happen anytime soon. But like the lottery, play the game long enough mixed with luck, right place right time, and yes it can happen. I say play the game instead of waiting for someone to hand you the winning numbers.
Have you seen the documentary Disclosure? Have you done ANY research looking into why trans actors don’t want cis actors playing their roles? There’s a danger in letting cis actors play trans characters, because then people watch those movies and think that being trans is just like putting on a dress. That these aren’t real people and that these are just “men in dresses trying to trick you”.
.
You know what historically has does a great job at showing those that are ignorant a new perspective such as the one you indicated? Sometimes its a documentary but most of the time its a movie. Oh well. Any day now all the conditions will be met and such a movie with transgender leading person that achieves mainstream appeal that will open a bunch of eyes like say Philadelphia did (oh oops bad example because straight man in the role) is just around the corner. Lets just wait for that to happen first. Got to keep an eye the end game rather then waste time on victories in between.
You should watch Disclosure and educate yourself on the dangers of casting cis people in trans roles, and how it perpetuates real life violence.
It’s always taken for granted that you can take out the huge star and the movie still gets made. It never happens.
It’s precisely this kind of thinking that is the problem. Every time there has been a shift in society, especially towards diversity, there are people arguing that the transaction costs make the change inadvisable, while conveniently ignoring (or dismissing) the fact that without those costs, no change can ever occur, no matter how necessary.
One does not need to look that hard for examples. Prominently, prior to the (American) Civil War, abolitionists were told that because getting rid of slavery would effectively destroy the economy, it should be either retained or phased out very slowly. People argued again women’s suffrage, the end of segregation, including women and openly LGBTQ+ people in the military, against the ADA, etc. along parallel lines. And in show business, even today we are seeing arguments that the reason more Black or other actors of color aren’t given lead roles is because they won’t sell enough tickets – but try telling that to the people that made Black Panther or Crazy Rich Asians.
Yes, the transaction costs are real. A movie with a lesser-known trans actor in a lead role might not get made as easily as one with Halle Berry, but then again, it’s not like Halle Berry is a big enough draw to sell out theaters these days either. (Nothing against her as a person or actress, but let’s not kid ourselves.) As some here have suggested, there are plenty of ways to still sell tickets despite a lesser-known lead, including casting big-name actors in supporting roles. At a certain point, the transaction costs stop being a reason to not cast a diverse actor, and become merely an excuse. It is time (or rather, well past time) to start giving trans actors (not to mention other diverse actors of all stripes) more opportunities, so that we can reach a point where there are enough big names that casting them won’t hurt the film at all (and might actually help it). Change rarely comes without cost, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary, or that the cost is a valid reason to not make it.
And if you wanted to be cynical about it, you could feature those name actors prominently in the marketing. It’s not like movies don’t do that all the time, embellishing the involvement of stars who actually have smaller roles.
Your shining examples happened in 2018 and 2019. You made my argument for me. Your best examples happened just yesterday and you expect the fledgling trans rights movement (relative to equal rights, black rights, woman’s rights, and gay rights) to reach the same parity in Hollywood asap? All those other movements should say “hold my beer” and give your movement a history lesson because clearly you have not been paying attention on just how long and slow a struggle it is to reach a point of mainstream America to actually agree and support such ideas so that the money makers go “ok lets do this.”We don’t disagree on the goal, we just disagree on how to get to the goal (sad how people are no longer capable of making that distinction). I think anything is better then the big old nothing that was “achieved” today. To me, anything that open eyes to the message of making transgender mainstream (and thus more accepted) is a good thing, regardless of how or who delivers that message. Clearly the LGBTQ+ community disagrees and feels that progress should only be made when certain conditions are met. So be it. History since humans crawled from the ocean says that approach doesn’t work but hey maybe this will be the exception. I will do my part to support those seeking power that actually do not want to harm transgenders (by my logic, a small something that is better than nothing). I suspect many here and elsewhere will apply the same logic of movie casting to voting – with a dream of how it “should be”, a purity test, to then decide the candidate isn’t saying and doing the right things, lament about all the mythical 3rd option possibilities and not vote accordingly thus ensure that in many areas the one that will cause harm (like say with bathroom bills) will continue to get or hold power (aka certain conditions not met so better to have nothing then something).To me that line of thinking is the true transaction cost and why social change is a constant 1 step forward, 2 steps back that results in change taking decades rather then years.
