Ms Boylan has the issue completely backwards. A trans person cast as a trans person should not be the goal.
When a trans man or woman is cast as a "cis" man or woman without regard to their biological sex, that will be the victory.
41
To all those screaming; "Its acting...!" Duh. Yeah, we get that...but look a little deeper. What's the goal of story telling? Making money? Or presenting an authentic story, with credible characters?
Look at all the movies the last decade with "stars," and how so many tanked. Because all that mattered was having stars to attract audiences, but then both the story, and their performances were not worth the ticket prices.
So why doesnt Hollywood take the gamble and find a trans actor to play this role? Money! They know that most movie-goers are gullible, who are attracted to the sugar, more then the authentic story telling.
Look at the all-female Oceans 8 movie? Does anyone believe those "stars" (Awkwafina excluded) are those characters? Its a popularity line-up, made for the box-office. Made to bring the ants out to the sugar. Bleech!
Authenticity is severely lacking in Hollywood right now. Its been stamped out by money and celebrity worship.
No way am I buying that Ms.Johansson was born a male. There is nothing about her, no acting trick she might pull,that would ever grant her that sort of authenticity. I know several trans people, and there is something inherent about them and their inner struggles that is deeply compelling and incredibly nuanced. And until we see more trans actors - playing both sides - those aspects are not available to us, or the acting industry.
Give in to authenticity Hollywood, and not the box-office greed.
5
I could do without any movies of transpeople’s lives, don’t care who would have been cast. If you’re trans, it’s probably nice to see someone like yourself in the movies. As a 57 y.o. cisgender female, I never will, because who wants to look at old people? So back to Scarlett J. That’s who people will pay to look at, and that’s why they’ll cast her. Most people don’t identify as trans, but they’ll pay to look at a pretty girl no matter what flimsy plot wrapper they put around it.
14
I agree with the sentiment, and have been disappointed with casting blunders in film and theater that I have been sensitive to. British actress Susan Brown's widely applauded performance as Ethel Rosenberg in the recent production of Angels in America, was disruptive to my ears because I occasionally thought I was hearing a Scottish inflection instead of a Yiddish one. However, I wouldn't dream of comparing it to the Mickey Rooney blunder.
Perhaps the sensitivity here has to do with the way in which trans people's circumstances are different from other marginalized groups. While trans people explain that they are transforming their outward appearance to conform with their true inner self, actors do something similar, and we call that impersonation. Trans people do not want to be called impersonators, as their identity is now, or has always been, in line with how they appear now. However, that certainty has recently made accommodations to the appropriate sensitivity of cis-gender women, so male to female trans women who once called themselves "women" now to call themselves "trans women."
It gets complicated, and for me the complication is my affection for the actress Scarlett Johansson.
I would like to know how you "judge" the casting of Jaye Davidson as Gil in the 1992 movie "The Crying Game." Jaye, a gay male actor, who says he never "did drag" was cast as a trans woman. Does Jaye's identity as a gay man make the casting more acceptable?
7
This is nonsense. How about the consideration that maybe no transgendered actor has Ms. Johansson's acting abilities to hit whatever her character's feelings are supposed to hit? Transgendered actors may 'feel' it, but can they bring it over as can this talented actress?
We are now in an age that will never be able to see an Olivier or Richardson act Othello, since the role must now be acted only by a black actor. That is fine, but only when
you have a Paul Robeson or William Marshall or James Earl Jones to do it. But Mark Rylance can never do it?
And since we have been mostly without black dramatic tenors to sing Verdi's operatic interpretation of the role, the Met has decided that tenors singing it must now do so
in "whiteface' rather than in 'blackface', a term that was never intended for white actors playing Othello, but for crude minstrelsy. Since almost everything in the play and opera hinges on Othello's blackness and his feelings about it, is it not totally moronic to play him as a white man? And if a really solid black dramatic tenor comes along, shall we no longer hire the Domingos and Del Monacos of the world?
In a biography of Chinese-American actress Anna May Wong, the author lamented the 'racism' that cost her the role of O-lan in THE GOOD EARTH, totally disregarding that Wong was a fifth-rate actress, and the one chosen for the role, Luise Rainer, gave arguably the greatest female performance in all of 1930s Hollywood Golden Age, winning the Oscar for it.
28
I really don't know what to think after reading your piece. I'm a gay man and I never really gave any credence to Hollywood or Broadway when the show involves people like us. Wheather gay, trans or whatever label you want to put on a person, it is, no pun, an act. Acting is fakery and actors fake the lives and stories of others. I'm not saying that acting is not art; it is. I'm not saying it is easy; it's really, really hard. But entertainment bosses want to make a splash and a headline and a huge bottom line for their productions. Reality and fairness never enters into the equation.
What we should demand from the entertainment industry is to stop being bigoted and afraid of people who aren't straight, Anglo-Saxon white people acting like something the industry is clueless to. Demand equality and demand perfection. Our our history and future depend on it.
4
But that is why they call it acting. And the extreme rabbit hole Ms Boylan would lead us down would have every actor need to pass an endless identity check list to see it they qualify for a role. Could someone from the south play a Bostonian faking their annoying accent? Where will the next Star Wars movie find aliens, frozen at Area 51.
29
This kind of thinking is part of the reason Trump won and still finds people who support him. If Dems want to win back what they lost they better stop whining and pushing their radical far left social positions. Move to the moderate center Dems and win again...
46
This is what Nam or Iraq or Afghanistan vets and have someone who never left the States tell us what war is like. My shoes, my mile. Don't pretend you've worn them.
4
The irreconciliable contradictions of gender fiction: real sex is replaced by mental gender, and gender is fluid, so you can 'fit" anywhere on a spectrum. But then "don't play a trans man" because you don't fit because the gatekeepers of the fiction have suddenly decided that you are not a "real" trans person (as if there was any such real thing in the first place, compared to real sex that has been subverted in the name of gender).
24
You ought to do X because that will make the world a more perfect place (by my standards). Trans actors do not get enough jobs. Hence, you are morally required to turn down this job because that will help to even things out.
The thing is, nobody has a right to become rich and famous. Success in the acting world depends on whom the public wants to see. If it is unfair that trans actors are not as much in demand as other actors, it is also unfair that obese actors, or ugly actors, are in relatively low demand. But this is the sense of "fair" in which everybody, or everybody equally qualified by some standard, enjoys the same outcome, and life isn't fair. Those things are not injustices or abrogations of anybody's rights; they're just facts about people's tastes. And they do not imply a correlative duty on the part of any individual to even things out and make the world more perfect.
28
Joanna, you are overlooking that the title of THIS movie - Rub and Tug - is what I am protesting.
I refuse to advocate for the right of a trans person to play a role in a movie with a disgusting title that only reinforces horrible misconceptions of trans people. What does a prurient movie name like Rub and Tug tell prejudiced people? It tells them they were right to be prejudiced in the first place! Yes, it's only the title, and maybe the script is awe-inspiring, but the title is the only part of this movie that millions of people will ever see. Is THIS the name of the film you want people to go to the mattresses for, really?
Come on.
My own feeling is that if one of the most famous and talented actors in the world, like Swank or Johansson, wants to play a role that will bring attention and shine a light on inequality for any discriminated group of people-we should be excited about that - AND I also believe that the same movie has a responsibility to introduce co-leads - new or under-employed trans actors trying to break into the business. That way you have fame, experience, a big budget and a major audience draw to cast the message far and wide AND you also help to normalize trans actors in casting and help them gain experience and popularity so that they become future draws for audiences. It's more popular these days to fight for one or the other - but I lobby for both.
13
Why no similar outrage against a male actor who played a trans woman in the DANISH GIRL? Sexism masquerading as progressive politics?
16
I guess Rock Hudson should have only played gay characters?
29
I guess you believe that Holly Woodlawn should never have starred in 'Trash'?
3
It's a movie.
If you'd like, you can audition to play a woman in someone else's movie.
If black people only can play Alexander Hamilton and his associates on Broadway, and if white singers are no longer allowed to sing what we used to call Negro spirituals, and if only certain people are allowed to write about certain kinds of people, we are lost.
Conservative America is watching us eat one another. And laughing as they win political office after political office.
42
Woe to Hollywood and Broadway if gay men would no longer be allowed to play straight men.
30
OK, I give up.
What’s a “cisgender”?
19
The writer of this piece seems not to understand the concept of "actor".
21
What about Hamilton? I guess that’s fine because white people get pushed out of roles?
23
But Lin Manuel Miranda can play a white man?
23
What does cisgender mean? Thanks.
17
Jim Parsons plays a hetero male. Is that OK?
Same answer for Ms. Johansson.
20
Liam Neeson is Irish. He played an ethnic German, Oskar Schindler. I am shocked at such blatant miscasting, shocked I tell you. Next thing you'll tell me is that there is gambling at Rick's .
37
Gay actors play straight people. All the time. What's next, only a hunchback can play Richard III or Quasimodo? That's why they call it "acting".
23
Anybody can play any role they want. HWood did not get a cannibal to play Hannibal Lector, nor mass murderers to play Hitler. And Britain did not get an English woman to play Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger). All that matters is the skill and desire to play that part. And get it right.
21
Careful what you crusade for, Jenn. If Scarlett shouldn't be cast as trans gender because she can't "know" transgenderism, then trans gender actors need not bother to try to land roles as cis genders. Get the point?
38
Aaaaaaargh!
Doesn't anyone have real problems to worry about any more?
31
Wow, just wow! How many LQBTQ actors have played straight roles? How many times have Japanese roles been filled by Koreans, or even Chinese? Mel Brooks played a Yiddish speaking Indian in Blazing Saddles. Eli Wallach, a Caucasian Jew played a Mexican in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Did the world boycott Priscilla Queen of the desert? Was there a Terence Stamp recall? No need to go on, the list is endless. Stop it with the fake outrage. It's art and it's what actors do.....act.
25
What a joke. I suppose Daniel Day-Lewis shouldn't have been allowed to play an American, a gay man or a sufferer of cerebral palsy, as he is none of those and couldn't possibly understand what it is to be one. Who green lights these articles?
34
Make the movie you want to make. Go see the movie you want to see. Protest. But the ease with which some tell artists what they should or must do sounds like Stalinist Soviet Union.
20
Oh no! "That woman... is a WOMAN!" (Shakespeare in Love) But here come the men who think they are women to complain when a woman gets a role they think they should own. Misogyny at its most twisted.
25
And how dare Andy Serkis play a monkey! Anyone can see that Andy Serkis isn't really a monkey.
15
I hope Boylan's outrage is equally triggered by the denial to white Anglo men of their rightful roles in "Hamilton." And that's not to mention the awful cultural appropriation of white American cultural perpetrated by that work.
19
Isn't the reason that Rooney's character is offensive that it's a terrible, ignorant racist caricature, not that it was played by a white dude? I mean, the name isn't even a real Japanese name.
Would it have been less cringeworthy if they had got a Japanese person to play the ignorant racist caricature instead? I really don't think so.
12
Oh great, now we have to find an actual alien flying man to play Superman.
28
If a gay man can play a straight one, or a Latino man can play Alexander Hamilton, this is a conversation not worth having. Sorry.
26
Oh, the horror of someone playing something they're not. What's next, a Hispanic man playing Alexander Hamilton? A black man playing a historically white comic book character? A gay man playing a straight man on a hit tv comedy? A dude playing a dude disguised as another dude? When will Hollywood stop trying make us believe in things that aren't exactly as they are? It's almost like we're supposed to suspend our disbelief or something!
Outrage!
22
I have two words for Ms. Boylan: Rock Hudson.
For his whole career, this gay man played the straight, often romantic, lead in movies & on TV, while almost everyone around him knew his true sexual orientation. Studio publicists even set him up on fake "dates" with starlets & there was a short sham "marriage" to his agent's secretary.
Yes, it was a different era, but lesbians & gay men still play straight roles and vice versa.
Having to be gender-identifying "correct" as an actor is not the same as white playing a stereotype Asian or putting on blackface.
Scarlett Johansson can very likely be believable as "trans," and there's no reason why she shouldn't be allowed to be.
20
So I guess Al Pacino shouldn't have played a TAXI DRIVER' because HE WASN'T ONE, and Hepburn should have played a HOOKER because she wasn't one, and George Peppard shouldn't have played a strait guy because the character was Actually a gay guy and Al Pacino should n't have played a bank robber because he wasn't one and Peter Boyle shouldn't have played FRANKENSTEIN because he wasn't one.....yadayadayadayada. BUT of course, it is OK for trump to play president cause he can spell it.
And as I read the article it WASN'T CLEAR that the main character was ACTUALLY TRANSGENDER. and in any case, we are NOT going to check what is in the underwear. It is just a film, we can imagine ANYTHING we want.
13
I am more interested in the fact that I am now cisgendered. I thought I was a middle aged heterosexual white man bursting with privilege?
20
This article is why democrats lose elections.
36
Did you hear, they’re closing the show Hamilton? Black people can’t play white people. Too bad. The show was pretty cool. For that very reason.
21
I always have to laugh when a creative says "you're stifling my creativity!" It's so rarely in defense of something actually creative. I've heard it in defense of even-more-severely transphobic "trap" jokes, where a trans woman (or just a cross-dressing cis man) "tricks" a man into becoming attracted to them, only to reveal they have a penis--a trope literally as old as Norse mythology.
I've heard it in defense against criticisms of video games having an old, brooding white man as the protagonist for the hundredth time, or criticisms of women only ever being scantily-clad hourglasses.
And now we're hearing it in defense of casting ScarJo for a role she has no right playing? There is nothing less creative in film than picking a go-to A-lister for no other reason than to fill seats. It's such a dime-a-dozen scenario that this is the second instance of that exact offense by this same director! Talk about creativity!
1
I expect Royal Shakespeare to initiate new audition protocols and requirements.
Shylock: Italian..practicing Jew.
Richard III: English..Scoliosis of the spine.
Hamlet: Danish...dead father........
I'm an old white guy in a wheelchair... It is an outrage that Raymond Burr made money with his 'metalface' portrayal of my current situation!
Vetting every character in art for their 'bona fide' would lead to the absurd position that ONLY the phenotype that is visible is fit for that role. Leading to ghettos for all. Each narrowly defined personal history making them only capable of playing themselves.
I guess Yo Yo Ma should return to the instrument of his ancestors, the Huqin, and leave Bach's Cello Suite #5 in C Minor to the Germans.
26
The great irony here of course is that writers like Ms Finney Boylan have made their bones (and indeed in her case her very appearance, gender identity, and lifestyle) on the fact that gender and sexuality are fluid and the se you're assigned at birth is inconsequential... Yet here she is loudly insisting someone who identifies as female cannot play a role as a woman because she was born with a certain set of sex organs...
So which is it Ms Boylan? Is it all fluid and inconsequential and it only matters how you identify? Or is it all about your birth sex? Because you can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
37
"Trans actors should play trans roles because we can do the best job at representing our truth."
The whole op-ed piece could have been distilled down to the above sentence because it is the only one that matters in the end. Ms. Boylan buried the lede.
1
Any one remember "Victor, Victoria"???? This is acting period.
11
Many of the comments defending Johansson sound an awful lot like the willfully obtuse "All Lives Matter!" response to #blacklivesmatter. Offering auditions and actively recruiting TG people to play TG characters is NOT the same as barring cisgender actors from plumbing the depths of their acting craft!
1
That is why it is called ACTING, not BEING.
Method-acting aside, no one really expected Robin Wright to actually die of AIDS in the making of Forrest Gump.
9
I've been a professional actor all of my adult life. Well over 200 productions. 95% of the roles I've played have been straight men. I'm gay. You're going to tell me this was wrong? Should we now negate the body of my work over the past four decades in order to fulfill a current social/political agenda?
28
This never-ending obsession with identity politics is exactly why progressives can never have nice things. Rather than unify behind our common humanity, every single interest group needs to be recognized on every occasion.
It's called ACTING for a reason. RKO could never allow Charles Laughton to star in the classic, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" if made today because the PC crowd would demand that a real hunchback portray the role. The world has gone mad, on both sides. Just stop.
Jim Parsons, a gay man, plays a straight man on "The Big Bang Theory". How far do you want this madness to go? Fire Parsons?
20
I apologize if this appears to be politically insensitive, but anger over children being separated from their mothers, pending elimination of Roe vs. Wade, the good probability of a war some place in this world, the already blowback to our trade war, Russian infiltration of the Oval Office--I could go on, but, I just can't get excited about Ms. Johansson being caste as a Trans Man.
14
Sheer hubris. I’m as sympathetic as you can get to the trans cause. The problem I encounter is authors and advocates that make me look like stupid supporting the cause. The author seeks exclusion, not inclusion. If you want inclusive support— be inclusive. If you want to stand on your own— do that. I suspect that your support will dwindle.
By the force of the author’s flawed reasoning, a woman shouldn’t play sessions on snl. A sober person can’t play an alcoholic. An alcoholic shouldn’t play a sober person. A black person cant play a white role. A person in a wheel chair can’t play someone who would otherwise walk. Art isn’t real life, for your edification. It challenges our experience and stretches participants’ imaginations. The author seeks to pigeon hole us into the confines of our unique experiences. That defies art.
12
This is private stuff. I don’t care about trans or cis love life.
6
What about Jim Parsons playing a straight man on "The Big Bang Theory". Why shouldn't it go to a real heterosexual man? No outcry? What about Neil Patrick Harris?
8
Is it okay if I throw a fit about times that homosexuals like Ellen Page or Neil Patrick Harris have played straight people? Should I be organize a movement to boycott Eddie Murphy over that famous SNL skit where he parodied being white?
This is acting, and there are countless examples of people portraying things that they're not. In fact, doing a great job in portraying something your not is precisely what makes you good at acting.
So please accept my commentary on this matter. In many professions, but especially in this profession, it's silly and hypocritical for minorities to get worked up about wanting society to reject Scarlett Johannsen in this role. It's not like you don't want that acceptance for yourself when the shoe is on the other foot.
11
Fun facts:Bert Lahr wasn’t a lion. Jose Ferrer was actually taller than Toulouse-Lautrec!
Boylan knows nothing about actors, film-making or show business.
16
Aren't we all actors?
8
Is casting a trans actor as a trans person stereotyping?
14
Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi was faithful to Truman Capote’s fanciful sense of humor and fascination with odd characters. As a boy Capote loved to play dress-up and to pretend. Mickey Rooney gets that, but the writer of this dreary PC-obsessed piece obviously does not.
8
This reminds me of the controversy over a white guy playing a half Asian character in the musical Miss Saigon. Same sort of hysterical, esoteric nitpicking. Of course those arguments ran out of steam when it was pointed out that there was a black guy planing Richard III on Broadway at the same time.
13
This is ridiculous. It’s called ACTING. Have you ever seen a British pantomime? The male lead is ALWAYS played by a woman and indeed the NBC live Peter Pan (one of the most popular pantomimes) was played by a woman. Shakespeare plays in London often have women playing men. It’s called creative license. Would you demand a real murderer play a murderer, a real sex offender play a sex offender? How about a movie about Trump? Maybe only Trump could play Trump? The liberal left now wants acting fixed so only real people play the parts otherwise it will offend the real people. Give me a break!
6
I get your point - but as a woman I'm troubled by men in drag. Isn't that a bit like blackface? Why is that ok - but it's not okay for a woman to play a Trans-man? Ow-wee, these are confusing times!
8
Whoa! We are talking about ACTORS! By definition actors are not playing roles (usually) that are “autobiographical!” The great ones, like Meryl Streep, can usually play anyone very well. All actors play someone they are not. Are we to put up barriers now??
I also find a whiff of hypocrisy here. For years people yelled “racism” if a black or Asian or anyone non Caucasian was denied the chance to play, say, Romeo. The role should be open to all, it was argued. But let a white actor play Othello?!?! Simply impermissible! That role is reserved for black actors. To do otherwise is..uh..racist!! Laurence Olivier’s Othello was considered racist by many because of blackface.
You can’t have it both ways. Either roles are open to auditions by all actors or they are not. The great actors will do well, and the poor actors will not, no matter what the role!
11
Just FYI, in "The Godfather" movie Sonny Corleone was played by James Caan who is not an Italian-American. In an interview he reported that he was asked to be the guest of honor to lead an Italian-American parade. He tried to decline pointing out that he was not Italian-American. They wanted him any way.