You seem be inventing things. You do realize that “examples” are, by nature, not necessarily comprehensive, right? I should think it’s obvious that Black Panther was not the first movie to demonstrate that Black actors can sell tickets as leads in major films – just ask Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor (and Sidney Poitier, among others). Hell, the three Rush Hour films did pretty well with Black and Chinese co-leads. And besides, you’re offering the lack of attempts as proof that something was impossible – just because they weren’t handing out lead roles to actors of color in the 1940s doesn’t mean they couldn’t have done well. Try making a film today with a prominent supporting cast, a known director, a legitimate marketing campaign, and a trans lead(s), and then see how it does. Until then, your entire argument is based on conjecture without an iota of evidence.
And in the meantime, saying that people should happy or satisfied with mere scraps of diversity misses the point. In the 20s, Al Jolson putting on blackface in The Jazz Singer was perceived (by the white audience) as diversity, but do you really think Black people should be happy about that?Because this is, for lack of a better term, “transface.” Even as it may have arguably showed elements of Black culture (albeit indirectly), it also entrenched minstrelsy and stereotypes that haunt us to this day. As a cishet guy, I cannot speak for any part of the LGBTQ+ community, but I believe that – along with the loss of opportunities for real representation – is why cis actors playing trans parts are objectionable.
Clearly the LGBTQ+ community disagrees and feels that progress should only be made when certain conditions are met. So be it. History since humans crawled from the ocean says that approach doesn’t work but hey maybe this will be the exception. I would say that this needs a citation or ten, but it doesn’t even really make any sense. In what way does setting conditions to meet restrict progress? Does that somehow cover women’s suffrage, for example? Women voted in elections illegally, with the condition that they set being the legalization of voting for women. That was a longer process than the system just being like “OK, sure, you got it,” but how could they have achieved anything without setting “certain conditions” first?
It seems like you’re trying to say that all progress is made piecemeal, and if so you’re doing so very poorly, and also very wrongly. A lot of types of progress has been made over the course of decades or more, but sometimes entire systems are overthrown and replaced with another, and I’d like to refer you back to your meager reference of “Since humans crawled from the ocean [sic]” as to when that all happened.
If in five years we even have movies, it’s not impossible that we could have a handful of trans actors with enough name power to play a trans character in a movie that makes money. Since we already have decades of cis actors playing trans characters in media, it seems like maybe we already did the step you’re insisting we take now. Why you think we’d be moving further along the path by continuing the same habits Hollywood has had for decades is beyond me. Do you really think there’d be no Bruce Lee if not for Mickey Rooney?
Your right, I am being clunky about progress being piecemeal, but it usually is. Especially social change. Other then changing systems of government which tends to be violent and sudden, actual social change has always been slow and piecemeal. It has to be pushed forward, the more consistently, the faster the change occurs. Which is why America changes so slowly because we are awful at consistency. Also think one of us is confusing conditions and goal. To me the goal is transgender being in more central story roles with victory being leading actor roles (with the real overarching goal being transgender getting accepted by the mainstream). The condition that have been set to achieve that goal is to jump straight to transgender actors in leading roles (aka the goal and condition has become one and the same). I think any role is a step forward, any story regardless of cast about transgender issues is a step forward to the goal. Yep piecemeal but still progress. Any case your viewpoint has clearly won the day.
It’s crazy, its like show business is an actual business, and producers aren’t interested in spending 15-30 million dollars on a drama with a bunch of no name actors, instead of the A-list Oscar winning actress, seems like a solid investment.
Keep eating your own guys, and like Kingdom stated above look forward to this movie never getting made either.