15
Hm, and here I thought that all these discussions abut the fluidity of sexuality meant that we would be more open about gender and sexuality, not more insistant on new divisions and binaries.
16
The premise of this article is ridiculous. Following through on the author's logic, an African American actor could never act in any Shakespeare play, not even in Othello, unless his ancestry is from the Maghreb ( basically Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, or Libya on current maps). Also, films on foreign subjects would have to be cast with nationals of the relevant countries.
Boylan's fixation violates the very essence of acting and suspension of disbelief. It is utter nonsense.
Viva Scarlett!
17
Jennifer Finney Boylan writes, "[T]here are hundreds, if not thousands, of trans actors ready to play these parts."
That's super.
Meanwhile, it was actress Scarlett Johansson who won this latest casting call.
17
I would like to note that I am a very left-leaning liberal who has enjoyed reading the New York Times for many decades, because I consider it to be an example of fine journalism, as well as the "paper of record."
Lately I find myself losing interest when there are simultaneously three, four, or five articles on the main New York Times web page, all about transgender issues. Has anyone else noticed? So many articles about how difficult and unfair it is to be trans!
I truly have sympathy for other people's suffering. I also do not consider trans issues to be so noteworthy that they constantly deserve so much space in the New York Times. What are the editors thinking?
33
According to the argument of this piece, they'll need to resurrect a Neanderthal for the first movie about Trump.
10
Simple assertion and preaching to the choir--at considerable length-- is not much of an argument, Ms Boylan. You are perfectly free to raise money and make your own movie according to your own casting rules.
15
Utter and complete nonsense. Welcome to the politics of self-marginalization.
27
But wouldn't the unintended consequences of this sort of thinking be that transgendered actors could never fill any role that wasn't transgendered?
Wouldn't that put them into a 'trans ghetto' sort of situation?
11
The analogy with Jolson singing in blackface is just bizarre.
10
Seriously, Hollywood, this is embarrassing. Do better. Hire trans actors for trans roles. POC actors for characters that were POC in the source material. Queer actors for queer roles. It's not hard. Stop being so lazy. And, honestly, shame on Johansson for taking the part.
Identity politics run amuck. The triumph of grievance and victimhood over common sense, let alone critical thinking.
Can you really not see how insulting this is to people's intelligence?
29
As a musician, I can guarantee everyone that when a non-musician plays a musician it is very grating. It may not be noticeable (or if it is, not matter) to non-musicians, but believe me, nobody who makes music is ever fooled. I know it's not the same thing, but I'm the first one to believe that no trans person would be fooled by Ms. Johansson or Mr. Rewdmayne for a minute.
On the other hand, I would be sacrificing some pretty amazing performances if I waited for Hollywood to find someone who acted as well as, say, Adrien Brody, who could also play the piano as well as a great artist. It's an interesting dilemma....
2
Vanessa Redgrave played the part of a man who transitioned to a transgender woman, the eye surgeon & tennis player, Richard Radley/Renee Richards, in the 1986 made-for-TV biopic film, Second Serve. She received near-unanimous praise for her sensitive & realistic acting, with minor reservations about her physical appearance which was really quite suitable. She was easily believable in an outstanding performance as befits an actor of her stature. She was nominated for an Emmy & Golden Globe.
An actor is an artist who brings every ounce of her intelligence, experience, & sensitivity to the role. Though Redgrave's performance was 32 years ago, the art & craft of acting haven't changed to any degree that an actor would not understand & honor her commitment to theater. That commitment extends to the part she has agreed to play as well as to her fellow actors & all who work in theater. And to be honest to the material.
As we honor & defend the trans community, theater must be free to function with integrity, sensitivity, & intelligence. No human endeavor is perfect. Certainly not theater. The National Asian American Theater Company mounted a 2015 revival of Clifford Odets' 1935 play "Awake and Sing!" at the Public Theater, a look at the lives of three generations of a Jewish family in the Great Depression. There were kudos for their sensitive performances of what we all know to be the universal characters found in humanity everywhere. We need honesty, not stereotypes.
5
Hollywood is part entertainment, part reflection of our society and part propaganda machine. Infusing it with truth, ethics and compassion is entirely a function of who's making the movie and who's paying for it. Accurate documentaries aside, Hollywood has little to do with truth and justice, nor should it.
2
I'm surprised a transwoman would make such a strong argument for lived experience as a prerequisite for playing a role. A transwoman who transitioned as young as twenty hasn't experienced the world as a female in the way a ciswoman has. The extension of Boylan's argument suggests not casting transwomen as ciswomen as they lack the lived experience. All that said, I do think it'd be nice for trans-roles to go to trans-actors as often as possible, from an equity standpoint.
5
1. Important stories need reach beyond the indoctrinated. Star power attracts people who might otherwise skip the story that seems to stand against their beliefs or what they think they know. Also how might SJ open peoples’ perspectives on the PR tour talking about what she’s learned about others and the impact it’s had on her. And...movies are a business, the more money the producers think they can make, the more they spend, the better the production values and the broader the distribution. 2. As an actor who is gay, can I play straight if I demand that all characters be voiced by people who are actually representing some basic fact about their own sexuality? Or can I bring a nuanced and truthful (in the artistic sense) performance without ever having kissed a girl? 3. Mickey Rooney’s insensitive performance in BAT isn’t analogous to Scarlett Johansson playing this role. I’m not advocating yellow-face, or racial insensitivity in casting. Sexuality and gender are constructs within which we are all players. I generally agree with Ms. Boylan, but not here. And I’m not a huge fan of Ms. Johansson’s, but maybe she’ll bring an honest portrayal that moves us all a little bit forward.
3
Does Flint have potable water yet?
26
What's more shocking is that the role of a prostitute, was played by Audrey Hepburn, instead of an actual prostitute. Very upsetting indeed! I can't believe they hired an actress to act out a role. Who do they think they are?!?
4
I will give the author the benefit of the doubt that she understands basic logical constructs:
if a cis actor can't play a trans role...
...then the corollary holds: that a trans actor can never play a cis role.
Is this really what you mean?
13
I was going to give an opinion on this article, but then it occurred to me that one upshot of the article is that if you are not X then you are not really entitled to have an opinion about X (unless it's clearly favorable and caveat-free, of course, then a non-X's opinion is sometimes tolerated, with caveats). So, no opinion, except: Whatever...
9
How many people are going to pay to see an unknown trans actor? Hollywood is in the business of selling tickets.
7
So with this argument a black opera singer cannot play Cho-Cho-San since she isn’t Japanese. And an Italian man couldn’t create the music to express her pain. And a Japanese musician cannot play the blues. And a Jewish actor cannot play a Christian preacher. And a man can’t play a woman. And a woman cannot play a man. And an Italian chef cannot master Chinese cuisine. And a white person cannot rap. And a white American woman can’t sing Arabic music.
And...with this way of thinking....
a transgendered person cannot play a cis person.
6
The author of this piece is free to make all the films he/she wants.
If he/she can't get the funding then maybe the script or casting isn't good enough.
9
Ms Johansson should not play any role other than that of a light-haired female of presumably Scandinavian ancestry from a specific village from that part of the world. In fact, her roles should be limited to those who share her height, shoe size and breakfast routine, at the very least.
There's a difference between playing a role and presenting a caricature. Of course, given all the problems in the world, is the best use of valuable page space of a leading newspaper?
12
If I follow Boylan that only transgenders should play transgenders as only they have "feel" (my word) of what it is like to be transgender, may I ask who writes the dialogue, who directs the scene, etc. Does she infer, or more, that each element be written, acted, directed, only by a person of that persuasion? Where are the limits, who draws the line(s). And may I ask further, are only transgenders permitted (sic) to review or criticize whatever is that moment?
8
The whole conversation is really starting to get absurd, downright cartoonish. She can't play this part, he can't wear dreadlocks, etc. Is it any wonder people support Trump. And by the way, everyone thinks Mickey Rooney character in was idiotic and a failed attempt at comic relief - get over it.
15
Nonsense. Acting is portraying a role. The beauty is convincing the audience that the character is real. This article is simply more overwrought political activism. Black men (and probably women) are routinely cast as Hamlet the Dane and the audience is asked to accept this and go "yay, isn't this progressive!" but only trans actors can play trans parts. Simply more progressivism for its own sake with no real accomplishment.
8
As nearly everyone here has pointed out we are talking about acting so this is an absurd self-defeating argument for any trans person who is an actor. You don't want to be giving people arguments as to why you shouldn't be recognized for your acting ability in any role.
Secondly: "Not only do you play us and steal our narrative and our opportunity but you pat yourselves on the back with trophies and accolades for mimicking what we have lived … ” is a statement a cis-gendered woman could make about trans women because they have not faced the danger of pregnancy and childbirth for almost their entire lives so can never really know what it is like to be a naturally born woman. And thus shouldn't be recognized as one.
Gender is indeed a construct and people should present the gender they wish. You don't want to be giving people arguments as to why you shouldn't be recognized for your chosen gender.
12
I have no skin in this game. I agree 100 Percent with you. If she really wants a challenge, let her "play" a very average, Midwestern or Southern single mother, living paycheck to paycheck, with no hope of climbing UP the ladder. You know, a REAL, hard life.
5
It's a pretty free country and Ms .Boylan is free to write what she wants to write. She is also free to write a screenplay, finance, produce, star, and invest all her money in the the project. But she is in no position to tell other people how to spend their money. The bottom line is that feature films are a business, a business that on occasion makes art, but a business.
Oh, and as an aside, did you know that to this day set-slang for a small,slow, easy push-in of the camera on a dolly his known as a "Mickey Rooney" and has been since the '40's? Why? Because working film crews knew both to be... a little creep. As in "Just give me a Mickey Rooney when she leans forward", said to the Dolly Grip.
3
In 1992, When Linda Hunt was lauded for playing Billy Kwan in "The Year of Living Dangerously", I suspect Ms. Boylan approved. Double standard?Many of Jennifer's essay points may be true; e.g., a cisgender person could provide a more nuanced performance in a cisgender role. But she appears wholly disingenuous on two facts: One, the average moviegoer would be oblivious to what a cisgender actor/actress could bring to the role and, two, Scarlett sells tickets.
If the only option was to cast a no-name, no one would get cast because the film would not get made. On the other hand, with a star who will sell tickets, millions of people will have the opportunity to see the transgender experience represented on the big screen.
This is absurd.
Should white writers not create black or Asian characters?
Should black musicians only play music written by black writers?
Shall we tell Denzel Washington that he can only play black characters; for that matter only characters originally written as black characters.
How about telling Alan Cumming that he can only play gay male characters?
6
But I bet Jennifer Finney Boylan was delighted when Glenda Jackson played King Lear. Clarity of thought is the first requirement for convincing others.
11
There are not a lot of roles , yet, for a transgendered person to play. Please choose among them instead of rolling out the same actresses time and again. Do we have to go through this education with every single Unrepresented group? Extrapolate your ethics! Remember "tribalism " only gets thrown around when the White cisgender tribe (I am one) feels "oppressed".
Maybe it's time to make your own movies. To stop waiting for others to act in your interests and take up your own agency.
6
Why, then, do they cal it 'acting'?
4
Watching the Left eat itself is such a wonderful aid to the digestion.
5
Audrey Hepburn played a prostitute without being one.Actually she was unsuited to the role because she had a high class image not typycal of a streetwalker.Only BIG NAMES get leading roles in major movies,And I never heard of a big name trans actress,Until one makes it they will not be cast in LEAD trans roles,That is the way it has always been
4
Perhaps all such commentary is by people who disregard cultural time, which causes them to make clearly ignorant statements. In this article, let's focus on The Jazz Singer, in which Al Jolson _does not play a black man_ whatsoever. He plays a jewish man who appears in blackface (a very common mode of performance in the day this film was made) to sing jazz songs. Declaring this movie as evidence is more than specious. It invalidates her entire argument completely. Again, due to a blindness, or unwillingness, to concede to culture what is culture's. We cannot condemn Jolson, or those times- but we can alert ourselves to those mistakes and correct them. Hopefully by actually grabbing onto some open-minded realizations of the period.
3
Lol. "Trans actors should play trans roles because we can do the best job. The freedom to live our lives out loud ought to include the chance to make art from the complex, difficult, joyful reality of our lives." I guess writing rationally isn't included as part of the curriculum in the English department at Barnard, but writing emotionally is (with a dollop of dubious assertions thrown in). P.S. Besides, you, says who? P.P.S.The "best job?"
"Art?" Which is it?
7
Meryl Streep should similarly be condemned for portraying a Jewish woman, a holocaust survivor, in Sophie's Choice - yes? If not, why not?
3
It's called ACTING. The whole point is to portray someone your're not.
4
No rich person can act the part of a poor person, or vice verse. No older man or woman a younger, or vice verse. No smart person a stupid one, or vice verse. No non-disabled a disabled, or vice verse. No straight a gay, or vice verse. No non-military a military, no ... No anybody anything you think they aren't.
Enough with the political thought police already. Acting is the essence of being someone you aren't. Leave other people alone.
4
There are 12 young Thai soccer players and their coach who have been trapped in a cave for weeks and one diver killed in their rescue and we are worrying about transgender actors not appearing in a film about transgenders? We need to get our priorities straight when people are fighting for their lives. I am sorry but I cannot get too upset about this when there are much bigger problems in the world today.
4
Its ACTING.
10
Pure parochial silliness; what's next? Will gay folks need permission and guidance to play straight men or women? Will a panel of straight screenwriters need to educate gay actors on heterosexual motivations and feelings?
Rubbish. This sort of nonsense is why "middle America" thinks the coasts are crazy
14
You start with "the only certain people can play certain roles" and you are not on a slippery slope, you are on a ski jump.
Therefore, only straight actors can play straight roles and gays can only play gays and nobody had better put on makeup to make them look older, or else!
4
As someone who grew up in an era when girls who didn't conform to gender stereotypes were called tomboys. At first I wished I were a boy, then I embraced the fact that I was a girl who could do anything. I still shop in the men's section and am mistaken as a male (often in midwest airport restrooms for some odd reason). At any rate, as someone who has cast actors, I think there should be an allowance for a straight actor to play gay or a gay actor to play straight. I view the trans debate in much the same way. If a talented actress wants to portray someone unlike herself, I take no offense with that....I appreciate that there is sensitivity around the issue, but I also appreciate that a film is being made that explores this experience. Since when do we require that actors have the same life experience as the characters they play?
5
I spent too much time arguing on Twitter with a few people who couldn’t accept the fact that this casting is painful and offensive to trans people. I tried to explain, that as a woman, I am offended by the old tradition of casting only men in all roles. Casting only cis people is just as problematic. Trans people are the best at playing trans characters for a host of reasons. It is also the role they are best at. If they can’t even get those roles, who can blame them for feeling excluded?
Nothing like defending "artistic liberties".
Why is an article even being written.
Have we not gone far enough in denying "artistic expression"?
If she was cast as transgender, that is for the writer and director to decide, not an opinion writer.
America is supposed to be about freedom and our own artistic expression, not what others want to perceive or want it to be.
As LH wrote, if a woman cannot play transgender, should a transgender person be allowed to play anything other than a transgender person?
5
So you had to pick the worst example possible.
Too bad all those gay men are up on screen playing heteros. Sir Laurence? What an unattractive man, and completely unable to tell how to love a woman. Oh, wait he did marry, but then, he wasn't happy. Still, Heathcliff. Othello.
Theater has always been a place where sexuality was one of the things that was constructed, like the real thing. I'm not saying that trans men should generally be played by trans men. However, it's the concept of "zero tolerance" that fits rather oddly. There was recently an entire series of Shakespeare plays where the great male roles were played by women. I'd like to have seen that. But we can't do that now, no, no.
5
Ridiculous. Johansson is a brilliant actor and that's all that matters.
2
this is the stupidist argument i can ever remember seeing in print. actors don't portray themselves. look up acting in a dictionary. would you also suggest that gay and lesbian actors shouldn't be cast as heterosexuals?
8
Jamie Clayton is a remarkably gifted actress. Period. She’s a woman so she’s perfectly able to crush a role written for a woman. She’s also a trans woman so she’s also far more in touch with a trans character than a cis (non-trans) actress or actor will ever be. There aren't A-list trans actors - not because of a lack of talent, but because they aren't cast to begin with.
Whoever cast Eddie Redmayne or Jared Leto, for example, as trans women is an embarrassment to casting (the same for Scarlett as a man). That they took the roles is ridiculous and demeaning to the roles they supposedly wanted to portray seriously. Sadly, they made a choice that prevents that happening. Although, put them on HRT hormones for two years with one year of RLE - real life experience of living “out” (a trans version of DeNiro’s prep for Raging Bull) and maybe they could truly understand the trans-face role they took on.
These are stories Hollywood apparently doesn’t want to tell, because a serious attempt to address it relegates the film to niche status. The industry still almost uniformly sees trans people as one-dimensional characters defined by that characteristic above all others. Just yesterday someone mentioned to me, in all seriousness, how great Silence of the Lambs was. When these are the depictions of trans people in the media it's no wonder the world is scared of us.
1
So only soldiers should act as soldiers (because actors cannot imagine the horrors of war), only criminals act as criminals, only presidents act as presidents?
Sorry, this simply makes no sense.
4
Scarlett Johansson has such a sexual reputation (and build) that i think Charlise Theron could play the character hiding things more smoothly. And please, no ridiculous characters like Mr. Yunioshi.
But progressive emoters need to realize tht there was NO malice or racism in the use of that character. Well-meaning people simply slipped up reaching too far for a comic foil to break the tension.
1
If I had to guess Scarlett Johansson was cast because she is an A-line movie star, not because she is the best person for the part. She will sell tickets. Simple as that. I don't doubt that a cis-gendered actor might miss some nuances, but I sincerely doubt that Ms. Johansson's portrayal will be anything close to the offensive tour-de-force that Mickey Rooney pulled off. [I never really liked Breakfast at Tiffany's anyway.]
...
I get the annoyance, but not the outrage. Overall this is a win. Scarlett Johansson is not going to be a part of a smear campaign against the transgender community. If anything she will get a whole lotta people to spend two hours sympathizing with a transgender person. That's a whole lotta people who saw Scarlett Johansson on the poster, thought to themselves, "She's usually in good stuff," and bought a ticket.
3
Ms Boylan says, "When a transperson is not portrayed by a transperson, something is off. Cis people don't see it however." As a feminist I say: When a woman is not portrayed by a woman, or man by a man, something is off. [Some] Trans people don't see it however.
8
I would have loved to see some specific details about what Eddie Redmayne did wrong in The Danish Girl, from the viewpoint of this author. Otherwise, she's simply making an assertion, but more importantly, we're not given deep insight into the issue.
3
Utter nonsense. When extrapolated to its logical end, the casting, for example, of “The Godfather” would have to exclude Marlon Brando and James Caan playing Sicilian Americans, Alex Rocco as a Jewish American, and even Robert Duvall playing a German-Irish American. As for Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”, the film was made only 20 years after Pearl Harbor, and just 19 years after the Bataan Death March. To include a Japanese character at all was progressive at the time.
6
This Uber seriousness in casting movies, determining who can or can not play music, write a book, act in a play is stunningly ridiculous.
4
Johannson has demonstrated time and again that she doesn't care about anyone but herself. She is a vapid narcissist. I wouldn't see anything she is in, and if she does play this part I expect most people will choose not to see the production.
The author seems to forget that acting is just that "acting" and not real life. I guess using her logic Hamilton should never have had black actors play 1700s white real people. Or for that matter lets not have single actors play married couples.
Nonsense. Let actors be any characters as written. That acting.
5
I think if there is one and only one movie about a transmale then the objections may have some validity. But think of box office, Scarlett Johansson or someone lesser known whom I would not know even if you pointed the person out to me. But following the logic of those protesting— who wrote or is writing the screenplay? If not the late real-life Dante 'Tex' Gill who was born Lois Jean Gill — then the whole thing is a sham and should not even be considered.
But this is getting WAY too deep. How many readers had a clue to what "cis" referred to and when they looked it up how many rolled their eyeballs?
In case you didn't know it's called "acting" - that's when a person pretends to be someone they are not. If the actor is good it doesn't matter what sex they are.
7
From a quick read of these comments, it is obvious what an enormous wall of resistance the transgender community must climb just to be heard.