I don’t need Halle pretending to represent me in an other “Don’t trans people have it super hard. Isn’t their life miserable” movie. I’d rather this movie not get made.
Give me a trans-lead action movie. or a trans-lead romantic comedy. Give me a movie that’s not about my suffering.
Of course there’s a third option. There’s even a fourth!The third option is that Johansen takes a different role in the movie, and use her producer position and huge amount of Hollywood clout to get the movie made and help the career of a trans actor.The fourth option is that we advocate for a more inclusive industry where trans actors play trans characters, and not just in stories that focus on their trans status. And part of that advocacy is yes, calling out how damaging it can be for cis actors to play trans men and women.
Do you… do you think the trans actor would be the only person in the movie? Why couldn’t the supporting cast be big names for box office draw? There’s your third option right there. That was some lazyass thinking you just did.
Wouldn’t it be cool if there was somebody in Hollywood whose job was to drum up public interest in films and “publicize” new talent?
“That option is movie gets made with transgender person as star. “It can be made if you stack the rest of the cast with name actors. A movie featuring a transgender actor does not need to make Avatar money to be a success. This is disingenous
Yes, in a perfect world anyone could play anyone. In the world we’re in, trans performers barely get their foot in the door so I understand the frustration.
Feel the same way about the current push to only have black animated characters voiced by black actors. What will this mean? Will a ton more black actors get work or will the mostly white creators simply stop creating black characters? We already know the answer. Black characters will go away. The sentiment behind this move may be genuine, but the end result will be catastrophic. Only those people who “are” what the character is in terms of gender, identity, (dis)ability, on and on and on will be able to be cast, so guess what stories will be told? Again, I understand the sentiment, but this isn’t the answer to the systemic problems faced by our society.
“We already know the answer.”No you fucking don’t idiot.
For all those that disagree with me that some progress is better then no progress, it is very telling that best I can tell it occurred to no one another actually feasible option. An A-list star in the lead transgender role with a supporting cast of transgender actors. That method has worked for quite a long time to create future A-listers. Oh well. That ship has sailed for the foreseeable future.
I’m not going to portray any black brown people. Doesn’t anyone want to interview me? Todd over here…not voicing any women. Hello?! Also not trying to pretend to be trans! Ah you people SUCK!
Sir, this is a Yogurtland.
Nice!
You’re easily impressed. I like that.
I heard Clint Eastwood wasn’t really a gunslinging cowboy! Its like he was told to act like that for dramatic effect. Why didn’t the MSM cover this?
This makes no sense. It’s a woman who transitioned into a man. Who else is going to play the former role if not an actor who’s biologically female?Anyway, the online woke left is an emperor with no clothes. One day a role like this is going to land in front of an actor and producer who won’t fold at the first sign of backlash. And if the resulting film is successful, we’ll be looking back at this as Halle Berry missing an opportunity.
Or they could cast trans actors to play trans people…
It’s a woman who transitioned into a man. Who do you cast as the character pre-transition?
I’m personally unsure, but one example of what you described happened in Orange is the New Black during season one. For the flashbacks, they had Laverne Cox’s twin brother play her character before she transitioned. Granted that’s a specific example but it shows there’s a way to do this without erasing trans people from the equation altogether
I never got around to watching that show, but if I get what you’re saying, the equivalent of that would be casting Halle Berry as the character pre-transition and a similar-looking trans-man as the character post-transition. Which is obviously not what happened here.
And they actually had no idea Cox had a twin when they cast her, and couldn’t believe their luck.
But trans people are trans even before they transition, so you’re still asking a cis man (in your OITNB example) to play a trans woman. And potentially restricting a lot of trans roles to actors who have cis gendered siblings who also act. Not to mention implicitly encouraging casting directors to look at trans people only for specifically trans characters — if the argument is that you need to be trans to understand trans, that goes both ways.Personally, I feel like the focus should be on more blind casting, particularly for supporting roles. Maybe even going as far as some sort of quota system. There are always going to be limited trans-specific roles, but there are plenty where biology is not a factor. Give trans actors more opportunities to act, and worry a little less about who’s playing make believe as who.