What Ms. Boylan is saying, with eloquence and restraint, is that the trans community is tired of being portrayed by Hollywood without regard to their lived lives, their histories, and their bodies.
Cue the outrage, by I'm guessing mostly straight people: Art is not politics! It's called acting! But, but, it's different! How dare you compare cis actors playing trans characters with black/brown/yellow face! Quit whining! This makes me want to vote for Trump! But, but, it's different!
Oy vey. Love to you, Ms. Boylan.
1
Good arguments Ms. Boylan. I am confused by the wider issue that this involves though. Perhaps I am too white and straight and old to 'get it'.
Cis people should not play trans people, white people should not sing slave songs, white people should not write about black or yellow or brown people. Straight people should not play or write about homosexual people. Is it OK to say homosexual?
Can Jewish or Muslim people play, sing or write about Christian people? Can atheists play, sing or write about any of them? Can homosexual people play straight roles? Can men write about women? Can women write about men?
I would appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me about the above, and no, I am not being snarky. I feel left behind.
I have been a reader all my life. I have enjoyed a great deal of fiction (and think I learned something from it) by writers who did not write about people like themselves.
Is it not possible that people who play, sing or write about people who are not like themselves are exploring what it means to be 'the other'? Is it possible that this is an exercise in empathy that the user of the art can learn something from?
11
If the producers had cast a transgender actor as their lead, would the transgender community have bought enough tickets to make the film profitable? If you want non-transgender people to take an interest in a film, you probably have to accommodate their interests.
1
I saw this on Twitter and I wholeheartedly agree. This reminded me of the Nina Simone movie when it was announced that Zoe Saldana was cast. Black women like myself were rightfully furious and the movie tanked!
Scar Jo is a clueless and privileged White woman who chooses not to understand why trans actors should play trans roles. Here is hoping this movie tanks as well!
I wonder where the outrage is when 'drag queens' play women with exaggerated, negative, and stereotypical parody? I don't see the difference between that and 'black face' minstrels of old. Both are equally objectionable and insulting. Maybe those objecting to Ms. Johansson, an actress whose art it is to play many different roles, should take a long hard look at what their own community has gleefully portrayed about women. Seems to me this is a rather selective view on performance. And highly hypocritical.
8
Trans people often use the expression "gaslighting" when Cispeople refuse to see them as the sex they identify as. What this author is saying is that Trans people are not really the sex that they identify as--that they occupy a kind of twilight zone between male and female, and consequently only a real trans person can play one in a movie. Sounds like gaslighting to me.
10
I saw the trailer for a Latin Movie about a trans woman. I think it was nominated to an Oscar as best foreing film. The new show Pose I really like it and I think it is going to be a big success. Transparent is onee of my favorites shows. The author of the article has a point of course and I would just tell her " relax, your time is coming". It doesn't matter if at the end she gets the role, in my opinion what matters is that there are a lot of good stuffs now and I hope to see more about transgenders. We need to hear their stories. We need good movies, tv shows and more transgender talent on the screen. Like always in Hollywood, it can take time but I know we will see more of them. Cheer up! Dont let a role discourage you
Does this mean that a trans actor is not capable or suitable for playing a straight role?
They call it 'acting' for a reason. And if this brings being trans into the limelight in a sympathetic way by having a major actor in a major movie release, assuming it is well-handled, isn't that a good thing?
3
Sometimes "...the freedom to live our lives out loud..." becomes a bit loud and repeated so often as to negate the message so many of us now accept. More technicolor parades are not not needed. We've already got the acceptance we're going to get. Move on!
"Love ye one another" still rules for most of us. Let's keep saying that instead of "love me for who or what I am." The first supplication takes care of all of us.
3
If there is an important story to be told, it will get far more attention with Scarlett than with any trans person out there. That film would certainly be made at a loss. With an actor like Scarlett it might just break even at the box office.
2
While we are on the subject, may I just suggest that in the next remake of "The postman always rings twice" the postman should be played by an actual postman. I am tired of all that actors trying to impersonate people they know nothing about. Also in the next remake of "Taxi driver" the taxi driver part should go to a genuine taxi driver. I mean, Robert De Niro is a fine actor, but he is no taxi driver. And those taxi drivers have to go through a lot, so the least we can do is to let them play themselves in the movies.
13
We live in strange times, indeed. Everything we say, do, write, etc. is scrutinized and almost certainly offensive to someone. How the writer of this article could bite her nose to spite her face without even seeing it is amazing to me.
To paraphrase:
"When a trans-person is not portrayed by a trans person, something is off. Cis people don't see it however."
Does this writer think that any producer will make a film that is only acceptable to a minute fraction of the population, or that they want the broadest appeal they can have? Will the success or failure of this movie have an effect on future productions? Of course it will!
The fact that marginalized people are beginning their long journey to recognition and understanding should be celebrated and encouraged. This is a good thing. Please put away your offense meter.
8
It's called "acting" for a reason. The cinema doesn't exist as social welfare program, as a court of law, as a leftist university course. Movies are made because investors think they can make a profit. See also manufacturing, banking, farming. No one has a "right" to a role in a film. Imagine the outrage from the increasingly loony left if only actual card-carrying Republicans could play Republicans in the movies. The left and their fellow travelers in the sex-identity racket have become a self-parody. And they wonder why America is abandoning them.
4
At the beginning of Casablanca, Dooly Wilson, who is black, is playing an instrumental version of Shine. I like that song, it is about the black experience. I am white, can I play Shine? Maybe play it but not sing it? I mean this is silly?
IMO Ms. J is taking a risk and likely helping the LGBT community.
4
Easy fix: Johansson comes out as "gender fluid." She then states that during the movie she will choose to identify as a man during takes; thus effectively becoming transgender while on screen. After the shooting is done she says she will probably go back to identifying as a women full-time (pending the possibility of a sequel). Both sides win. Done. On to the next pseudo cultural issue.
14
I give up. This is akin to saying hat the internment of Japanese Americans during world War II is proof that America is a racist country. Even though the vast majority of Japanese Americans never saw the inside of an internment camp. Nor were the Japanese alone in being segregated from the regular population. There were also internment camps for many Americans of German descent. If you're going to use facts, use all of them.
1
We should only take parts or do things that reflect exactly who we are. NO SUBTERFUGE. All of us need to be equally socially evolved. No exceptions. All of us have to be equally correct in all of our assumptions-- no room for growth.
2
The dilemma described here is not caused by the choice of actors.
It’s caused by the script. The writing.
Actors who have never been madly in love and hitchhiked to New York can play madly-in-love folk hitchhiking to New York. Actors who never took part in the Vietnam War, and haven’t set foot in Vietnam, can play confused, terrified, murderous warriors in Vietnam. Actors who never walked the Appalachian Trail can pretend to be Appalachian Trail walkers. When they get tired, you just turn off the cameras.
It’s all in the script. If the Hollywood, Broadway, or off-Broadway playwrights have cut corners and relied on caricatures to win an audience ... that’s the problem.
2
Would Iago have the same impact as a white European? Shylock as a Christian?
Actors act.
Lets actors act. If a certain role can be better filled by a certain "type" of person, fine. If not, get the best actor available.
Praise the good, pan the bad and reject putting roles in boxes.
5
Ms. Boylan,
Should transactors only play trans roles? Or should they also be cast in roles that are "not their truth?" Type casting is what this is, plain and simple. Appears quite limiting to me.
6
I'm thoroughly disgusted by the preponderance of glib, snarky and downright ignorant comments here. I foolishly expected a Times audience to be more informed.
First to some of the straw man arguments. "Rock Hudson played a straight man!" No, CLOSETED Hudson played a straight man because had his sexuality been known he wouldn't have had a career. And many actors today are still closeted for that same reason.
"We have to erase the performances of Hilary Swank, Jeffrey Tambor and others if trans actors are now asking to be cast." No we do not. Films like Boys Don't Cry introduced the public to trans lives, and now it is time to build on that, to PROGRESS and actually cast trans people in some trans roles. As my mother always says, "when you know better you do better." We now know better.
Which brings me to the 'but acting!' canard. Anyone should be able to play any role. Sure. But then why the heck do so few trans actors grace our screens in any role? Some of you laughably claim that there are no trans actors up to the task. Seriously? They missed out on the acting gene? And that line of reasoning is exactly the kind of discriminatory thinking that kept women and minorities out of universities, the board room and the Supreme Court. When trans people actually start getting cast in ANY roles then you can make a level-playing field argument.
5
I would guess that the number of trans actors on our screens is roughly proportional to the number of trans people among us.
9
I never heard of "Jen Richards ". Why is he or she in a position to tell Hollywood what it can and can't do.?
4
Okay, so maybe I'm a clueless straight white guy, but let me get this straight [as it were]:
A "trans man" is a "biological" woman who dresses and acts like a man.
Ms. Johansson is a "biological" woman who, in the film, will be dressing and acting like a man.
Aside from the inner thoughts and desires of the person in question, what, exactly, is the difference?
And how is that any different from what we call "acting"?
15
Wait a moment, who are you to call me "cis", whatever that means to you it means nothing to me. I was not assigned anything at birth but a name. My mother and father created a boy. I will refer to you as you wish, if I can remember the name de jour, but you may refer to me as a male.
16
I understand that you are supporting your cause, Ms. Boylan, and although I often find insight and agreement with what you've written I don't with this.
If I wanted to see a real life adventure I would see a documentary about the actual people who participate in 'said life'. But ok, let's restrict acting roles to only those individuals that can fit in the shoes of the characters. That would leave the following movies never to have been made:
Star Wars - because our current robots whirrrrl, whistle, and monologue. Not to mention that I have yet to meet a real jedi.
Blade Runner - synthetic people? - Cop hitman?
Movies about the south - there are no slaves in America anymore.
Biographies of people who are dead - Gone with the wind.
A married actor or actress with children could never play a single-divorced person (Erin Brockovich).
A young actress such as Cicely Tyson could have never played Sounder who was a slave. I don't think Cicely Tyson has ever been a slave has she?
So only Presidents can portray Presidents, Singer portray singers, Blind-deaf or just blind play blind ( Patty Duke and Anne Bancroft in the Miracle Worker)
I've a big problem with this 'ban on borrowing culture', but let's not talk about me. Let's talk about you and this stance you've taken. I am assuming that you don't read anything that is not written by a trans person. That you have restricted yourself into a narrow role where you only interact with other Trans persons. That everything must be trans?
5
Jennifer Boylan's Breakfast at Tiffany's analogy misses the mark in this case. What she's arguing for isn't that Mickey Rooney shouldn't have played an Asian man, but rather that Audrey Hepburn shouldn't have played an American.
The entire argument, of course, is rather silly. People should only be assigned jobs based on their personal characteristics? But I suppose without a "faux-outraged" angle, this article wouldn't have a reason to exist.
2
As an Italian-American I was sickened by the choice of Marlon Brando for the role of Godfather. Sickened and deeply offended. The author's view is an intellectual embarrassment. No trans actor should be permitted to play a non-trans role. Is that what she wants?
5
In the spirit of those wonderful old rye bread ads I grew up with in NYC back in the day, you don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's, well, you don't have to be trans to portray one in film.
8
Here's the best reason Johansen shouldn't play a trans man: the world doesn't need a movie about a trans man.
I could tolerate the New York Times so much more if it put an end to its new trans beat. We don't really need news stories about a group that is estimated at comprising less than one percent of the population.
16
Trans here. Eric, when you have your civil rights intact as you clearly do what you write is easy to say, and an indication why Boylan writes: to not be erased by your sleepy majority. The number identifying as genderfluid is skyrocketing- 7% of youth so identify. It is nothing like 1%. Brave new world and passing you by.
1
I suppose there is a greater chance of authenticity to have a trans actor play a trans role, although most truly great actors should inhabit whatever role they are given. An analogy might be Hollywood's generally dismal attempts at portraying classical musicians. Just try to suffer through 'The Competition' with Richard Dreyfus and Amy Irving. Seeing them swaying and looking to the heavens and hyperventilating while miming playing the piano is great, unintended, comedy. I guess all the great pianists who were also great actors (right, none) were unavailable. But absent the need for a bankable star for profits, I bet trans actors would do better at being trans on screen.
2
I'm thoroughly disgusted by the preponderance of glib, snarky and downright ignorant comments here. I expected a Times audience to be more informed.
First to some of the straw man arguments. "Rock Hudson played a straight man!" No, CLOSETED Rock Hudson played a straight man because had his sexuality been known by the public he wouldn't have had a career. And many actors today are still closeted for that same reason.
"We have to erase the performances of Hilary Swank, Jeffrey Tambor and others if trans actors are now asking to be cast." No we do not. Films like Boys Don't Cry introduced the public to trans lives, and now it is time to build on that, to PROGRESS and actually cast trans people in some trans roles. As my mother always says, "when you know better you do better." We now know better.
Which brings me to the 'but acting!' canard. Anyone should be able to play any role. Sure. But then why the heck do so few trans actors grace our screens in any role? Some of you laughably claim that there are no trans actors up to the task. Seriously? They missed out on the acting gene? And that line of reasoning is exactly the kind of discriminatory thinking that kept women and minorities out of universities, the board room and the Supreme Court. When trans people actually start getting cast in ANY roles then you can make a level-playing field argument.
2
Let the box office decide if it is a good idea.
6
This article explains why most people in 48 of the 50 states find New York and California so amusing. I asked everyone here in our local restaurant what in the world a “cisgender” was.
Nobody had an idea.
When we googled it - and understood - apparently in NY and Calif. for are so confused about their sexuality they need a name for folks who aren’t.
14
And we wonder why we lost millions of middle class Americans struggling to keep their heads above water? This stuff so angers so many people who think "this is who liberal press is concerned with- who it gives voice to protest? I see nothing about the decimation of my home town-typical".
So this frustrated multitude votes against their own interest in protest. Taking all the poison just to get a voice they hope will echo their concerns.
Let's discuss it in Variety or Out (if it still exists :) not the NYT.
14
Scarlett Johansson is a movie star -- one of the few women who can "open" a film that was financed simply because she agreed to act in the film. To demand that only a transgender person should play a transgender role in a film is ludicrous and literally nullifies the entire concept of "acting" and being an "actor."
Let's consider the movie star Rock Hudson. Had it been known by the public that he was a homosexual, more than likely his leading man film career would have been ended. Obviously the actors who were his friends like Elizabeth Taylor and Doris Day knew he was gay and kept his secret. Imagine if those women would have "demanded" that only straight white male could be their leading man in films -- would that have been "fair" or "right?" Clifton Webb was a gay man but played married straight men in many of his films -- suppose Barbara Stanwyck and Myrna Loy had insisted on straight men only as partners on film?
If the film is a success and Johansson's fans see the film that will do far more for the transgender community than a film with the lead played by an unknown trans actor and seen by few people.
8
This manufactured “controversy” is another example of people’s apparently insatiable desire to talk about themselves, to the exclusion of anything else. Be who you want to be, live your life the way you want to but stop boring the rest of us with the details. I’m especially tired of hearing about the harm caused by people pretending to be other kinds of people in a medium that is based on people pretending to be other kinds of people.
11
From the Mickey Rooney quote was left out that had he known the part would offend, "I wouldn't have done it."
5
Abject nonsense! Let's " legislate" who can play what part as actors? The appearance of Mickey Rooney is a cultural touchstone that reflects the era when Breakfast at Tiffanys was made. During that period, unfortunately, the trend was to cast name actors in films simply because the filmmakers wanted to guarantee the best performance, and apparently there was a dearth of ethnic actors during this era. Was perennially Irish Victor Mcglaglen Irish? Was Anthony Quinn really Greek? Was Charlton Heston Mexican in A touch of evil? Movies are art, and to culturally force the casting director to choose one actor over another that he feels is right for the part is to eviscerate the art. If this is what fluid gender people are concerned about, I would suggest that they refocus their efforts toward overdue social acceptance not by alienating the moviegoing public, but by activist measures for meaningful change toward that end.
5
It's really kind of rotten that the high profile film's title - Rub and Tug - diminishes trans representation down to the crudest of sexual acts. Of course the movie will have redeeming qualities in the script - but for the millions of people who won't see it - the title stands alone.
As for who the actor is - the truth here is that trans people are harshly discriminated against in many walks of life. I'd like to see that hatred and fear lifted to help move towards equality across the board - but starring in a movie called Rub and Tug does NOTHING to help.
A year ago, I got into my first ever bar fight. Well, an argument at a pizza place/bar, anyway. Most of the boys' baseball team had run out of the pizza bar to mimic the young man dressed as a woman who frequently walked down that street. My son was still at the table. I asked one of the moms where the boys had run off to, wondering why my dessert-crazy son would have missed an ice cream trip. She flopped her wrists and said "that THING just flounced by and they went to watch," as her younger son ran out to join them, flouncing his hips on the way. Needless to say, I yelled at her and ran outside and yelled for the boys to come in - and then told them all off, in front of their completely silent parents, for their ignorance and cruelty.
My point is: there's genuine garbage going on. Please pick a more worthy action to protest than Rub and Tug.
5
Common Sense Advocate, you're absolutely right, there is real garbage and hatred and discrimination going on. But one of those building blocks to hatred is media depiction of trans people as everything from serial killers to vein, prissy perverts. Since far fewer people personally know a trans person this is where society gets its information on who we are.
I'm a University professor, I know trans people who are engineers, physicists, and computer programmers, a military analyst, among other serious professions, not a silly person in the lot. These are real multi-dimensional people who as thought of by much of America as Mr. Garrison from South Park. While a movie may seem a pointless battle, just remember that your intervention on the street hopefully impacted a small group of boys and their parents, but a film with worldwide reach can either help or hurt on a much deeper level.
Eddie Redmayne and Jeffery Tambor, both meant to be sincere depictions, made me absolutely cringe. The only truly genuine, resonating role I've ever seen was Jamie Clayton in Sense8. It's a long process, until trans people have some genuine representation in the media we will remain in people's minds the freaks people run out of the pizza shop to make fun of.
As a woman, I see trans women portraying womanhood in ways I find most offensive. It is taking the male gaze, the male fantasy of woman as sexpot, and saying this is a more legitimate definition of womanhood than the one mother nature gave us, our bodies. How we adorn them is beside the point. A "female brain" has yet to be defined, but when it is, I'm certain it will be strongly associated with XX chromosomes. Intersex people are another matter and many are exhausted with being exploited by the trans community. Those are two separate struggles. Men, regardless of preferred attire or inner feeling, have no place defining womanhood, and feeling girlish (as they, as men, imagine women to feel, or think we should) does not a woman make. I AGREE actually, that the parts of trans people are best played by trans actors, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Perhaps trans women could take a step back and consider how they portray womanhood with what I see as womanface, a crude and insulting caricature, and that while they have every right to dress as they please, I object to their efforts to redefine me and my daughters in their image.
15
Ms. Boylan has perhaps forgotten that Mickey Rooney isn't the only offense and absurdity in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" ("Moon River", anyone?), and this new movie isn't likely to deliver on truth and beauty either.
But as long the producers hire a trans actor, it apparently doesn't matter how bad or ridiculous the rest of the movie is..... We're only policing actors (so far, anyway).
Without "cultural appropriation" there would be no art or entertainment, and without stars and box-office returns there will be no mass market movies.
Take your pick. Or just call off the police.
2
To the many readers glibly justifying Johansson's casting because of her star power, if the gatekeepers don't allow trans actors into the game, how are they ever going to acquire that star power? One gate-keeper, the Emmy-award winning casting director of Orange Is the New Black, was brave enough to buck convention and actually cast a trans woman in the role of a trans woman. The result? Laverne Cox, who said she was gobsmacked to actually be cast. The question is how many Laverne Cox's are sitting on the bench, never given their 'shot'?
2
In Hollywood, everyone is playing someone else and never playing themselves.
4
J Mills believed that the liberty was best way to destroy an untenable ideology, because liberty allows its adherents to prove their folly by pushing the ideology to its ultimate limits. Thank you JF Boylan for doing this to the romantic fetishization of authenticity.
3
An honorable mention should go to Sense8 where one of the lead characters is a trans woman played by a trans woman.
3
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe the Producer and Director wanted to use a well=known, successful ,proven box-office draw? So, they picked Ms. Johansson?
Just a thought.
3
Actors act.