Yeah I admit it’s not a idea and I’m cis so I shouldn’t be the one making the call on how this should be handled. If anything it should be the trans actor’s call. Blind casting is certainly a suggestion though.
“Quota system” You’re a fucking idiot.
“I’m personally unsure“So you just like bitching? Does it make you feel like a brave hero ?
Loved that show and character — and I guess they were lucky Laverne Cox had a twin brother. I honestly thought they just done a fantastic makeup job! I guess we cannot expect only trans people with twins like Laverne Cox to get roles, though.
This hypothetical character (I’m not sure if it’s based on a real person or not) was never a woman, though, just because he was assigned female at birth. An actor might be willing to temporarily play their pre-transition self for the sake of *acting*, or you could use flashbacks to a younger self of the assigned gender (Sense8 did this briefly). There are plenty of great ways to tell stories that don’t involve misgendering people.
You don’t know for a fact that they didn’t identify as female at some point before transitioning. In fact, if someone transitioned in their 50s – Berry is 53 – chances are they did spent many years identifying with their biological sex.
I’m baffled by this question. They could hire Halle Berry and use hair and makeup effects to make her look like a trans man.They could hire a trans actor and use hair and makeup effects to make them look like they haven’t transitioned. There are plenty of alternatives, but the most obvious option is to do exactly what they were originally planning.
Not baffled enough to check out the rest of the thread before you replied, though.
What percent of the acting community would that be? And what percent that has star name recognition value?
To paraphrase rogueIndy:Are you implying that only established actors should get work?
Or you could shut the fuck up but there’s little to no possibility of that happening.
Have you seen the documentary Disclosure? Have you done ANY research looking into why trans actors don’t want cis actors playing their roles? There’s a danger in letting cis actors play trans characters, because then people watch those movies and think that being trans is just like putting on a dress. That these aren’t real people and that these are just “men in dresses trying to trick you”.
“But then people will think” arguments are generally dumb, and this one’s no better. If you know what trans-people are, that right there is all the moral panic fuel you need. Who the hell waits on Hollywood casting decisions to finally become a transphobe?
Because that’s not what the argument is. Your portrayal of it there is wrong. Watch Disclosure before you spew more ignorance
If you can find the time to be a prick but not to summarize your argument, I’ll just assume you don’t have one and go on with my life. If you don’t owe me an explanation, I don’t owe you 100 of my minutes.Not that I even accept the notion that I misrepresented what you said.
Or you could shut the fuck up, but I doubt that will ever happen. The only one who’s ignorant here is you.
This argument that we can’t have trans actors playing trans characters because they wouldn’t be able to play their own character before transitioning also belies the fact people think the only reason its worth making a film about a trans person is to show their inspirational journey of gender affirmation. It’s bullshit. A film about any subject can and should have trans leads, and just have it be a fact of life. The story doesn’t have to start before the character transitions, but even if does it might surprise you to learn movies have been casting different actors as younger versions of characters for years now. Not every movie is filmed like Boyhood.
No reason not to cast Halle Berry for the pre-transition scenes, then. I already went over this with Laserface1242.
I mean I guess? My point is there’s no reason for the story to be about that. Would probably be a bolder and more interesting move to only feature an established middle aged female actor in flashbacks while an even older trans actor carries the bulk of the film though sure.
No, but realistically, do you not expect the film to be about that? From your first reply, it seems to me that you made the same assumption as I did about what kind of film this would be.
I think you misunderstand. I know the broad strokes of the planned film dealt with transition, and that halle Berry would be playing the character throughout different stages of that. My point was that a film starring a transgender character needn’t be about that stage of their life, because it reduces that person to their transition, and believe it or not its not the most interesting part of most trans people’s lives. Why would I expect the film to be about that? I have friends at different stages of transition, it rarely comes up and frankly isn’t that interesting compared to the things we have in common. Not every story of a trans person has to be an inspirational biopic, especially a fictional one.