They help create for us the lives of other people to witness. But until transpeople are cast in cispeople roles, that cannot be fully said and cispeople playing transpeople will, an should be, an issue.
1
I have to agree 100% with Ms. Boylan's opinion as well as how she presented it.
In my life, I cannot think of anyone besides Jennifer Finney Boylan who is a transgender person. But art imitates life, so I have to understand that such roles in film are created by the combinatin of screenwriter/writer of original text combined further with Director/Producer et al as the requirements for such thngs as Gender Equity 50:50 and whatever other corresponding progressive actions people in their willingness to change will effect. Write in some parts for transgender men and women.
But here is a part that does not need to be written. The part is not that of a Wonder Woman (never thought of a "man" for that role) whose fictional reality is not that far from actual reality. Nor is the part that of an extra-terrestrial of Superhero…I'm much more interested in the female superheroes than the males, but that's just me. Thanks for there being a good representation of women in the X-universe.
We still have to be told who all are the hybrids passing as pre-evolved humans.
The issue has received quite a good discussion, although the negatives may outweigh the positives in number. I've only skimmed the first page of comments.
But YES, IMO the problem is still the unwillingness to look outside the inner circle.
I'm sure I will want to see the movie if it's actually shown in my local theater. But what I want to know, somehow, is that people in our communities are not written out
of scripts.
2
We’ve got a long way to go, but this article requires the reader to believe that we haven’t really advanced that far beyond the cartoonishly insulting portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi. Well, we have, and actors today can and do portray different identities with sensitivity and respect. Audiences demand it, and the trade delivers. Ms. Boylan’s argument that trans roles can only be played by trans actors is acceptable as a jobs protection effort, I guess, but beyond that, it underestimates today’s audiences and the formidable talent - and sensitivity - of an actress like Ms. Johansson.
4
"there are hundreds, if not thousands, of trans actors ready to play these parts. "
But, are they *good* actors? As in, 'proven at the box office'? Movie producers want bank-able stars, not unknowns who act in local plays. It's a business.
3
They're certainly good at creating social-media accounts and spending their lives complaining about their victimization. Does that count as acting?
4
Scarlett Johansson is the most beautiful actress in the world!!!
1
It's no wonder that conservative pundits grow wealthy ridiculing the latest liberal flavor of the month. Discrimination and violence against Trans individuals are serious issues; the sexual identity of actors playing those individuals is not.
What's next?
11
That you don't see the linkage between violence against trans people and their shunning by gatekeepers in the entertainment industry is sad.
2
I understand your point. But many people saw Danish Girl because Mr. R was in it - and who may not have watched it otherwise. Perhaps more people now understand trans genders because Mr. R was cast in the firs place??
I thought Mr. R came across as selfish and self centered. I was interested to learn if this is common for a trans gender who has to live a life of pretend and lies. Maybe he did not serve the trans gender community well?? I don't know.
I loved Alicia Vikander's role more so - and became a fan of her from this point on. I was more intrigued by her as an artist and her compassion and self sacrifice.
Would casting a trans gender person instead of Mr. R have made a difference?
Acting is by its very nature imitation. Ms. Boylan's pleas remind me of people of non-European ancestry complaining of "cultural appropriation" while wearing European clothing, in European hairstyles and speaking English. And they are probably the same ones spouting the virtues of globalism.
5
This article represents why people find the NY Times opinion section irrelevant. This is an issue of very little importance to most readers since most won't see the movie no matter who stars in it. The Times should focus on more important issues in their opinion section.
9
Many men felt the same way when Ruth Bader Ginsberg appeared in court to argue for the fair and equal treatment of women in the workplace.
5
Let's say this is the rule, applied to all identities. How, exactly, would Hollywood apply it? What proof would be required?
5
I'm old enough to remember when Dr Rene Richards and Christine Jorgenson were talked about not very positively and certainly from a position of ignorance. So, when I see movies like The Crying Game and The Danish Girl which sensitively portray a transgender person, it says to me our society, at least on this subject, is evolving in a compassionate and positive way. Therefore to the advocates for transgender people I say keep up the good work but pick your battles more carefully because in this case there are bigger fish yet to fry.
2
Opinion: Why Scarlett Johansson shouldn't play a trans man? New York Times? The Onion? The Onion. Yes.
11
Critics like Ms. Boylan should make their own perfect movies and let others make their flawed ones.
5
Blimey mate !
Let's have no more of you wuss Yanks playing an Aussie !
4
This is a fine - & really stupid - way to ensure this film never gets made. Keep beating up on Scarlett Johansson until she and those producing & bankrolling this film wither in the face of this siege and abandon this project in disgust. Then we'll never hear of it again. All cultural change in casting decisions is incremental and perhaps eventually there will be many highly visible trans actors available of Johansson's caliber. Until then, trashing projects about trans lives in political dirt fights makes it even less likely these projects will ever see the light of day? Who loses then?
11
So it was not OK to cast Ben Kingsley as Gandhi in place of an Indian? Or Russel Crowe, not a schizophrenic, as John Nash, and yes he is Australain too! Or Omar Sharif as Dr. Zhivago? Actors learn the part and so their real-life experience is always at variance with the movie role. What makes a good actor is the ability to make us feel like they were born for the role they play.
13
Under this logic, trans people shouldn't be cast in cis roles. Is that what trans actors want? I doubt it.
14
In an ideal world, any actor could be cast for any part, because acting requires discovering and expressing the part of ourselves that resonates with the character. We don't live in that world, though. Just as white actors used to do Othello in blackface while equally gifted black actors played servants or couldn't get jobs at all (and were definitely not being cast as Hamlet), trans actors are not being cast as cis characters, so if they also aren't cast as trans characters, the gates are indeed closed.
4
Victimology needn't be logical or reciprocal. What the writer is asking for is limiting trans people to trans roles and cis people to cis roles (I wonder who is going to benefit once "trans" loses its current victim-chic status?).
The idea that only black people or trans people can speak or portray their roles in the arts is spectacularly stupid and self-defeating. It is the opposite of art and freedom.
11
I was mesmerized by Eddie Redmayne in "The Danish Girl". It came to a point when I forgot he was a cis male actor. But let's not forget about "A Fantastic Woman"; it was a triumph and it proved that using transgender actors is not only the right thing to do, but it literally pays $$$ off. In these times, using A-listers cisgender actor is not a safe move; on the contrary, it is sabotage. Cinephiles are ready for new talent.
What is the reason for making a movie? Nowadays it seems to have little to do with entertainment and everything to do with scratching every political itch. Yes, Mickey Rooney’s part was goofy but it was supposed to be goofy. I’m willing to bet this new movie won’t be half as good or last anywhere near as long in the annals of filmmaking.
Easily Outraged liberals are putting *everything* through fine grained political filters. They will be burning film negatives and books any time now. That’s not what I signed up for as a liberal.
6
I don't think you would like this argument applied to trans actors-they should not be allowed to play cis-women/men because cis-women/men can tell the difference.
6
I really feel for trans actors, but they're at the crux of competing ideas, which show up in other areas like cultural appropriation. It should be in the writer's art to write about anything, and the actor's art to play anyone, even if those things are outside their lived experiences. Of course, having those experiences puts you in an even better place to perform, and trans actors should have the opportunity to play trans characters, and anyone else they please.
But 'transface'? I think that's an adjective too far. I know that it's considered racist for actors to play characters from other races, and sexist for actors to play other genders, but it doesn't sit well with me artistically. If only we hadn't been saddled with blackface, and Mickey Rooney's buck teeth.
4
It's a question of money.
If Hollywood were truly concerned about social issues, and doing what is fair, we would not have had white man Sidney Toler playing Charlie Chan or David Carradine making a living as a Chinese man in Kung Fu. Or allowing sexual predators like Roman Polansky or Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby to maintain their reigns of terror for as long as they have.
Hollywood is all about the money. Hollywood believes that casting actors and actresses who can 'bring the money' - big audiences - are the ones Hollywood executives hire. It's the reason Tom Cruise continues to be cast in films (albeit, in versions of the same character, ad nauseum).
Hugh Jackman cast as Valjean in Les Miserables? The role calls for a tenor, which Jackman is not. Russell Crowe, a man who can not sing, cast in the musical Les Miz? When there are countless talented singer/actors who could have done a much better job at those roles. Why? Money - Jackman and Crowe can sell tickets.
It's not a question of political correctness or the 'right time' for a transgender actor or actress to play the role of a transgender character in a major motion picture. It's all a question of money.
1
I don't think the soul has a sexual identity. Hollywood is it's own machine. Like our government, it's going to take the wheels falling off to get us to stand together and fix it.
1
While I agree with Ms B’s assessment of ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’, I’m not exactly sure this particular Scarlet Johansson casting kerfuffle is a blatant case of ‘transface’. I lived in Pittsburgh in the 70s & early 80s and trans was nowhere on the radar in that city. Gays were hardly out of closet at that time in Pittsburgh and trans was Christine Jorgensen and that was it. If we’re going to attempt at least a little historical accuracy, I think the Tex Gill story is more of one about a ‘passing woman’, a lesbian who can pass as a man, than it is of a true transgender man.
But I can see the desire of trans male actors wanting to clamor for any scrap they can get since there’s always been so little out there (and the only trans male stories that seem to get any media attention, even in The NY Times, almost always involve a pregnancy). This is nothing more than stunt casting to get ScarJo her Oscar, kind of like Charlize Theron in ‘Monster’. It’s genius from a marketing standpoint. And who knows? Maybe it will pave the way for a trans male actor to break through on a future project? Remember, Laverne Cox & ‘Pose’ didn’t happen overnight!!
3
Linda Hunt garnered an Oscar for playing a man in "The Year of Living Dangerously" more than 30 years ago. I don't remember an uproar about it at the time. And not trans-man, a cis-man.
3
If Scarlett Johansson shouldn't play a trans man, the eminently decent Anthony Hopkins shouldn't have played a guy who eats people ... and 16th century boys shouldn't have played the parts of girls in Shakespeare's plays.
C'mon, already! Those who are whining over Johansson's decision are making much ado about nothing. It's ACTING, already. Kudos to Johansson for accepting a professional opportunity that calls for great personal "submersion into the role."
5
Hear and understand your pain. But can Shakespeare's roles be played only by European royalty? Can Helen Keller be portrayed by no one who doesn't share her disabilities? Others have pointed out many other similar disjunctions. I have no problem with females cast as Hamlet or Lear or any other male character, no problem with males portraying female roles. Please, it's not all about you.
4
“If you haven’t walked in our shoes, you wouldn’t notice the difference. But we have, and we do.”
So this only applies to trans people? I know she is referring to acting roles but Cisgender women who objected to trans women claiming that they knew what it was like to be a woman because ‘they haven’t grown up in our shoes. But we have... ’ were slammed for these statements.
9
The trans community seems to be having problems deciding what it is they actually want.
For instance, the community is grousing loudly that the part of a trans-person in this movie must go to a trans-person, otherwise? It's an act of bigotry.
But...whatever you do, don't typecast trans-people as trans-people, which is what they're asking for, cause, well... according to them, that's bigotry!
8
I almost always agree with Jennifer on these issues on the bases of simple humanity and inclusiveness; but I need to take exception to this opinion, on the basis of “Are you kidding?!”
There are about 43,470 professional actors in America (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). That represents about 0.013% of our population. I’ll leave it to readers to speculate on what percentage of THAT miniscule moiety comprises highly SUCCESSFUL lead actors capable of drawing large box office audiences. Of that 43,470, how many are trans actors and actresses, when trans PEOPLE in our population represent well-under 0.5% of our population.
A cynical person might suggest that this is an artful argument by the 17.5 trans people (and their agents) likely to be included in that cohort of 43,470 to enslave depictions of trans stories to their availability to act in them – assuming that any of those 17.5 are demonstrated as qualified to draw the audience that Scarlett Johannsson is to a story and an issue that likely wouldn’t, without her presence, be compelling to enough people to make the picture an economic success.
Come on, Jennifer. Giveth me a break.
Let NON-actor trans professionals of different types counsel Ms. Johannsson on the realities of being a trans person, in preparation for the role and on-set while the filming of her performance is taking place – the way Audrey Hepburn undoubtedly was coached on being a girl who accepted $50 from a man for a NYC ladies room visit (in 1961!).
9
This article make me think about the film "Brokeback Mountain". Heath Ledger was amazing in that film; a straight actor playing a gay man. It was very tragic he died in his 20's due to drug abuse. In my view, this example alone, demonstrates the error of only transgender people playing transgender people. Furthermore, movies with stars usually make more money. Part of the reason I would go to this movie would be that I like Scarlet Johansson. I think it is perfectly valid for movie makers to choose stars so that their movies make more money.
7
Boylan writes that only trans actors should play trans characters. Well, should only non-trans actors play non-trans characters? If so, a lot of those trans actors Boylan seems concerned about are going to find it very hard to get employed. Rooney played his Tiffany character as a caricature; it hardly seems likely that Johansson will do likewise.
14
I can understand that aspiring transgender actors needing employment would resent Scarlet Johansson assuming this role. (I don't think that she is a very good actress, by the way, and on those grounds, I would argue that the role should perhaps go to someone else.) However, to imply, as this article and the other protests suggest, that such roles should be reserved for transgender people only is a problem for me, just as it is a problem to say that only those who are native Americans can write native American history, only African Americans can write African American history, or only Europeans can write European history. There is something called common shared humanity, empathy, as well as critical distance, which helps in acting and other endeavors. And there are things that those who are not can see in the situation of those who are.
7
You raise an interesting point. And now let's ponder that point while we watch "The Sopranos" and "The Godfather," where the authenticity of each production was attributed to the Italian-American backgrounds of writers and cast.
3
Unfortunately, the actors not having been in the mob nor having murdered people really hurt their ability to play the characters.
They’re actors.
1
The fallacy of Ms. Boylan's argument is that it relies on stereotyping of trans people. There is no one type of "true" trans person, and no perfect trans personality to measure someone's performance against. If someone's performance appears inauthentic, then he or she did not do enough research. That can happen even if the actor is the same "type" as the character.
The danger of Ms. Boylan's argument is that eventually, trans people could only play trans people. Good actors who happen to be trans should have the opportunity to play all types of characters, just like any other good actor. But the reverse is also true.
11
We're told in most other contexts that transgender women are completely identical to non-transgender women. If they are the same gender, then how can you draw a distinction here? You can't logically have it both ways.
13
I wonder how many non-transgender women were asked "what being a woman ie or feels like" before that declaration was made. It is ironic that the group that refuses to be defined by "the others" has no problem dictating what being "the other" really is, what being "the other" feels like, what "the other" is going to be called and what the other can or can't do. Non-transgender women get enough grief from this non-transgender male-dominated patriarchal society as it is. Now this.
11
I would rather see, and pay money for, Ms Johansson playing just about anything than any of the "thousands" of transgender people playing themselves. Hollywood has nothing to do with authenticity. If they did they would have gone broke long ago.
7
I think I'll adapt this argument in the future any time a non-mathematician plays a mathemetician in a movie in the future. "Unless you've walked in our shoes, you cannot possibly understand." No more Russell Crowe, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jessica Alba, Anthony Hopkins, Robert Redford, Benedict Cumberbatch, Matt Damon, Dev Patel, Jeremy Irons, Octavia Spencer, Taraji Henson, or Janelle Monae!
This will be good news for Danica McKellar!
Or...maybe people I could get these movies funded and if it turns out that they are inherently better, and that my theory about mathematicians is right, and that nobody else can capture the experience correctly is right, then clearly my movies will dominate the marketplace. Right?
I really think the standard here needs to be a bit broader than "has the personal experience". I've just watched Natlie Portman play a biologist and Jennifer Lawrence play a Russian spy. Natalie Portman isn't a biologist. Jennifer Lawrence isn't a biologist.
And Anthony Hopkins isn't a cannibal. (Well, as far as I know.)
11
No. I generally agree with Ms. Boylan, but not this time. Art is about imagination, and inhabiting and communicating the lives of others: historical figures, fantastic figures, ordinary figures--of all ages, genders, colors, and nationalities.
This is a slippery slope.
One of the great things on the stage, now, is people of color playing roles that were not open to them before: Richard III, Freddie's mother in the current production of "My Fair Lady" on Broadway, the list goes soon and on. And we have had marvelous moments lately: Glenda Jackson as King Lear; Harriet Walter as Prospero.
The theatre is no place for censorship. The action is that transgender people should be considered for any kind of role: not dictating whom can play Othello, or Masha, or Professor Higgins.
13
It's no more offensive than Dustin Hoffman pretending to be a woman in 'Tootsie'. Unlike Mickey Rooney, Hoffman did not play the role for laughs or racist mockery.
I would have expected that a great deal of thought went into the casting process. This is not about personal truth-telling or identity politics. No one has a 'right' to portray a fictional character, and stories about real people are frequently better told by seasoned actors, Tom Hanks, for example. The last time I saw a real dramatic action hero portray himself was Audey Murphy in"To Hell and Back". The best we can expect is a courageous, forthright portrayal of a character who would readily fit into the world as we know it.
If we're evaluating physical appearance of the actor as a function of that reality, that might raise legitimate questions of appropriateness as to a particular actor. Understandably, the inner person and her physical manifestation are bound to be somewhat at odds with one another, especially as people age. But this is an argument over the degree of 'fitness' of the actor to the part she plays, not who gets to play that role.
In the end, actors are in the business of creating illusions to fool the eye and trick the mind. Transgender roles and gender reassignment create a fair canvas on which to tell a human story. Movies are about making make-believe appear to become reality. It shouldn't become a 'contract rider' issue that seeks statement about societal equity.
15
It goes both ways. I'm trans myself, having transitioned about 20 years ago. In 2004, I attended the first all-transgender Vagina Monologues in Los Angeles. It wasn't a huge community and I already knew everyone there. A lot of the monologues are about things like getting a first period. I squirmed in my seat, so glad I wasn't part of the cast. It was uncomfortable enough just to be there and have to suffer through it. None of us had ever had a period. This was appropriating an experience none of us had. I've never said this before, but I was appalled. It was phony.
21
Yep, there is more to being a woman that meets the eye, as you experienced during that performance. There are so many biological, societal, economical and emotional things in a woman's life that shapes her and her experience right from birth. From periods to what the MeToo movement finally uncovered, from being given less opportunities than boys at school to being fired for getting pregnant, there is a heck of a lot that happens to women from birth in a non-transgender male dominated patriarchy.
4
Dante Gill identified as a butch lesbian. Stop the female erasure, NYT.
18
There is no erasure. Dante, who asked to be addressed as "Mr. Gill" throughout most of his adult life, was a lesbian who had gender reassignment surgery after saving enough money.
Only __________________ will play ______________.
Choose your answer:
heterosexuals, heterosexuals
homosexuals, homosexuals
psychopaths, psychopaths
AIDS victims, AIDS victims
unfaithful spouses, unfaithful spouses
etc.
How utterly stupid.
28
Film after film about trans people? Really? How many of them are mainstream? Wait a minute... if only people who are (fill in the blank) can take on acting roles of characters who are (fill in the blank) does that mean only (fill in the blank) people can attend those same movies? Because they’re the only ones who can really understand the point of view, right?
24
1 of 2
Reading through the comments, it’s pretty shocking to see the backlash against this piece, not to mention the overwhelming support for all that negativity and vitriol by the people who clicked “recommend”.
Some of those insensitive comments actually prove the writer’s point when they argue the case of equivalency, saying that if cis people can’t play trans people, then trans people shouldn’t be able to play cis people. In our current society trans people NEVER get cast as cis people, so there goes that argument. They are ONLY cast as trans people. That means that it’s very hard for those actors to get work, and when they do, it’s usually as a peripheral trans character (and often those characters are damaged in some way). So, in the rare case that films and TV shows do have a featured trans character, giving the majority of those roles to cis people is incredibly unfair, and perpetuates the suppression of trans actors’ careers.
10
It's more important to me that trans actors be considered for ANY and ALL roles they could play well - and not be pigeonholed into trans roles - than to insist that trans roles always go to trans actors. Dictating casting decisions to directors and producers is a losing proposition. As a gay man, I was thrilled to see straight actors taking gay roles and sometimes winning Oscars (William Hurt, Tom Hanks, Sean Penn, Matthew McConaughey) and I was equally thrilled to see Broadway launch an all-gay cast for the Revival of The Boys in the Band. Let's celebrate that trans stories are being told and root for trans actors to get great roles (whether trans or not). And let's stop looking at everything through a zero-sum lens.
33
Hear, hear.
For some reason, some people don't like ScarJo (it is said that she hates this nickname!) They were up in arms when she was cast in Ghost In The Shell. Now this.
While some castings are beyond the realm of sensibility, like Emma Stone in Aloha, heck, more power to the actors if they can pull it off. Charlize Theron got a rave review in Monster. It's just a movie.
Understandingly, some people see their identity as sacrosanct, and probably so, but this sort of taking everything too seriously, on both the left and the right, can get to be too much. It is some doubtful that movies like Blazing Saddles could ever be made these days.
Right now, there are more pressing problems in this world. Great injustice and tragedy. Innocent people get killed. Ethnic cleansing everywhere. But some people, both the left and the right, are fixated on some mediocre notions, or trying to fight the symptoms and not the root causes.
Live and let live, and save your anguish for something genuinely worthwhile. If Ms Johansson does a good job, she will do your cause a favor. If not, then the movie will end up in the rotten tomato bin anyway.
14
Why professional complainers shouldn’t decide who is cast for whom. Welcome to free artistic expression. Occasionally you will have to endure choices you don’t personally approve of.
Is it just me or are half the Op-Ed’s these days weird dystopian power fantasies?
35
You missed the part where trans actors are rarely ever cast, or just don't care?
1
I'm baffled by arguments such as this. I'm a white, heterosexual male that has counseled many students who are gay and a few that identified as transsexual. I have a female cousin married to a woman. I attended their wedding. I have a male nephew married to a man. They are both wonderful people and very happy. I'm accepting of other people's choices.
However, movies are made to make money. Nobody is forced to go. If groups of people who share common interests and/or sexual orientation feel left out they are welcome to finance their own films. Certainly it makes sense for any moviegoer to suggest who they would like to see on the screen. Many would like to see a black James Bond. I was against that until I saw Idris Elba on the screen. I think Hiddleston is the best choice, but I can see Elba perhaps doing a great job. Does this mean a white man may one day play The Black Panther?....probably not.
I think Scarlett Johansson is amazingly beautiful, but not a great actress. My watching a movie or not watching will depend on the reviews. If there is a trans male actor out there that would be more effective in the part I wish they had been chosen.
The fact is if the movie is done in a garbage way it won't make any difference who plays the part because it won't make the big screen. I'm a big Bruce Willis fan. I started watching one his movies on cable then realized it was really bad. I looked it up. It made a little over $16,000...It's all about money.
3
I think that many of the comments come down to that the typical audience looking for entertainment doesn't care for, and in fact may be repulsed, by the kind of authenticity that Jennifer believes brings nuance and realism to the roll.
I did read a lot of comments that come down to "it's acting so what" and "if you start down this rat hole than no one can play anything but who they are".
They all sound pretty straightforward and logical, but if we hold that view than men would still be playing women as they did in Shakespeare's time (and before), and blacks, and Asian people would still always be played by white men too.
If the arguments are simply an excuse to shutout and never allow a transperson to play a transperson than it is a facetious argument. The point I get from Jennifer's piece is that just as their was a time when women were allowed to play women's roles, and blacks to play black roles, and for blacks to play rolls that were slaves or servants it may be time to allow a transperson to play a transperson.
5
I don't hear anyone saying a trans person cannot play a trans person. But they ask, quite reasonably, why must a trans person play a trans person.
4
None of the posts suggest that trans people should never play trans characters.
1
While I understand and am sympathetic to some of this argument, I think it highly overstated.
It is basically arguing William Hurt shouldn't have played a gay man (or Kevin Spacey a straight man), or Charlize Theron a prostitute; as such, where does this argument end? Skinny people shouldn't be allowed to play fat people?
Let's face it: any and all acting is basically a form of escapism, so why should there be any rules whatsoever?
Movies don't get anywhere without making a profit, so studios do what they think is proper to continue making their trade work for themselves and the public.
17
So many words to obfuscate that what matters here is the actor’s performative, artistic quality not personal characteristics.
12
Disagree.
Actors act.
What you’re saying is that trans roles should go to trans people.
I’m going to leave it at that and leave the author and everyone else to work out what this really means.
4
They are actors. Let her act. She is at the top of her game and she is female. Maybe all the guys who are now girls are just jealous!
11
I need to admit upfront that I have had a crush on Scarlett Johansen from the first shot of her in The Girl With the Pearl Earing. So I am prejudiced from the get go about wanting see her on screen as often as possible, but I am not immune to the argument that marginalized groups need to be more visible; the question is what is the best way to accomplish this lofty goal? I am not convinced that Scarlett has some moral duty to give up her opportunity to do what she loves: instilling life in a character drawn by we hope, a talented writer. Ironically, perhaps by accepting the role she is enlivening the discussion Ms. Boylan hopes to promote.
3
This opinion piece leads to the inescapable--but insupportable--conclusion that only whites can play white roles, only blacks can play black roles, only Jews can play Jewish roles, only homosexuals can play homosexuals, only heteros play heteros, etc. etc.
I guess it's up for discussion who should get to play cavemen, aliens (the outer space kind), or apes (as in Planet of the Apes). I also wonder how to decide who will portray humans of mixed race or fluid gender. And can a Nigerian portray an Ethiopian? Their appearances, languages and cultures are very different, but both are Africans. How fine a filter must we apply to make sure we aren't offending someone, somewhere, somehow?
The essence of theater and cinema is the willing suspension of disbelief, which allows actors/actresses of various ages, genders, sexual preferences and races to play a wide range of roles. People are willing to pay to see fine actors acting, whatever the role.
Inasmuch as movies exist largely to make money, those who can come up with a concept, script and funding are free to make pretty much any movie they wish. Best of luck at the box office, though. Making a financially successful movie is not a sure thing, which is why producers usually pick stars to play the leads in movies: to enhance the chances of making a big profit.
I don't know how many trans actors/actresses there are; I do hope they have every opportunity to become stars and box-office successes.
14
It's amazing to me how some individuals make so much out of what is basically a non-issue.
7
I think it is ridiculous to limit the freedom of actors to portray what they desire or to push their boundaries.
4
Scarlett Johansson is an actress. Actors and actresses are paid to transform themselves into other people for awhile, on screen and stage. That's what this role requires her to do, just like all her other roles, and since she's a fine actress, she will pull it off. That should be - and probably will be - the end of the story.
14
I'm sorry, but I feel that objecting to an actor playing the role of whoever they see fit to play is ridiculous. With all the things that are out there to object to, why not save your energy for other more pressing and valid concerns?
16
No need to hyper analyze, it's simple. They simply want people to watch the movie.
1
There's a key difference between Rooney's yellowface and Johanssen's performance that the author is glossing over: the intention behind the character, the difference between holding a character up for ridicule on the one hand, and portraying (even with imperfect acting) a person with dignity and a story worth telling. That's why minstrelsy is sickening but we can still enjoy Othello - a role written for a white actor in blackface.
5
Good Grief.
This kind of nonsense is why some people vote for Trump.
If your super-sensitive, ultra-snowflaky trans sensibilities are so offended you can form your own all-trans production company. All-trans writers can write all-trans stories produced by all-trans casts and crews. Financed, of course, by all trans investors. Viewed, no doubt, by all-trans audiences and critics.
Then you can take your ten dollars in profit and start work on your second production.
Although I have no idea how you plan to follow such an undoubtedly artistic masterpiece as a movie called "Rub and Tug".
11
If an actor is best when representing their own truth they are bad actors.
10
Ouch. There's a lot of hurt in the comments here about someone raising their hand to say it's very nice people are interested in telling stories about them; at first it's a relief and exciting; but at a certain point having no room for a minority to speak for themselves gets awkward; you go on for very long it gets frustrating; after a while it's downright rude. they'd also like to see some stories *by* them too.
There are some places where being openly trans can get you killed. There are are others where you might get a job and even tell your story to an audience. Sometimes those are the same place. It's a strange world. The least we can do is listen with an open heart when someone speaks from the heart.
6
Then let's let women speak for themselves: no transgender woman should ever play a woman or write about women or women's issues or tell them what they must call themselves.
5
This is 100% the same objection that cis women had when you wrote about "sex as a man, vs sex as a woman," speaking for women.
14
This argument at its simplest argues that the only ones who can become maine biologists are fish!
6
In opera we see Korean tenors play Figaro and Macbeth. But that's because the quality of the voice trumps all in opera.
In film, I'm tired of seeing the same top-earning actors interpret every role that matters. I can't watch "Pride and Prejudice" with Keira Knightley because it's part of the story that Liz Bennett was on the plain and lumpy side. Not a tall slender supermodel type like the woman who played her.
Scarlett Johansson is a great actor but I don't think she should get to do everything. I would have preferred seeing someone more fresh and new, and it would be a delightful change to have someone who is trans.
2
Only inanimate characters and objects should be allowed to provide the voiceovers for animated films. What does Tom Hanks really know about being a pull-string cowboy doll? How dare he.
3
It is a movie not world peace. Men used to play the parts of women in times past when women were not allowed on stage and the world did not end. White people dressed as Black and civilization did not end.
Transgender people do not have more rights than the rest of us. If the producers and directors choose a woman to play role and transgender people are offended simply do not pay to see the movie.
4
I watched "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" last night. Lady Chablis is fantastic in that movie. She is a transgender actor in a transgender role, and she is incredibly authentic and very talented. Check it out.
3
The purpose of the film is to make a profit, using an actor who can actually act, is not at all unusual.
4
I read this a while ago and have some lingering questions.
1. Are trans actors generally discriminated against in casting?
2. Does the audience know (or need to know) much of anything about an actor other than acting ability?
3. Since, obviously, real life spies are not required to play James Bond nor is royal lineage required to portray the Queen of England - where should we draw the line and expect an actor to have life experiences similar to their character?
4. Isn't Hollywood all about creating a facade and asking us to suspend disbelief and accept that this actually is Wonder Woman or the evacuation at Dunkirk?
5. Why would anyone ever think a movie or TV show must be a realistic portrayal of anything?
6. I am all for anyone who wants to be an actor finding work. They may not find work being themselves, but did Katherine Hepburn ever play herself?
13
Of course, when Leontyne Price sang Tosca, there was no "cultural appropriation."
5
A wholly irrelevant subject. We have serious problems, and we need people concentrating on what matters.
3
There is a semantics issue here that strikes me as discordant. The use of the terms cis and trans is based on chemical structures. For the non-scientist, cis means next to, and trans means across from.
In the context described in this OP-ED, what Ms. Boylan and the LGBT World note is actually the opposite of what modern science has determined these descriptive words actually mean.
10
Thank you. I am sick and tired of being called "next to" woman. I am a woman. Period.
5
At this point, there's an additional argument for casting a trans man in the role: to test the hypothesis.
If the movie succeeds with a trans mam in the role, great! Unfortunately, if it doesn't, who will get the blame?
1
I disagree for all the reasons that have previously been stated.
2
There is an inherent paradox in acting. Dustin Hoffman won an award for playing an autistic man in Rain Man because it was well known that he was “acting” but Leonardo DeCaprio did not win for What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, because he was still relatively unknown and some thought that he portrayed the disability so well because he was actually disabled. We are all better off when we let actors be actors. Otherwise a Brit couldn’t play Lincoln, a healthy man couldn’t play Roosevelt, only Danes could play Hamlet and so on.
6
First world problems. This piece comes off as painfully PC and self righteous. The argument is easily defeated given that being transgender is about sexual orientation (not race as in her examples) and that straight actors regularly play homosexual characters and vice-versa. It will not convince anyone who does not already agree with it.
Also since using proper terminology is a big issue for this demographic I would like to point out that nobody wants to be called "cisgender" so it would be appreciated if you not use this term to describe us. We will call you whatever you like and request that you return the favor.
16
I think she will be great and I will see this movie (that would otherwise not really interest me) to see her in the role. The faux-offense is quite off-putting. Come on now, if this is the "oppression" of trans people, I think we can safely say nobody is being oppressed.
5
The comments on this article really miss the mark. Trans people are one of the most marginalized communities in the world, and seeing a bunch of supposedly-informed NYT readers dismiss a trans person's legitimate concerns about the lack of opportunities afforded to trans actors is frankly depressing. It would be one thing if trans people were getting cis roles in films, but they aren't. They are only allowed to play trans people, and most of the time, not even then. We will never get A-list trans actors until we actually let them appear in films. At the very least, shouldn't they get to play themselves? And, as cis people, we won't make any progress until we listen when trans people offer us correctives.
8
Women are a marginalized group too . We have not had it easy either but some how it is o.k. for one marginalized group to tell another what they are to be called, what being them is supposed to be and now being told what they can or can't do. Bad enough we, women (yes, women, not cis-anything) have had men oppressing us for the longest time, now we get trans-people appropriating and dictating our experience too? Non-sense.
3
Then let trans people play Cis roles, if they have the acting chops to pull it off. Problem solved.
A white male is not a marginalized. His concerns are no more than navel gazing whining. He's not a woman and he has no right to complain what real women choose to do.
1
This "cultural appropriation" panic peddled by those whose mindset seeks to deny empathetic artistry to any "other" would, taken to its logical conclusion, corral humanity back into wholesale segregation. It is corrosively anti-art -- a form of malignant righteousness -- and the fact that it is so in vogue and propagated by this once great paper absolutely breaks my heart.
15
Acting is acting. If and when I watch this movie, I'll do it for the storyline and performance skills. It's an actor playing a role. Was it wrong to cast Sean Penn as Harvey Milk? Was it wrong to cast Neil Patrick Harris as Barney Stinson? Comparing to offensive stereotypes of 50 years ago just isn't equivalent. If her portrayal is poor, my opinion will change.
5
Taking this way too seriously. Acting is artificial, trying to pretend it's real. Red paint instead of blood. Stunt performers doing what most actors couldn't pull off themselves. Except for historical movies which follow the facts as closely as possible, acting should be opened up for anyone who has the skills to perform well.
I agree with a comment below that trying to place everyone in a separate box is more harmful than helpful.
And I don't expect most readers will approve this comment. Too bad. For someone whose parents survived the Holocaust, and lost hundreds of close relatives, and my father waking up often screaming from his nightmares, I think I understand something about being different, discrimination, and hatred.
6
While I agree on the representation issue, I have a problem with targeting actresses and not the male directors, producers, screenwriters who have all the creative control. Blame them; they're making these decisions. Or perhaps it's partly a matter of using someone else's fame, because who would read, "Why Rupert Sanders Shouldn't...."
.
.
(And, of course, I'm dismayed that Scarlett Johansson seems to be a repeat offender.)
6
There is no question that Mickey Rooney’s being cast for the part he played in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” and the way he played it, was appalling, because it played to ugly racist stereotypes on every level.
But when a woman is cast to play a woman who was born in a male body - for that is what we are talking about, or similarly if a man is cast to play a man who was born in a female body, we are talking about actors who share physical appearance with those they are playing, and who do their best, as an actor in any part does, to get inside that person and portray them respectfully.
If one were to follow Ms. Boylan’s argument to it’s logical - illogical? - conclusion, an actor who had a privileged up bringing could never play a poor person, an actor who hadn’t been sexually abused as a child could never play someone who had been, an actor who had never served in combat could never play someone who had. Because no one who has not been in these, and a large number of other situations could ever hope to fully understand, and fully convey, the horrors experienced by those who have.
5
Humbug.
Ms. Finney Boylan’s logic fails at many critical junctures. She writes: “ ... there’s usually something slightly off when cisgender actors play us. People who aren’t trans don’t see it; they give each other awards and weepily hail their bravery.”
Should not this then relegate trans actors to playing only and exclusively trans roles? After all, how ever could a trans understand what it really means to be cis, to walk in my shoes?
Dredging up hundred-year old references to blackface and Mickey Rooney do not well serve Ms. Finney Boylan’s position. As other commenters have noted, “Actors act!” May the best actor win.
7
I felt exactly the same way about Madonna playing Evita. Shouldn’t have been allowed.
1
But you give a pass to Patti LuPone? Or are you only aware of the movie?
LGBT actors play straight characters all the time, and no one seems to complain, why can't the opposite be true? You can;t have it both ways.
7
Producers are thinking about box office receipts and not about how appropriate their casting decisions are. She is a big international star—that’s all they care about—it’s a business.
1
not a front-burner issue, but i can't let the logical conclusion of this piece go unchallenged...the argument being made really is, transgender, or gay, or fill in the blank group here, can play a character from their community. It's more complicated. It's absurd to say a blind actor can only play a sight-challenged character. Do you have to be hearing impaired to get an audition for a deaf role? No one's advocating for charlie sheen to play malcom x in blackface; god, no. But somehow lin-manuel miranda can inhabit alexander hamilton. None of the transgender actors mentioned to play the trans man in this narrative would do a better job than a woman with johansson's superior skill set. if she can pull off the suspension of disbelief, then let the role (and oscar?) go to the cis gender actor who identifies as a woman.
4
The request that more trans actors play trans parts and that trans characters should be portrayed with respect is a valid one, but drawing some hard line in the sand that no cisgender actor can play a trans person is unreasonable. Movies require a lot of investment (i.e. money) to make and people don't make bets on unknown stars. We can't demand that actors be every role they portray in their own personal lives. Russian people can be played by Americans. Straight charactes can be played by gay actors. I would guess that some trans actors would be very upset if they were only ever considered for trans roles. It should be no more controversial that Johansson is playing a trans character than a trans person cast as a cisgender character.
1
I know this may sound insensitive but it’s called ACTING! Countless sensitive roles have been played by ACTORS who are not the identity of the person they’re playing.
4
Can we be real for a moment? Ms. Johansson is a well known box office draw. I am not knowledgeable when it comes to trans actresses so I'm not going to address something I know nothing about. Maybe there's a great trans out there. But if I'm risking 7 figures are you trying to tell me I'm obligated to a trans actor? Doesn't sound like a logical financial move. Please try to avoid telling me (the finance folks) how I should risk my money. If you're willing to risk the funds please go out and find your own financing and then film your own movie.
2
I didn't like it when Gwyneth Paltrow played a British person in Shakespeare in Love (ironically playing a man in the play within the play) and I didn't like Audrey Hepburn playing Eliza Doolittle, the part made famous on stage in London by Julie Andrews (My Fair Lady). These are subjective feelings on my part. I no longer enjoy movies much and don't spend much time on them. My subjective feeling is that I would rather see a trans person play a trans person.
What I find disconcerting about this debate is that it's based on assuming that Dante Gill identified as a trans man even though she is deceased and unable to speak for herself. To go back in history and identify women who presented as male as trans men after the fact risks misgendering people, in particular those who were lesbians and had different reasons for presenting as they did in the times that they lived.
I doubt any of us knows for sure, but it appears from Gill's obituary that people who knew her referred to her as a lesbian and used female pronouns. That the media of the day described her as "a woman who wanted to be a man" reflects a typical prejudice about lesbians at the time and shouldn't necessarily be taken literally.
Transgender advocates may well want to debate whether transgender characters should be portrayed only by trans actors, but you might want to at least hold off on that debate until we're talking about a character that is unequivocally transgender.
13
This is like insisting that scientists in movies be played by real scientists. Are we so far gone into entertainment-world that we're looking to Hollywood for accurate representations of what we're told our various personal truths should be?
It's another movie starring an attractive actress. There's no reason to care about it. Trans people will not be forever defined by it, just as no one else is defined by any other movie. Pass the popcorn.
10
Then based on the reasoning behind this essay, I should expect transgender actors to only play transgender characters? And that the author will not be outraged if , as a non-transgender woman, I will be highly offended if a transgender woman plays a non-transgender female character? Additionally, since I did not see a similar essay when Jeffrey Tambor was cast in Transparent, I am guessing this essay is in reaction to the fact that the actor in question is a non-transgender woman? I truly hope it is not because if it is, you just list some "support for your cause" points from this non-transgender woman.
14
I'm surprised the author did not make reference to that Chilean indie film "A Fantastic Woman" (2017). It is about a trans woman played by a trans woman. The film and the actress got all kinds of prizes and world recognition. Why can't that happen in Hollywood too? Is the Latin American film industry ahead of its more powerful US film industry and public?