Well, call me cynical, but my expectation is that Hollywood has its templates for films about Very Important Social Issues and that it takes several repetitions before they feel safe deviating from them, if they even bother. (Which is not to say that nothing of value can come from a template.) Do you agree or disagree that this is how the industry operates?
So Halle would need make up to show the different stages of transition for the role. So a trans person could also use make up to show their progress for different stages of the transition. It’s a crazy idea, I know.
And at one point you switch actors. You’d think I implied something about there being 2 roles, right?
Or we could hire trans actors. Because apparently trans stories are worth telling, but not worth trans people telling them. Maybe some day a producer will stand up for trans voices and not fold at the sight of a suitcase of money and not cower behind a big famous name.
I don’t know why you’d put all your hopes on Hollywood to cease functioning as a business, but I suppose I can’t stop you.
Who says I’m not business minded? Trans actor would be cheaper than hiring Halle or another big name. Especially when making a drama like this. The name is like most of your budget. Then you can leverage this story and the good will you’ve earned in awards season to build buzz and sell tickets/VOD. This movie was never going to get a wide release anyways. Will probably earn somewhere in the $20-$40 million range no matter who is in it. Save the budget and get a more appropriate actor. Profit.
Big name actors are how studios try to draw crowds. It very much does matter who’s in it. Every year there are literally hundreds of films out there starring relative nobodies that you haven’t heard of.Also, you went from expecting studios not to “fold at the sight of a suitcase of money” to now arguing that your way is more profitable. Having it both ways? If all you care about is winning the argument, let’s just cut straight to the inevitable ending, where you claim you’ve vanquished me and I move on to doing something more interesting.
Sounds like a good plan to me. Look, you got me on topics I’m pretty knowledgeable on. I’m trans. I work in marketing. I absorb box office numbers every weekend. There is no reason to not cast a trans person as a trans person. I’ll admit my debate skills can be squirrely. But you can have ethics and money. Want stars? There is the entire rest of the cast to fill out.
Want marketing? Leverage the story of the movie and the cast. Having co-stars supporting a trans star, that’s like PR gold. Cast Halle as a co-star and having her do the press tour, talking about what she learned, priceless. But honestly movies of this size don’t make a lot of money. You are going to need as much free press as you can. Hire a trans person.
Someone like Berry or Scarjo is one hundred percent taking points, rather than a lump sum.If they make 10% of the $20m, that’s likely quite a bit more than you’d pay a no-name trans actor…but that movie only makes $5m without Berry’s name.
There are countless examples of movies with no name stars in the leads and they come in and crush it financially. Parasite. 1917. Star Wars. Halloween. El Mariachi. Seriously, it’s an infinite list. You don’t need them.
But if you feel you need Halle to get funding to start production, she does not have to play the trans person. She can play anyone else. Hire a trans person to play the trans part.
Fair!I do think that quite a few of these are middling vanity projects, which will only get made, and sell tickets, because a cis star wants to play a trans person, to stretch their acting muscles.Are those types of movies helpful or hurtful to the cause?Way above my paygrade.
I get the impulse to want to be someone else. Take the challenge. But honestly. It’s not helpful. I’d rather they not make a movie than have a cis star play a trans person. The most well meaning of those movies tell the same story. How hard and degrading it is to be trans. These dramas dont really show trans people as people. They show trans people as like a parade of misery, sex and the actor’s attempt to show their range. It’s very reductive. Basically making it as if every movie with a black lead is about slavery. Or that every Italian actor could only tell the story of mobsters. Trans actors could provide insight like “just because I’m a trans woman doesnt mean that I must only wear skirts at all times.” “Sometimes it’s amazing and thrilling to make a small amount of progress.”
This is a totally fair, and both morally and intellectually consistent, stance!
“Online woke left?” JFCYou’re not worth finding the gif, so just imagine Michael Keaton beating off.
Yes, the woke online left. If the sock fits, wear it.
LOL. You dumb kids and your bogeymen.
I’m not the one who wanted to reply with a gif.
Are you scared of those too?
Were you in some sort of rush, Masturbation Gif Guy, or was that genuinely the best you could come up with?
Do you really think your goofy comments deserve any effort?
I think the time to tell me I wasn’t worth the effort was 3 comments ago. Clearly you can bothered to insult me; you’re not failing to land punches out of a lack of effort, you genuinely suck at it. You can’t argue and you can’t provoke, but you can’t let go either.
Thanks for the verbal ambien.
See? There’s nothing I can post that your lizard brain won’t reply to.
k
Not enough people talk about the roles Ian McKellen has stolen from straight men, over the years!
Great, and then you yourselves screw up by including two non-transgender agencies that have had a history of focusing on cisgender white gay priorities. Both have undermined local LGBTQ growth by providing services that complete with local agencies and Trevor Project at one point had an all white cisgender board and was founded by Trevors mom. Stay in your lane and create an org that help parents be more accepting. Let actual LGBTQ folk run their own programs. It’s the same damn message you all are mocking Berry for. Consistency! Remember that?
*JK Rowling angrily unfollows Halle Berry*
Another day another snarky, mean spirited opinion piece from Gomez. You present your opinions as fact but I dare say you are doing more harm than good to your agenda. Perhaps you should consider the positives in having A-listers (a black academy award winning woman and the biggest female star on the planet) wanting to tell stories like these, rather than shaming them for it.I remember when this site used to report on entertainment. Now more time is spent trying to de-platform your biggest advocates. Shame.
It’s called ACTING:
Have you seen the documentary Disclosure?
Everyone needs to watch it, it just shuts down all these arguments, I don’t think people grasp how much of our reality is shaped by our media consumption.
And yet, you are telling people to consume a piece of media to shape their reality.
lol it doesn’t have to be negative, we’ve always learned from stories, that’s the reality of our reality. watch the documentary.
I have watched the documentary. That is irrelevant. You just implicitly admitted that your reality is shaped by this piece of media, but that it’s okay because according to you, it isn’t “negative”, whatever that means. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
it’s unavoidable how media shapes us, so I guess by educating yourself, you’re asking the media to do better for the people it represents. the documentary points to the deep trauma trans people face when they are erased by a cis actor and how that perpetuates violence, it’s easy to say it’s “just acting” like the previous poster said, when that’s just gaslighting how much deeper actors inform society on how they treat trans people.
How is “educating yourself” asking media to do better? And how is saying it is “just acting” gaslighting?
by actually listening to trans people, and asking their perspective on how the media informs the audience, then people will more likely protest the casting of cis people in trans role. It gaslights it by dismissing how powerful portrayals on the screen actually are, and dismisses the trauma trans people have to endure when they watch these performances because it reduces their experience to “dress up”.
What evidence do you have to support your statement that “actually listening to trans people… people will more likely protest the casting of cis people in trans role”? Is it your own personal feeling? Have their been studies? You are assuming that the majority of people share the same opinions that you do and are relying on a piece of media (or propaganda as you called it in so many words) to shape the public narrative rather than elucidating a logical, empirical point yourself.And that isn’t gaslighting. That is stating a fact. It is literally acting, regardless of whether the actor is cis or trans. It isn’t covert, it isn’t psychological manipulation designed to make a person question their sanity. Someone said that it was acting and made no moral judgement on whether it was right or wrong. THAT IS NOT GASLIGHTING.I am not anti-trans in any way, I just think you are spouting a bunch of rhetorical nonsense to make your point.
It is covert though, honestly the reliance on empirical evidence is really futile in this sense, you can’t measure peoples trauma or pain, but you can continuously listen to the experience of the people who are being effected by something that they feel perpetuates violence against them. And ok, let’s say it’s not some propaganda machine(which it is lol), the trans community largely feels hurt and dismissed when a cis person plays them in a film. So just listen to their struggle and if this is one way that can reduce that pain then do it, it’s not a huge ask.