3
That movie only made 3 million dollars world wide.
There was concern only when he appeared in “Cruising.” There are always groups who protest for their cause, but they should not be able to stifle artistic expression just because they do not agree with it. We’re an open society in which different ideas can be discussed and evaluated. If you don’t like something, don’t go to see it. No one should be a self-appointed censor for everybody else.
5
My proposal to you is: Don't go see the movie. All art is in the eye of the beholder.
You have expressed yourself as opposed to the actor in this movie. I would propose. you round up the funding and hire the transgender actors and make a movie.
If we were all alike and all of us thought and felt the same, it would be pretty sad world.
7
I remember the moment Denzel Washington appeared onscreen in the movie "Much Ado About Nothing" several years ago. I had always thought of the Shakespearean character Mr. Washington played, Don Pedro, as Caucasian, so I wasn't mentally prepared to see an African American in the role. For about ten minutes, I followed the action of the movie, uncertain how to react to this unexpected development. My lack of mental preparation mattered not at all. Mr. Washington was perfect in every respect. Because he is a great actor.
While I understand Ms. Boylan's reservations, I also am aware of the capacity to be blown away by performances.
8
Like it or not, the simple fact is Scarlet Johnson is a recognizable name that can draw in a crowd. I can think of one trans-actor who MAYBE has a name draw, and that would be Laverne Cox.
Certainly you can have a chicken-or-the-egg discussion. Are there no mainstream trans-actors with name draws because they aren't cast in roles, or vice-versa?
At the end of the day, your cause is being represented in the most powerful artistic medium man has ever endeavored to create, and mainstream Hollywood names championing to portray that cause, both in front and behind the camera. It may not be the finish line you want, but is it not a step in the right direction?
4
Filmmakers should be able to cast whomever they like. Filmmaking is a for-profit business and Johansson sells tickets. Those who are offended can stay home. If enough people skip the movie, perhaps future casting considerations will be different. In the meantime, filmmakers need to be allowed to do what they deem necessary to make films that will be both artistically and financially successfully.
15
Johansson is an amazing actress and I have no doubt she will be able to portray the transgender role. The implication that gender binary actors can only play traditional roles is no different than cisgender actors need to be restricted to cisgender roles.
Trans or binary actors should be judged by their skills and not by gender. The thought that trans actors can portray characters better just because of their similar, but not share experiences is faulty at best. Do all binary gender people share the same experiences? Certainly not!
10
If she is not doing a parody then there is nothing wrong with her taking the acting job. Gay people play straight characters all the time, some who are out and some who still closeted. Unless the LGBTQ community is willing to refuse any role that does not match the actors' status, then it should stop complaining about Scarlett's role. There are not that many gay or trans characters so the LGBTQ community should be careful what it wishes for. The argument cuts both ways.
23
I don’t think actors should be allowed to act. It’s insensitive to the emotional reality of actual people.
118
Right, actors should only act in documentaries, because fiction movies are about authenticity.
2
BRAVO
1
Carmen Maura already played a transgender role over 30 years ago in La ley del deseo and was hailed for her courage. It was considered a breakthrough in its time.
Of course there should be more roles open to all types of people in cinema -- which, being so expensive to produce, has truly lagged behind theatre in innovation, and in resistence to stereotyping. I agree with those who've pointed out that stating a specific actor should not play a specific role on some "ideological" basis is fundamentally stifling to art. But apart from that, it seems to me that casting Scarlett Johansson in this role is likely to create more opportunities for trangendered people, not restrict them.
5
We all have control over how these movies are received (and made with what actors - whether they fit the part or not ), by how many of us pay for a ticket.
If no one goes, (again and again), then the corporate executives will soon figure that out and change their ways. It is pretty simple.
It is much like how we complain about losing jobs, businesses and manufacturing, yet never by local to support our own jobs, businesses and manufacturing.
Of course, we could just comment on blogs with the fierceness of a thousand suns, while still buying the tickets and popcorn.
4
The weakness of this essay shows in the need for a breathtaking piece of false equivalence, first used to set the scene for the author's argument and then repeated to keep that argument going.
Mickey Rooney's turn as a Japanese in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is a burlesque. Scarlett Johansson's performance as a transgender person, as far as I can tell, is to be nothing of the kind. Rooney's performance is truly intolerable, to me (though the movie is often revived on Japanese TV along with other Audrey Hepburn movies). It's bewildering that any mainstream filmmaker, at any time since World War II, would have served up such a thing.
But now consider that I've heard a Korean-American friend complain about seeing Japanese actors play Koreans in serious roles. That kind of complaint has become common among Americans who claim an ethnic identity. They assert that actors ought to be "the real thing". However, as others have commented here -- and as the author anticipates -- that assertion contradicts the essence of acting.
Actors, by the nature of their work if not their personalities, want to play characters who are different from themselves. It's not the object of filmmaking or the theater to let actors celebrate their biological heritage or to create acting ghettos in which different sets of people have the casting concessions.
But if the point of this essay really seems worth making, the author should at least throw out the false Rooney comparison and try again.
15
What will LGBTQ actors do if they are no longer allowed to portray heterosexual characters in film, television and theatre? After all... there simply aren't that many LGBTQ roles to go around. But what is good for the Goose should be good for the Gander.
44
You've completel missed the point! Trans actors are rarely cast for any role, and now many here seem to think it's just fine that they can't even play their own gender. Shameful!
But some are both gander and goose. What to do?
I want to understand Ms. Boylan's point of view. But I'm having issues. First, to reference Mickey Rooney's performance in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" seems desperate. We're slightly beyond that. Second, the fact that someone is trans does not inherently make them the right choice for the role of a trans character.
In the role that Ms. Johansson has been cast for, it is not "blackface" nor is it "Asian." And contrary to the hysteria revolving casting her in "Ghost in the Shell" (an anime character, not a real person), none of the Japanese people I know (and I am a Caucasian living in Japan) had any issue with ScarJo's casting. They love her here.
To say that a project is "simply not good enough" because Jen Richards has made a pronouncement, sorry; I disagree. It is not fair to single out Scarlett and condemn her for taking on this role. If we fall victim to this type of thinking, then our wonderful beloved actors will only be allowed to play a narrow range of roles "approved of" by a group of self-appointed individuals who apparently have decided what is "correct." It is also cruel to insult those who have gone to the wall to study and inhabit a character, such as Eddie Redmayne in "The Danish Girl."
I do understand the larger point, and Hollywood will wake up. But we must not dictate who shall play certain characters. As another writer pointed out, it will (or has already) start us down a slippery slope.
52
Well written and spot on.
Acting is the expression of a character. It's not an expression of the person playing the character.
Slippery slope indeed.
25
I feel it's fair to single her out because I feel I've been seeing too much of her anyways, to the point where I feel like a French goose being force-fed.
I also feel that way about Benedict Cumberbatch. And all actors currently named Chris, whom I cannot tell apart at all.
New new new. I want something new. Oh I know -- how about discovering a NEW talent in acting who is trans???
If an Asian had played Ms. Johansson's part in Ghost in the Shell, People in Japan would have rightly protested, because in the original anime her character had ROUND EYES, the way every character does in Anime. Also, any objection to so-called "cultural appropriation" is an insult to Japanese Culture, because copying aspects of other cultural is one of Japan's greatest strengths.They copied the Chinese in the 5th century, and the Americans and Europeans in the 19th century, which is why they are the powerful cultural and economic force they are today. For any style of music--Jazz, blues, bluegrass, Irish, Jug band, Paraguayan Harp--there are dozens of Japanese who play it expertly.
2
Just out of (genuine!) curiosity for those that agree with the author - in your opinion, was Al Pacino playing a Cuban on Scarface ok, or was that out-of-line as well?
I'm not trying to play the what-about card, it's just that I've never heard concerns raised about the movie, and it seems closely analogous. So I would be interested if there is a distinction I'm missing.
16
Many Hispanic actors hated his work in that film. Pacino is Satan in that community, unfortunately. A Hispanic actress came before the SAG Nominating Committee in order to be considered for the Board. She stated that she wanted the Union to install a policy wherein all roles for Hispanics should only be open to Hispanic actors and they need to bring their birthday certificates to the auditions. I proceeded to tell her about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was unfamiliar to her. This stupid conversation happened in the early 1990s and by the way, she didn't get nominated to the Board.
I recall actually there was a tiny bit of talk about that. But Cubans who escaped Castro and came to Florida tended to be ultra-conservative back then. Cubans didn't want to celebrate the Cuban identity of a psychopathic drug lord. Better he should be played by an Italian, right?
But then Scarface was really Italian in fact. Because the story was based on Al Capone, an Italian-American like Pacino.
The ethnic authenticity of the cast was an issue on the Sopranos. Imagine the kind of ruckus that would have been raised if they'd cast someone French or Irish or Jewish to play Tony, instead of James Gandolfini.
When we're talking Mafia, suddenly it's okay to limit the cast to Italian-Americans. Conservatives do not complain, it's just taken for granted that's what you have to do in order to tell an authentic Mafia story.
Here's the thing - movies are a business, they're made for profit, and people will pay to see Ms Johansson in a movie because she's a big star, a household name
Nothing against Jen Richards, but I've never heard of her and, I'll wager, neither have 99.9999999999999% of the movie-going public. So you tell me why any movie producer would cast a complete unknown in their $100M+ movie when they could have Scarlet Johansson, and maybe actually sell some tickets to recoup their investment?
38
If Ms. Boylan is free to identify as a woman in her personal life, why is Ms. Johansson not free to take on whatever role she likes in her professional life?
As a musician friend of mine once pointed out to me, when actors who are not pianists act as if they are playing the piano, there's usually something slightly off. Non-musicians might not notice the difference. But musicians do. Does it follow from this that actors who are not pianists have no business playing them?
50
Mark, This is exactly the point, but reversed. If you hire a non-pianist actor to play a pianist then most people may not recognize that they aren't doing it well, but people who know that experience WILL recognize it. If you can choose between two actors of similar talent, one who actually plays the piano and one who can't, then who seems the obvious choice?
Has no one seen Transamerica (2005)? This was a great Trans movie, Felicity Huffman played a transitioning man.
13
Admittedly I like Scarlett Johansson, she is a very fine actress. She to the best of our knowledge and certainly not alleged by Ms. Boylan in this article is doing this as some kind of protest, enlightenment or for a political party or special interest group. She is an accomplished actress that was offered a role she obviously saw a desire to play. Insisting that a transgender person play the role may be educational for the rest of us but it would not result necessarily in a more interesting or entertaining experience. Movies can be art, pure entertainment or diversion.
27
I agree with the writer wholeheartedly! And might I add Gandalf should have been played by a wizard! And what’s the deal with muggles playing wizards?!
But seriously, we just saw Frozen on Broadway and much to our surprise and delight several of the prominent characters on stage were Black. Now Frozen is set in a fjords filled reindeer loving town. I read that as white blonde blue eyed much like the movie portrayed. I’m glad that the theater production didn’t feel like it HAD to only have white actors to stay “true” to the story. It’s called “acting”, people need to get a grip. Not every hill has to be the you die on.
98
And then, too, there's that business with the "Thor" movies in which Idris Elba has been playing a Norse god. I mean, REALLY!; how can we possibly take those movies SERIOUSLY when they cast black actors in roles that should be reserved for fair-haired Scandinavians?
2
I appreciate your comment and find it very valid, and it makes me curious about how it would be if a movie or play was set in an African country such as Nigeria—or in India or in Sri Lanka—and white actors were cast as native inhabitants.
"Jen Richards tweeted, 'If your project needs a "star" for financing, then it’s simply not good enough.'"
Seriously? These words could only have been spoken by someone who has never tried to get a movie made.
Movies need huge teams and lots of money to get made, and even more to be seen. Stars help make that process go.
Millions of people seeing a well-made and truthful story told by an expert team is better for diversity and tolerance than a $20,000 movie nobody sees. Even if the star of the latter is trans.
As those who do make movies know, 100% of nothing is nothing.
61
And given America's disinterest and defensive resistance to this issue if any Hollywood film project would need a "Star" to make it commercially viable it would be a film about a Transgender character.
1
So does this sort of argument apply when non-white actors play characters that have always been identified as Caucasian (e.g., some of the stars of the current Lincoln Center production of "Carousel")? I sure hope not. What we want to see are good actors giving quality performances in whatever roles they happen to play. Their gender, race, gender preference, religion, ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. And, come to think of it, I certainly hope that transgendered actors won't be confined to playing transgendered characters in plays/films written by transgendered authors.
48
My mistake: the "Carousel" production I'm referring to is on Broadway, not at Lincoln Center.
Trace Lysette made an excellent point on her Twitter page that transgender actors are never cast for cisgender roles. If one is going to make the argument that this is acting and we shouldn't put people in boxes then shouldn't the same argument be applied to transgender actors playing cisgender roles? It's acting. It's outside of their experience.
10
Alexandra Billings is a wonderful actress. She just completed a terrific supporting role in the second season of Goliath.
1
Casting decisions, should be informed by representatives of the group they're seeking to portray, but I don't think that the actors have to match up perfectly in their personal lives to what they're portraying onscreen.
Efforts should be made to make the portrayals realistic and convincing to members of the group being portrayed. If it's too far off – Caucasians cast as Asians – it looks weird and cartoonish. But achieving "authenticity" is more than just ticking off a box.
5
that reasoning could be extended to the logic of gender: if representatives of the group portrayed should perform an advisory role on who is cast, one could equally claim that, for instance, cis-women might be weighing in on who among transwomen is suitably and believably "female." The author, indeed, stresses this point of believability, that trans women will do a better acting job. That's dangerous logic: a cis-woman does a far better acting job of being a woman. Should cis women be upset? Of course not.
1
While I can understand the sentiment behind this article, I don’t agree with it. Straight actors play gay characters and gay actors play straight characters and it doesn’t detract from the lgbtq struggles. The essence of acting is taking on a role and telling a story. Expecting roles only to be played by a person who meets all the same criteria in their personal life is going to severely limit the ability of those stories to be told. It’s sort of along the lines of ‘sensitivity writers’ and saying only a person of a certain group (ex Muslims) should be able to write about it. We need to be careful not to create a paradox where in trying so hard to break down traditional gender, identity and sexual roles we end up creating even more rigid categories and behavioral expectations than we are trying to overcome. I’m a gay woman and seeing a film that I can personally identify with and captures the essence of the challenges I have faced is more about the characters and story line than the actual actors and actresses playing those characters.
63
I was a professional actor for 25 years and I do not believe there are hundreds or even thousands of trans actors in the industry, as the writer states. The trans actor who complained that she can't get into the same room to audition as Jennifer Lawrence is probably not as good an actress. I am a black woman but I couldn't get into the same room as Viola Davis because I simply don't have her chops. Trans actors are a part of a marginalized community in Hollywood, just as trans people are marginalized in general in the larger society. Life isn't always fair but how you tackle unfairness is the difference between being successful and being a whiner. If trans people want to change the minds of those who are running Hollywood, then they will have to enroll in film school and make their own films. Write their own stories and direct them for the screen. Complaining about cisgender actors taking roles they feel they're entitled to isn't getting them anywhere, so they need to change their strategy. I don't particularly like how Scarlett Johansson responded to this controversy, but I am really getting tired of the continual whining going on with folks who feel aggrieved.
215
"I don't particularly like how Scarlett Johansson responded to this controversy..."
So, is suffering fools gladly part of Scarlet's job description? One could suggest that she's done them a favor by pointing out the absurdity of their noise.
Under this reasoning would a trans actor acceptably act opposite their identification?
I’m in the “That’s why it’s called ‘acting,’” group, I guess. I’ve enjoyed watching every major character in Shakespeare played without regard for race or gender (Glenda Jackson just finished Lear, I believe) and this piece feels like too many rules for art.
51
I'm glad that Ms. Boylan wrote this and that the NYT published it. I know it will not be well received by most readers, but that's not the point. Blackface and yellowface were once unremarkable, and acceptable too. This is no different.
One of the most pernicious stereotypes applied to trans people is the idea that we're "really" the sex we were assigned at birth, and we're just "pretending to be" our identified gender. This generates a nasty feedback loop with Hollywood casting. Trans people are denied roles because we're perceived as inauthentic, but perceptions are shaped by cis actors pretending to be trans.
Scarlett Johansson has been cast to play a man in a film. Put like that and it seems ridiculous to say that she just had the best audition (though she might have). In our culture, casting a woman to play a man is is a deliberate choice. It's a comment about the character's masculinity. Routinely casting cisgender actors in transgender roles is a statement about the nature of being trans. It's a statement that trans people's gender identities aren't real. Many people believe this, possibly including these films' directors. But no one could claim this view respects trans identities.
Trans people are not cis people in costumes. We're not acting. Trans women are women; trans men are men. Being trans is just a quirk of our life experience. And until transgender identities are generally accepted, only trans actors should play trans roles.
11
So you would be ok with a cis man playing the role?
9
Personally, I think it would be marginally better than a cis woman. But I'd rather a trans actor-- and there are many to choose from, none of whom were likely considered. The norm for these films is that only cis actors of the wrong gender are even considered.
There are two major issues here: the toxic stereotype representing trans people as cis people in costumes, and the lack of opportunity for trans actors. I was mostly addressing the first, because Boylan did a great job on the second one.
In a just world, trans actors would be cast in cis roles just as often as the reverse. In a just world, sometimes a male role would go to a woman, or a female role to a man, just because they were a great actor. But we're a long way from achieving that. Putting the burden of gender stereotypes on trans people won't help us get there.
In Shakespeare's day, there were no women on stage, but there were many men playing the women's roles. No one seemed to mind then, Truly the same with Japanese and Chinese theatre... and many others. I guess that's why it's called "acting."
I would humbly submit to those saying it is merely the case of an actor playing a role that it is more importantly an actor playing the role of an individual from a disenfranchised, abused, and oppressed group, and hence must be viewed in a special light.
7
So we need to hire, then, an alcoholic, say, to play the role of an alcoholic in a movie. Good luck with that.
2
I'm not aware that alcoholics are an oppressed and abused group; perhaps you can provide some personal insight into that.
Theres no more certain way to make sure everyone stays in their little box than to provide a box for everyone.
I cant imagine a more artless world than one thats made up of little boxes with everything in its place.
I go to the movies to experience an artifice that CAN inform my life I dont expect an experience that mimics it. What would be the point?
Another point I find distressing here is that the movie isnt even out yet. Isnt a prejudgement of this sort exactly what we are trying to avoid?
56
Oh, but that's the whole point of prejudice.
You'd be taking all the fun out of it.
1
This isn't Johansson's first brush with playing characters that should be out of bounds. The last time this happened, plenty of ink was spilled on the subject. She knows better and chooses not to abide by today's sensibilities.
It's up to us to vote with our wallets and not support her work.
---
www.rimaregas.com
8
Of course. Indeed, there should be no characters on screen saying anything with which we don't agree.
That way we will always know we're right.
16
Kenneth,
Did you read this opinion piece? Because if you had, you'd know that the objection is to a cisgendered woman playing the role of a trans man. This is about respecting the trans community and letting a trans person play the role.
2
that is right. Nobody forces you to see a movie. BUT THINK ABOUT IT. ALL characters are not what they seem--that is what ACTING is all about. you will have to STOP ging to the movies because EVERYONE ACTOR is playing someone they are NOT.
I'm torn.
An actor, by definition, is trained to portray a character who is, to some degree, different than his/her real-life self. The more different, the greater the challenge -- and the greater the challenge, the more impressive the actor's ability to deliver a convincing performance.
While Ms. Finney Boylan addresses the issue of Ms. Johansson's casting in this particular role, I think the larger issue the industry needs to address and resolve is that trans actors tend to be cast only in trans roles -- which is not only extremely limiting to a trans actor's career, but also (if only more producers, directors and casting directors would see it this way) limiting to the creative potential of the projects they're casting.
I suspect all of us, performers and audiences alike, would like to reach the point where all actors are fairly considered for all roles. So while I take Ms. Finney Boylan's thoughts to heart, I more look forward to the day when Laverne Cox is lauded for her work in a role that almost went to, say, Amanda Peet.
23
I understand and sympathize with the sentiments in this essay, but I still find them troubling. In our quest for the fictitious purity of identity politics, we could actually end up putting people into boxes they may never escape. For example, what if there were a part in a movie for a heterosexual male detective. Should that part only be open to cisgender heterosexual actors? Similarly, would a role for a character suffering from mental illness have to played by an actor similarly afflicted? I hope not. I feel we are beginning to lose our way in pursuit of an ideal of dubious benefits.
78
The detective part should only be open to actors who have 'lived' being a detective - no pretending. Reserving roles can be taken to ridiculous levels...
"...there’s usually something slightly off when cisgender actors play us. People who aren’t trans don’t see it; they give each other awards and weepily hail their bravery. Jared Leto and Eddie Redmayne were lauded for their courage portraying trans women on film (“Dallas Buyers Club” and “The Danish Girl”) — but not so much by transgender women themselves, many of whom found the performances mannered, studied and implausible." Boy, talk about putting people--and performances--in boxes. And don't forget, the real-life gender performances of trans and cisgendered people alike are sometimes "mannered, studied and implausible."
53
But if anyone ever comments on a transwoman not really passing as a woman, it’s hate speech.
1
It's called acting, an art form where an individual creates the illusion of being someone else. Whether it's Mickey Rooney portraying an Asian or Sir Lawrence portraying a Moor, they are trying to portray someone other than who they are. They also exhibit the attitudes of their times toward the characters they're portraying. If an Asian man was the actor rather than Rooney, the Asian would be caricatured as much as the non-Asian actor.
16
On the one hand, I agree transgender character roles are an ideal way to give more acting roles to transgender actors who might otherwise struggle for a break, in the same way that characters of varied race and culture are a good way to include more racially and culturally diverse actors in movies. It's an age-old casting practice to find actors who "look the part" or in this case already have the life experience to inform their portrayal of the character. Still, on the other hand, it's limiting to be told that you can only portray characters that are "your kind", not to mention it ironically harkens back (or not so far back) to the days of institutional segregation. I'd never think to tell a novelist they can't write about characters different from themselves, so I'd hope the same applies to actors looking to portray characters very different from their own lived experiences.
19
Who said "they" can portray "only" those characters?
I think a more apt comparison (than those being made in the comment section) is when all of the roles in Shakespeare's plays were played by men. The point is more that casting cisgendered people to tell the stories of trans people is just another way of keeping trans people out of mainstream society while profiting off of their experiences. Think about what it would be like if all male roles were cast with female actors. Certainly there would be those who make the same arguments as have been made in the commentary, but I doubt very many men would be pleased with the situation.
20
“Think about what it would be like if all male roles were cast with female actors.” You are arguing against a hypothetical rule that transgender actors cannot play transgender characters. This is a straw man.
I literally have a headache from rolling my eyes so hard and so often while reading this column. I'm confident my arguments have already been made by my fellow commenters, but one bears repeating: if you draw a line here, then many other, less appealing and certainly less progressive lines will be drawn elsewhere. I find it ironic that the same people complaining about Ms. Johansson's casting were likely just as appalled by the suggestion that James Bond shouldn't be black or the Ghostbusters couldn't be female. The fact that an A-list actress of her caliber (regardless of gender identity) is the face of a transgender story is a triumph.
99
And I thought that actors had to pretend to have the aspects of the characters they played, and that that was acting. If you have to be a vampire to play one the occupation must be rather limiting.
52
I wholeheartedly agree. And your simile regarding The Today’s Show’s little panel, couldn’t be more apt. As a 63 year old gay man who just last night saw The Boys in the Band with a raft full of wonderful out gay actors playing gay men, I can only concur with what a difference it makes. I contrast it to my experience watching the Angels in America revival populated by wonderful actors where IMHO, the most authentic and resonant performance came from (the miscast) Nathan Lane who nevertheless brought his gay self and his experience of living through the plague years to the stage and was riveting.
8
Actors are actors and if they're good, they create memorable characters. I had the privilege of knowing the late Jonathan Frid who made "Barnabas Collins" a household name in the late 1960's early 1970's as the vampire in the Collins family in the series "Dark Shadows." Mr. Frid was a wonderful man, but he was not a vampire. It would be difficult to find real vampires to play vampire roles, especially if they have to do their filming after sunrise, especially outdoors.
Similarly, the argument made that only certain people should play certain roles is similarly suspect. It opens a door to a slippery slope of political correctness which would impose a harsh censorship on creativity and reduce the risks that both filmmakers and actors take in bringing a story to life. The much needed goal of creating a film so that it makes enough money to pay everyone involved and, if really lucky, earn some profit for the investors is a high bar already. Have you ever sat through the credits at the end of a film and see just how many people are involved? The list can be quite extensive, with all of them needing their due. Not to mention that the success of a film can either make or break careers.
If you don't like a film, don't watch it. But give the rest of us the freedom to make the same decision.
40
And (by this logic) Hilary Swank should not have played Brandon Teena in Boys Don't Cry, and should certainly not have won the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance. Nor should Linda Hunt have played Billy Kwan (a male) and won an Oscar for Best Supporting actress. And Glenda Jackson should have been forbidden from playing King Lear at the Old Vic. And Eddie Redmayne should have been barred from playing Einer/Lili Wegener in The Danish Gril. B.D. Wong should never have been cast as Song Liling in M. Butterfly, and won a Tony for his work. The logical conclusion (as many have pointed out) is that all performers should be barred from playing characters who do not match their gender, orientation, and racial/ethnic identity. No black actor may be cast as Hamlet. No Asian soprano may ever sing Violetta in La Traviata. No trans woman can every play Blanche DuBois. All forbidden.
Do not go down this road - everyone (all races, ethnicities, genders, orientations) will lose.
319
I believe the whole point of M. Butterfly was that Song Liling was a man because the end of the play revealed that information. The same is true of Hilary Swank playing Brandon Teena. The person's birth gender was revealed as part of the story. The other examples did not rely on revealing gender confusion as part of the script.
Would transgendered people want to have their birth gender actually revealed to the public (in potentially upsetting ways) as part of the parts they are playing? If they are OK about that, I think they should be given the opportunity to play transgendered folks.
Personally, I'd just be happy if Scarlett Johansson played more Jewish women (which is what she is).
1
These arguments are exhausting. They go too far and distract from the real issues of equal opportunity and treatment.
65
Quite so. And, perhaps more important, every column like this provides more ammunition to those who try to portray all progressive ideas as out-of-control political correctness.
2
Non-scientist actors playing scientists never quite get the correct feel for what it’s like being a scientist.
200
Thank you, I'm a scientist, and bad science accruing makes me cringe. They just can't quite gold the pipette right. Why can't they just find scientist actors?!
15
Name a few scientists who "get the correct feel" for acting!
1
You mean Denise Richards playing a nooclear scientist maybe ?
As a screenwriter currently writing 3 studio movies (none of which has a superhero in them) I'd like to point out something from the trenches.
All non-comic book movies are cast dependent. Full stop.
A $25 million movie that needs another $25 million for marketing will never get made without a star because it will almost certainly lose gobs of money. And then people lose their jobs.
To say if a movie needs a star it's not a good idea or story is about as true as saying only the smartest people get to become President.
I would love to see a world where there are trans stars that are A-list actors who can get a movie at this level made. But until that happens, (and I believe it will someday soon) I'd prefer to make the movie with a straight actress rather than not make the movie at all.
To paraphrase from the Godfather, the greatest movie ever made, "It's just business. Not personal."
128
I agree. Scarlett Johannsen is an A+ list star. If she can bring in a wider/broader audience to a movie about someone who is transgender, she is doing those who identify as transgender a great service.
20
If I was a producer or a director, the overwhelming question on my mind while casting would be: Which actor can do the best job of imparting my story to the audience. Stories move and entertain us. If a cig actor can do this for a particular story about a trans woman better than a trans actor, then I think the film will not only have a higher chance of box office success but also create a more accepting society for trans people as a whole.
Lastly, there IS a difference in degree of offense when discussing this issue. I do not find it objectionable to see a gay man playing a straight role and vice versa, just as I don't think it's all that offensive for a trans woman to play a cig woman and vice versa. However, with rare exception, I do think it creates a universally recognized strangeness and discomfort to see actors playing a totally different race.
12
Australian moviegoers did have a few chuckles at Meryl Streep's wayward Australian accent in "A Cry in the Dark". But that did not prevent them from enjoying the film. Perhaps it is because they tend to be tolerant people, and also because they recognized that it might not have been made without her participation.
44
I totally disagree! Up here in Quebec, a Black Jazz play was cancelled after5-7 shows because the actors were not black! Now we have the trans group saying that an actor (I presume she's heterosexual) must not be allowed to take this roll. Taking a giant "leap", then should we not have migrants coming to North American because they are not American or Canadian? Should gentiles not write books about Jews because they're not Jewish. This could go on and on, but it shouldn't. What ever happened to writers of movies and books who did lots of research and interviews before writing a book? Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is considered one of the classic books of the slavery era. But wait a minute, she was not black! Should she have been banished from writing this marvellous book. And what about Abe Lincoln and the Union? He was white and a majority of the senate and congress were white. Should the abolition of slavery and the death of hundreds of thousands of white and black people not have happened because most of these fine people were white? Should Lawrence of Arabia (another classic - a movie) not been produced because Sam Spiegel was Jewish, and the writers of the screenplay were American (Michael Bolt and Robert Wilson)- heaven forbid!
I could go on and on, but there comes a point where someone has to stand up and say - this is getting ridiculous!
69
The screenwriters for Lawrence of Arabia were Robert Bolt and the blacklisted Michael Wilson. Bolt was an English playwright; Wilson was American.
I'm not sure I'd pick Lawrence of Arabia as a role model of insight and sensitivity. Your example strengthens the author's argument.
1
Well, Majortrout, I was told years ago that To Kill a Mockingbird is a stupid book (and I shouldn't be teaching it) because white people didn't help black people get civil rights.
Tell that to all those white -- and, by the way, Jewish -- Freedom Riders. And tell it to the families of those who were killed.
1
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal...
Except we Americans often do not behave as if we really believe that. Assuring that all our civil and human rights are protected is difficult when some citizens believe it is their right to demonize others, minorities in some way, as sub-human or immoral or criminal and should have no rights. When those minorities assert their rights, there will be friction, there will be those who take offense, there will be those who claim not to understand why the oppressed are so sensitive. I suspect that the oppressed will be less sensitive when they are less oppressed.
3
@MEM: [We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal...
Except we Americans often do not behave as if we really believe that.]
First, the word used is 'men,' not people.
Second, when those words were penned (or quilled) the word 'men' referred to white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men, not Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Asians or women.
1
How you get from human rights to Johansen playing a trans man is beyond comprehension.
They call it show business for a reason. It's a business. The people bankrolling the project want a return on their investment. Casting a star is more likely to achieve that goal. How many people complaining about this casting decision would be willing to put up THEIR money in which an unknown is supposed to carry the picture? Where does all this end? The lead actors in "All the President's Men" had to be real-life reporters? Yul Brenner couldn't be in "The King and I"?
31
TODAY -- were he alive -- casting Yul Brynner as King Mongkut of Siam in a movie musical -- would be a horrific case of "cultural appropriation" and there would be furious articles like this one, claiming that ONLY a Thai actor could EVER EVER play that role -- even if he couldn't sing a note.
1
I doubt "The Sopranos" would have found an audience if the series about Italian-Americans in the New Jersey Mafia had been written by IanMcEwan and starred Benedict Cumberbatch and Emily Blunt.
It seems to me that the audience is mostly going to be non trans. For this audience, if the story is about trans issues or experiences, rather than something else primarily, there's something to be gained from using a familiar actor. It says, "This person that you think you know, you may not. Pay close attention." It becomes about what is being presented rather than being something unusual to gawk at. ScarJo is good for this because she is familiar as playing roles that are very unusual (androids, alien blobs) and expecting that but encountering this human who was born in an uncomfortable body, might have an effect a different actor may not be able to attain. Second best would be a well known trans actor. Jamie Clayton possibly. It needs to be somebody we already know.
11
How would having a man who has become a woman be good at playing a woman who is living like a man? why wouldn't a woman like scarjo be better able to portray a woman who lives like a man? all this is nonsense.
Isn't SJ playing this role a bit like Hank Azaria playing Apu?
We can all disagree about whether she's a competent actress (I think she has limitations in the way way Robert Redford had limitations--beautiful people but not really versatile) but this film is likely to go down with the same notoriety as the whitewashing of what should have been an Asian cast in Shyamalan's screen adaptation of 'Last Airbender'.
It's 2018 people. Is there a good argument for not casting a trans person for this role? Because SJ is just not a convincing one.
15
Sometimes, trans life just leaves trans art in the dust...
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/movies/21dyla.html
“…Mr. Weinstein said there was “not a chance” he would not take this film into more theaters and cities, regardless of its fate on the coasts. “I’m going to play every major city in the United States with this movie,” he said. “I’ll play 100 cities, at least…
“…He said he also planned to position Ms. Blanchett, who plays Mr. Dylan during his “Blonde on Blonde” phase, for an Oscar…
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/05/cate-blanchett-harvey-weins...
“…I’m really interested in the people who have transgressed in ways that are beyond the bounds of offensive,” she continued, “what people like Harvey have done…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Not_There
Look under “Accolades” – Blanchett won or was nominated for almost twenty film awards…
Doesn’t make it right…But does – in some way – make it transcend…
2
There maybe some parts for which no actually trans actors may play convincingly but it's probably right to leave these roles to trans actors. If anyone really observes transgendered people, they project aspects of both male and female as those born male or female just do not. The initial impression usually is of the identified gender. But as they do more and more things, something just seems come through that resembles the birth gender. It's probably because the hormones that determine gender affect the way people are physically put together when most of their growth occurs.
7
Only blind actors playing blind characters? Only male actors playing male characters (The Year of Living Dangerously)? Only doctors playing doctors? (I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV. Shame!). Actresses routinely change hair colour for different parts. Is that OK? Would Citizen Kane have been better and more politically acceptable if Kane had been played by a billionaire? Every single film can be criticised in our intolerant world for some small slight, depending on the observer’s particular beef.
These people are actors. Their job - and that’s all it is, a job - is to pretend they are someone who they are not. Imposing some kind of fundamentalism won’t make for better movies, it will only promote political agendas large and small. But they won’t be art and probably won’t be all that entertaining.
3
Good actors do pretend very well. I am astounded how well they can transform themselves not only into fictional characters but into real people known to most people. Women have already turned in excellent performances as men and as men in the process of changing their genders. Men have done some excellent cross gender performances, too. But transgender people identify with a gender that is unlike their bodies. They will undergo medical procedures that do make them look like the gender with which they identify. They take drugs to make their bodies act accordingly. But the transition can only go so far. Their bodies cannot be made into the opposite sex so that it can be so without continuous treatment. The experience of growing up in the body with their birth gender is part of their wiring and not having grow up with the body of the gender with which they identify they can never change. Now a good actor is going to have to incorporate all of that into the character that they portray.
1
Movies aren't reality. They're the perception of reality. Actors pretend to be other people. SOON we'll be arguing that we need real dead people to play the corpses in movies.
If the audience were all trans people seeking validation, this might make sense. But it's not, or at least it shouldn't be. We hope it's a diverse group that comes to hear a story told by master storytellers, regardless of their sexual identity. Johansson is a master storyteller. Let he do her job.
39
I guess, by this logic or illogic, that Alan Cummings should never be cast as a straight man. Just one example of where this argument could lead us.
208
I agree that it doesn't follow from logic. But it might follow from casting.
Wouldn't that be an ''appropriation'' to our politically correct people anyway?
Well, he's bisexual actually. Now what is everyone going to do with that? Start writing those bisexual roles for him or don't hire him?
2
Dante Gill was not trans-gendered, but a butch lesbian. But that is beside the point - Scarlett can play that if she wants to - she seems to have a butch part of her own personality, so maybe the part is somewhat realistic -- happy now?
28
No offense, but with Scarlett Johansson in the lead, at least the film has a shot at making some money.
49
And - something which bears mentioning -
Ms. Johansson happens to be a very fine actor - which begs the question - shouldn't the first priority be using the best person available to play the part --?
10
As Boylan did in this column, the NYT frequently describes "cisgender" people as "those who identify with the sex they were assigned at birth." It is certainly important to acknowledge and address the many challenges faced by transgender people. But the language here is nothing short of Orwellian. "Assigned at birth"? No, the vast majority of people on this planet were born either male or female, excluding perhaps those with rare medical conditions. Leaving aside the debate about whether Johansson should play this role, let's at least use language honestly.
349
the vast majority of people on this planet were born either male or female
I don't believe that is entirely accurate. As I learned in biology, It might be better stated, the vast majority of people on this planet appear to be born either male or female or the vast majority of people on this planet are functionally either male or female.
While either/or binary thought seems the basis of conservative thinking biology is seldom so obliging offering a vast continuum where a range of results are what actually occurs where few of anything is 100 - 0 or 0 -100.
Just look around at the range of individuals within any group and you will see differences within a sex that make one realize how a purely binary result, with the rare "condition", is hard to support. And then the are differences where some people can easily have children and some cannot.
I fully support equal rights, but I always found the term "cisgender" redundant. Also I agree, we weren't assigned a gender. We developed in the womb as a specific gender. Biology is biology. That being said If someone wants to act like the opposite gender then they genetically are and have me call them a different name, I am not going to be a jerk about it and I will call them whatever makes them happy.
4
JM, I agree with you. The language here is important.
I object to the term "cis gender" - I'm a woman. I was female from the moment of conception. Transgender people objected to the term "trans-sexual" so it fell into disuse. Many people object to the term "cis gender" so let it fall into disuse.
11
Happy people shouldn't play depressed people.
Actors who never owned a business shouldn't play CEOs.
Actresses who never before knew the word "ontology" shouldn't play philosophy professors.
New York actors who never planted a head of lettuce shouldn't play lettuce farmers.
Actors who don't eat salads shouldn't play lettuce farmers.
Actors who eat tons of salad but don't like lettuce shouldn't play lettuce farmers (I don't know - is there such a thing as "lettuce farmer"? I guess if there is, I shouldn't play one)>
I'm way to the left of Bernie Sanders, and I'm starting to think Jordan Peterson may be giving our president a run for the prize of most annoying public personality.
But articles like this could convert me to shouting at "SJWs"
53
I disagree. This sort of nonsense is pushing me towards Jordon Peterson who, if he's shut up about thing he doesn't know anything about (economics) would seem much more reasonable.
You left one out – people unhappy with their gender shouldn’t play “trans”. If this isn’t clear, let’s coin the term “genderface” to reframe the trans experience.
1
Ok, only real plumbers can play plumbers on TV.
And only real cops can be cast as cops on cop shows.
And if these trans actors want to complain to anyone, its not to Scarlett Johansen.
Go complain to the casting people.
Convince them that you are as capable and as marketable as Scarlett.
It's time to just ignore all of Hollywood.
The lunatic left is taking over.
52
I think back to the 80's (I'm pretty certain) when people were freaking out about Madonna portraying Evita. I thought that was ridiculous. I still do.
Please give Scarlett Joahansson a break. I'm sure she will give it everything she has. It's not a documentary.
45
Why can't literally ANY member of the human race play a trans person? This critique will look unimaginably ridiculous within a decade or two.
44
It already looks unimaginably ridiculous. It doesn't even need a decade.
3
It's incredibly ridiculous already.
1
I wish. Unfortunately it will probably seem totally rational and ahead of its time. I'll be slitting my wrists when that happens. .
1
*Acting*, dear boy.
28
For any readers who don't remember the reference in Ed's comment: Dustin Hoffman and Lawrence Olivier were in "Marathon Man." "Upon being asked by his co-star how a previous scene had gone, one in which Hoffman’s character had supposedly stayed up for three days, Hoffman admitted that he too had not slept for 72 hours to achieve emotional verisimilitude. “My dear boy,” replied Olivier smoothly, “why don’t you just try acting?” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/method-acting-dust...
3
Using the same logic transgender actors should only be cast in transgender roles.
147
When I read columns like this, I want to vote for Trump.
238
I doubt that is true.
Just watching Netflix I see so many excellent actors whom I’ve never seen before. It makes me think that the talent pool is huge compared to the number of roles available.
6
I'm heartened to read the comments opposed to "identity politics". I want everybody, male or female, gay or trans, black or white, to have the same opportunities, with respect paid to reducing discrimination and acknowledging injustices like racism.