Okay. Never mind. You are clearly not understanding what I am saying. Have a nice day.
Okay, have fun finding your statistics and studies instead of just listening to what trans people have to say on the matter 🙂
We’re getting an idea of how much of it is shaped by propaganda and conditioning.
Apparently no one can have opinions if they didn’t watch some stupid movie where one or two people pretend their opinions represent all trans people
I dunno…it’s pretty clear that McKellen should only ever be allowed to play gay men.#Progress
Well, all this does in ensure this movie will never get made. Nice work, everyone.Not every battle is a frontal assault. Take the “white savior” narrative.Harrison Ford got the Jackie Robinson biopic made. That character is pure white savior on screen – to be fair, he was a fairly decent dude in real life.But Chadwick Boseman got the role and parlayed it into headlining one of the highest grossing films ever. Now he is a starUse Halle or Scarlett to get the film made ahd go from there.
And now that movie is very likely never going to get made. And if, will have a much smaller impact than it would have had with an Oscar winner in the leading role.
If the project is so important to her why can’t she take a supporting role?
Because it won’t be worth the studio investment, without “Oscar Winner Halle Berry” as the star.
It would work if Halle put her star power to work and got other celebs to play along. I think you underestimate Hollywood’s need to be seen as progressive.
Considering how many movies have a “with ___” or “and ____” credit so they can put a famous person who is only in the movie for a few minutes on the movie poster/cover, she could still lend it some clout in a supporting role. And if she is really passionate about it, she could be a producer which would increase attention and could draw in other famous performers or investing producers.
The sooner we can do everything in CGI animation the better, ideally with synthesised voices. I mean it’ll put every actor out of a job , but at this point it’d be less problematic .
WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO OPPRESS 2D ANIMATION?!!!!
In the Korean series ‘My Mister’ (now on Netflix) there’s actually a quite moving scene where a failed actress drunkenly dreams of the day when AI takes over everything, then there’s be no reason for one person to be jealous of the accomplishments of another because we’ll all be in the same boat.
As a disability rights professional, I’m just waiting for the day when people start reacting this way to non-disabled actors playing disabled roles. Sure, there are necessary exceptions – there’s no way for a blind actor to actually play Daredevil, since his superpowers kind of render his blindness moot – but since it’s not like an actor who uses a wheelchair is going to be cast as Walter White or the Joker (anytime soon, at least – I’m all for reimagining roles, but I know we’re not there yet), maybe they should rethink casting Bryan Cranston or Joaquin Phoenix in disabled roles.
Can Danny DeVito still be the crippled gay guy who climbed Mt. Whitney?
I don’t understand the double standard with transgender roles and gay roles. For example, why do Cameron Monaghan and Noel Fisher from Shamelmess (Ian & Mickey), and most recently Michael Cimino from Love, Victor (Victor) all get a pass when playing gay characters even though they are self admitted straight men? If it’s fictional characters vs. non fictional, then is a cisgender person given the green light to portray a fictional transgender character? If not, then what about Sean Penn playing Harvey Milk? Or Tom Hanks in Philadelphia?
eyeroll
How sadly ironic that the radicals have taken a job away from a black woman. Eventually they’ll demand only straight white males can play straight white male roles, then all of Hollywood will implode. The radicals don’t seem to understand the concept that ‘acting’ is the art of pretending you’re someone you’re not.
go away
Shit, I was really hoping we’d get another “Catwoman” movie out of this. Either way, another agent bites the dust.
The real victory will be when transgender actors can play ANY character, not just trans characters. I love Pose, for example – any of the women on that show could play any female character – they are quite talented, yet if not for that show, they wouldn’t have jobs. That, to me, is the real crime. Stop typecasting them and allow them to be considered for any role (as applicable to their gender).
what about all the actors playing characters with different life experiences than their own? mark hamill wasn’t even really born on tattooine. #cancelhamill