But the Republicans are rubbing their hands with glee at the priorities of the Left.
5
Znlgznlg,
I don't get your comment. Trump obeys his base because it gets him the applause he craves (but his acting skills are rather pathetic- Reagan was better in the role). And in their world only movies about straight white people would be made. So, what are you saying?
1
Mr Rooney's Mr Yunioshi is the straw man. Of course no one in this day and age would suggest that such a caricature" is acceptable but what about Jim Sturgess' Hae-Joo Chang in Cloud Atlas"? For that matter in your world Does Hiliary Swank get to play Brandon in "Boys don't Cry?" She's neither transgender nor male so is that also a travesty? It just seems that when done respectfully and with great skill anyone should be able to play anyone else. That's progressive to me.
69
Should Daniel Day Lewis apologize for his role in My Left Foot?
98
No, but his right foot should.
1
such trivial concerns/matters. truly first world problems.
let's judge people by the mores of the day. we tend to think that we are progressive and enlightened when looking back. 50 years ago, homosexuality was viewed as deviant and a sin against nature. now it is socially accepted and to think otherwise is to risk social ostracization. yet how many of us believe that marriage should be allowed for cousins. i would say that less than 50% of the people who believe in gay marriage would allow marriage for cousins. why? one argument is due to the possible birth/genetic defects. yet, we don't prohibit men or women with colon cancer or breast cancer genes from having children. in reality, the rate of birth defects from marriage between cousins is similar to the general population. it only increases if it occurs over many generations. in many cultures, marriage between cousins is considered the most stable type of union. why do it bring this up? because i have had many arguments with friends who firmly believe in gay marriage but are against marriage between cousins. they cannot articulate position well but i understand. we are a produce of our times. enlightenment is an illusion
8
Prejudice won't be conquered, until these kinds of complaints. This is acting in a movie and not an assault on the stories of transgender people or any specific transgender person.
19
Linda Hunt played a man in The Year of Living Dangerously, and did a marvelous job.
Mary Martin played Peter Pan.
Russell Crowe played a man with schizophrenia in A Beautiful Mind, despite the fact that there are probably thousands of people with schizophrenia who could have acted the part.
If a trans actor is supposed to plan a trans person in a role, then by extension a trans actor should never play a role of a non-trans person, Right? Is that what Ms. Boylan wants?
There are true victims in the world, Mrs. Boylan. Don't try to tell us trans actors should be given special consideration or they are victims.
Don't like it? Don't go to the movie. That'll show them!
284
Rock Hudson played the leading, straight man in dozens of Hollywood romances.
147
...and Olympia Dukakis played Anna Madrigal in Tales of the City in 1993
Ms. Boylan, this is very thoughtful piece as usual. My head is spinning, though, that it needs to be written in 2018. This is essentially blackface, who thinks this is acceptable? In fact, there was also an article this week about white singers in Canada singing Black spirituals. I can't fathom how this still requires explanation.
4
So is it blackface when a gay guy plays a straight guy? Or a lesbian plays a straight woman? Can't have it both ways.
2
Think about it some more, really try harder and maybe you'll come to understand.
And Rock Hudson played a straight man! Who cares?
59
Correction: CLOSETED Rock Hudson played a straight man because he never would have had a career if he had been an out homosexual.
2
Mickey Rooney's portrayal of a Japanese man was, if not offensive, certainly deserving of criticism for being a terrible acting job--especially from an actor who had given many outstanding performances over the course of his career. As such, Mr. Rooney's performance hurt the artistic enterprise of Breakfast at Tiffany's. On the other hand, few would fault Luise Rainer for her moving portrayal of the character O-Lan in Pearl Buck's The Good Earth for which she was awarded an Oscar as Best Actress.
29
I think a positive example of this is a story like Tangerine (from Sean Baker, the same director as The Florida Project). It has trans actors playing trans characters but the conflict of the story isn’t really focused on the fact that they are trans, it’s mostly just about friendship.
7
Right on! Cisgender actors like Johansson should stop accepting such roles and instead use the power of their position to advocate for change. However, I think real change won't happen until more and more trans actors appear in both significant and insignificant scenes in which their biological "difference" is not being highlighted. I almost always cringe when my own kind -- brown people -- appear on screen. They're usually is some demeaning stereotyped role that's signified by color: Mexican gardener, Filipina nanny, Indian Apu, Pakistani terrorist. I can't wait for the day when Holly is trans, black, or brown, and her role is just about the content of her character. That day, it will be OK for Johansson to play a trans man.
10
That day has come in theatre, where color-blind/race-blind casting is more the rule than the exception.
We're all awaiting your permission. Let us know when you decide the time has come.
1
Watch what you wish for.... insisting on this now would seem to me to forever pigeonhole trans actors to only trans roles - because if a cis actor cannot play a trans role, how can a trans actor expect to ever play a cis role....
That's the thing about acting - the actors are pretty much *never* the role that they play... we don't expect only real physicians to portray doctors in film do we - do we expect to go out and discover *actual* aliens and mutants to be our on screen superheros? Of course not - we use actors because being able to be something and someone they are not is exactly what they do.
Go out - be the best actor you can be, but don't focus on who *you* are, because that's not what filmmakers want... they want you to be able to be who *they* want you to be. Complain more and louder if you *only* get trans roles...
74
Every movie is a product of its times...period pieces created by an industry as art for money.
It will be interesting to watch SJ play a role so different and challenging. It’s a risky roll for her.
This subject matter is highly sensitive these days and as such movies like this will draw all kinds of feedback...positive and or negative....with opinions shifting with each passing year.
Good Luck Scarlett...it’s going to be an interesting ride.
7
Perhaps there are no trans actors who are good enough to play the part?
66
Heard this before. We would love to hire more! But there are none competent/experienced enough. So then they get no experience and the cycle continues. Rinse and repeat. Insert: women, black people, trans people...all the same argument and its very tired.
There are plenty of trans actors out there. Johannson could find one, she just doesn't want to.
We’re they given a chance?
Yup. We live in a world where everything is an offense.
So apparently, because some of us aren't trans, we cannot have an opinion on the topic at hand. Men cannot have opinions on anything to do with women (but women can seemingly have theirs on men). White folk can't say anything about black folk, but black folk can say what they may about whites.
A 'cisgender' can't play a trans? But is a trans 'allowed' to play a cis? Can a Northerner play a Southerner without being accused of putting on 'hillbilly' airs? What about a Southerner playing a 'yankee'? Can an atheist play an Evangelist without being accused of playing into stereotypes of what a 'Christian right' looks and sounds like?
Also, talking about Mickey Rooney portraying a Japanese and with buck teeth implies that we still have the same levels of racism in today's cross-cultural/ethnic acting?
And yes, many movies DO seek out major stars to be in their films, simply because they want their movie to have the widest exposure possible.
275
"Breakfast at Tiffany's" -- which has many OTHER wonderful and charming qualities (though I hate the Rooney bits, and usually fast forward through them) -- was filmed in 1960 and premiered in 1961 -- 58 years ago!!!!
Good lord! it was a lifetime ago! the Capote novella it is based on is even OLDER than that -- and set during WWII, strangely enough.
It's time to let go of this rage, and accept that people did stuff years ago that we might not see as "politically correct" today. Mickey Rooney was right. Forgive. Let it go. 58 years is a LONG time ago.
3
White people do say anything about black folks and get away with it until black folks take offense and start speaking out. You and the rest of the people who upped your comment are the problem. You only see from victimization from your privileged side. Unless you have your eyes stopped up listen to the subtle offensive language rump says about blacks and not so subtle birtherism comments. The problem is blacks are not going to stand by anymore and let whites say whatever they want anymore.
At the very least they could have picked a cis man who would play transgender. The character is a man who was born female. They cast a woman who is going to pretend to be a man. Thinking about it that way makes it pretty clear how the movie industry sees trans people.
3
I believe the story takes place BEFORE the character (based on a true story) transitions, so Johansson’s casting makes sense.
3
Why limit the discussion to acting?
What about directing, producing, screenwriting?
Be the change you want to see.
10
There's a lot of prejudice and misunderstanding about the trans community. The community is small and the majority of Americans just don't get the concept that it's possible to be born in the wrong body and that historically trans people have always been among us. Sometimes in order to get your story told the messenger must be someone who the audience is comfortable enough with that they will actually show up. Hopefully we'll reach a point where this will no longer be necessary but we're not there yet.
10
I agree that in the future, people will look back on this in the same way that we look back on White actors in blackface playing African Americans, Whites in yellowish makeup playing Asians or Whites in reddish/brown make-up playing Native Americans or a host of other ethnic groups.
It would be different if all actors could try out for all parts but this looks like another case of the minorities being portrayed not being given a chance to tell their own story. It looks like another case of them not being given the opportunity to have major roles in a motion picture. It looks like another case of a caricature being presented by people who don't really even know them. In other words, it looks like another case of bigotry!
4
Actors play all kinds of characters who have nothing to do with their real lives. This is why it’s called acting. I think it’s perfectly alright for Scarlett Johansson to play a trans woman, just as it’s perfectly fine for a trans woman to play anything she wants that’s outside her natural being. Just being a trans actor doesn’t give you the advantage to go to the top of the Hollywood heap automatically. There’s a long line in front of anyone who arrives in Hollywood wanting to become a star. And you trans actors will find yourself being asked to play non-trans roles if you are really serious about your craft. You don’t just wake up every morning and head on over to the Trans Starmaking Agency to pick up your new script in which you’ll be playing Meryl Streep’s daughter in a new rom com written, directed and produced by an all- trans crew.
38
only Italian physicians should act in roles portraying italian physicians. Then they don't even need to be actors.
43
If you want to address this issue as it is reflected in real life, then instead of doctors, let's talk Mafia crime bosses. There is pretty much a practice of preferring Italian-Americans for those roles.
1
Only Italian-American physicians who live on Mulberry St who are balding, born on July 6, 1960, born to Italian immigrants, who play guitar (mostly 1930s blues), enjoy drawing cartoons as a hobby, and have 2 sons and a daughter, should play Italian-American physicians who live on Mulberry st......
Why don't we just say that no actor should play any part but themselves in their own auto-biography?
But, closer to the point, if one feels that one was born a woman, feels like a woman on the inside, and has the offending man parts removed or modified so as to appear a woman on the outside, then one is truly a woman inside and out, correct? Just like Ms. Johansson, if I'm not mistaken.
115
But you see, Sera, not every trans person does get the offending parts removed.
In some women's colleges and girls' private schools, nowadays, young men who say they are girls (or feel like girls) will be admitted and allowed to remain even after they have changed their minds and decided to remain men.
Gender is fluid when we're young.
And it's not just white people, or black people, or women, or men, who are capable of taking advantage of good intentions. Trans people will also learn to work the system, whatever that system turns out to be.
4
Except Ms. Johansson won't be playing a woman in the film--she'll be playing a trans man, aka a man. I suggest that everyone in the comments critiquing the writer of this piece read up on their terminology (and the long history of excluding trans folks in the entertainment industry) before casting judgement.
1
Huh? This movie is about someone who identified and lived as a MAN. Johannson is a cis female. You seem to be confused.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of ACTING is “the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras.”
Actors have the fascinating job of becoming somebody else. Moreover, if they are good, they could make us believe that they could be anybody!
Would anybody complain if a transgender actor plays the part of non-transgender character? Men have played women, women have played men, straight actors have played gay characters, gay actors have played straight characters, etc.
Why do transgender people have to be the ones in transgender roles? I think it is nonsense. We are confusing two different issues: one is the discrimination against transgender individuals and the other is the role of an actor.
427
Ferdinand,
That’s just the problem. Rooney and Jolson were great performers in their own right: but it doesn’t matter if they misunderstand, disrespect, or distort out of proportion the lived experiences of people they portray. Similarly, scripts that play to fallacious stereotypes and focus only on shallow portrayals make for laughs, but make a production all-but-irrelevant in the future.
Great works of art ‘work’ because the ideas and themes they portray are timeless; poor acting and deceitful portrayals only distract from that intent. The trans community is telling you it’s a problem, and they are proposing a sensible solution; they ask nothing more than what has been done in eliminating others inflammatory stereotypes.
1
Agreed.
And by the way, Ms. Boylan, who gave you the right to label me with the ugly term “cis”? I’ll grant that “normal” comes across as a pejorative to those who don’t fit the description, but shouldn’t we, like everyone else, get to decide what to be called?
8
Um....would you say this about whites playing Blacks? Yes, acting is acting, but when so few roles are written for those whom white/straight society has marginalized-- American Indians, for example-- should not those roles be given to those who actually inhabit those roles in real life?
She's a terrific actor. She can be anybody she wants to be. Art is not politics.
323
Politics are partly why she got the role. As a cis woman, people against transgender on the right can see the movie and feel comforted that she's just acting, there's no real trans man on the screen in front of them. She can make the film more money by making anti-trans people more comfortable.
1
"Art is not politics."
whoa. You seriously believe that?
3
Actually, art is OFTEN politics.
1
With ~.3% of the US population identifying as trans, how would a film like this even have a viable audience?
68
My thoughts exactly.
I'm a cranky old broad, and you wouldn't find me at a movie with this title.
3
Hey Russian Bot,
I think your maths is way off:
325,700,000 x .3 = 97,710,000
Could you have meant .003?
1
"The Crying Game" was pretty popular.
I LOVE the new series POSE because it feels real and the transgender actors are spellbinding. No need for Scarlett Johansson to be cast if the producers want an authentic film.
11
They want a film which makes money, I think. Like Breakfast at Tiffany's.
7
Producers want a return on investment that’s good enough for them to be able to make more movies.
5
I get that, but is it going to be a money maker? With Scarlett? I doubt it.
The people casting the movie wanted a star. If they cast an unknown, trans actor, the movie would not make money.
98
The would call it a documentary and show it on PBS.
1
Completely flawlessly argued.
On the other hand, Hollywood movie financing and movie making is a business and that is quite literally the only reason Johansson is the lead. It sucks and is not a good excuse -- but it is the actual truth.
Personally I will be skipping the movie. Boylan is right.
Hollywood movies are about fame and money and $$.
8
There are plenty of local art shows where artists make very little money and the art is authentic. There are local productions of plays, and in my community, something very authentic and new--story telling. By people in the community. It is very popular! And--free. Hollywood is a business. It has the right to exist.
2
KTT, you basically said what I said. I agree but I am not sure what your exact point is sorry!
The argument should be to NOT discriminate against trans actors being cast in cis gender roles rather than arguring FOR discrimination against cis gender actors being cast in trans roles.
The first normalizes a community. The second is a slippery slope.
Do you really want to open that pandora’s box and live in a world where ‘art’ — in whatever form because this same arguement gets made that cis people shouldn’t write about trans experiences — is circumscribed by other people’s ever changing rules?
176
Without a doubt, the best and most well-thought-out comment. I hadn't considered this.... and I think you are correct.
6
The question is, did the casting director (or whoever) open the audition to everyone- male, female, gay, straight, trans and did everybody get a fair shot at the role? Maybe they did and Ms. Johansson was simply the best actor for the job. Or maybe, as other commenters have suggested, the producers were just interested in making money with a big name, and hers was the biggest name they could get for the money. I'm sure she will do a great job, but I think that someone who was actually trans could probably convey the many nuances with more authenticity.
7
I highly doubt she auditioned. Actors are artists. I would love to see Meryl Streep play trans. She played an ancient rabbi in Angels in America. Actors bring individual qualities to their roles. I would also love to see Laverne Cox play cis roles.
2
If a woman can't play a trans man, should trans actors only play trans actors and not be able to play a cis man or woman?
429
This would be a relevant question if, and only if, trans actors were at least included in the consideration for all trans roles. In actuality, trans actors are rarely considered for any roles in major productions.
This argument mistakes the endpoint-- casting based on ability rather than personal data-- for the process. And, like all such arguments, its disingenuous. Somehow, people who make it don't actually seem to object to casting cis people as trans characters, white people as black characters, hearing people as deaf characters, etc. It's a straw man, and not worthy of serious consideration.
1
That’s not what she is objecting to, she’s objecting to the lack of equal treatment and opportunity for trans actors. And for now she probably does have a point about cis actors not quite getting the subtleties of playing a trans characters, I can totally see that. If trans actors were working with them for a while, they would eventually pick it up as the roles for everyone gets normalized.
3
Yes. That would seem to follow. Also only those who have been in the military should play soldiers. Perhaps all famous actors should only play wealthy celebrities.
3
There is a whole show, "Pose" that is staffed by transgendered people playing transgender people. They are fantastic. I have long failed to understand why transgender people are played by non-transgendered people, just as I fail to understand why white people were cast as Mexican bandits, or black "natives" in Tarzan movies, or Asian servants, or as Native Americans in Westerns when there was so much untapped Mexican, black, Asian and Native American talent out there. Casting a trans-man or trans-woman in the role of a trans-man or trans-woman would be a definite step in the right direction.
48
Or why Leontyne Price or Kathleen Battle or Jessye Norman sang various roles in Mozart or Verdi or Rossini or Wagner, or, for that matter, even sang Aida since Aida is supposed to be a Nubian or Cushite (misdescribed by Verdi as Ethiopian) one to two thousand years before the ethnically quite distinct Bantu peoples expanded from west Africa into central or eastern or southern Africa and so were still 1500 miles or so from the Nile? I think I'll keep my recordings of those great singers.
10
If this reasoning is followed, that only transgender actors/actresses should portray transgender people, then I guess men should never play women and women should never play men. I feel whoever gets a role, hopefully they won out because they were among the best for that particular role. Everyone should be a given an equal chance to audition, when required; diversity and prejudice must always need to be addressed; but I think it really should always come down to the most talented person for a particular role, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion.
3
Given that reasoning, should Jennifer Finney Boylan be permitted to speak on behalf of transgendered people unless one her/himself?
It's called 'acting' where one plays a role different from oneself. It's very different from a person being discriminated against because of who they are. In this case the potential discrimination seems to be against Ms. Johansson.
1
Scarlett Johansson is great and quite frankly I dont think that only trans-people should be allowed to play trans-people.
I am a transgender woman. If only transgender people are allowed to play transgender people, then there is also a strong argument that only cisgender people should play cisgender people.
Being transgender is not the end all be all of me. I hate people being boxed into little groups, I am not just a transgender woman. Being transgender isnt the complete definition of me.
I think anyone should be allowed to play anybody if they do a good job. I got no problem with an Native American playing a white or a white playing an Asian, as long as they portray different cultures with respect and dignity.
I dont want transgender actresses and actors being stuck playing transgender roles. That's not freedom or inclusion. Its just lame.
211
Many Americans, especially southerners, were incensed when a young English woman was hired to play Scarlett O'Hara in the movie Gone With the Wind in 1939.
The actress was another "Scarlett" named Vivien Leigh. If you watch some of the screen tests of the American actresses (also Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn wanted the part) you would be glad that none of them got it.
Leigh worked like crazy learning a southern accent, acting in almost every scene and (sorry for this, but) simply being more beautiful than the others.
If you look at her own life story it is easy to believe that Vivien Leigh would have been able to identify with this fictional southern character.
Thank goodness David O. Selznick did not fall in line with the naysayers on this historic casting choice.
(by the way, I agree that this is all getting ridiculous)
99
Most important, cast trans actors in more roles so that they can develop a career that allows them to be financially relevant. Secondly, if you must cast a cisperson in a trans role, please cast a cismale as a transmale and a ciswoman as a transwoman. Unless the character is all about their pre-transition life and the movie ends with them realizing they are trans, there's no other reason to do that. A cisman is going to be much closer to a transman than a ciswoman and vice versa.
28
What? I'm confused. Please translate.
6
Stop calling me cis. I don't need a label.
7
This is a difficult topic because it includes several positions and arguments. I am male, black, and gay. I am in a same sex, interfaith, interracial marriage. When it comes to appreciating what it means to be part of a community that has been marginalized, I get it.
Boylan’s piece (like those written during the 2016 #oscarsowhite issue) starts with a premise that most people can agree upon - namely, that some communities have been marginalized in the film industry, and would benefit from more inclusion in the process of film making - well before movies are released to the local cinema. Inclusion in casting, scripting, locations, and designers, would contribute to making sure that a community is represented truthfully and with respect.
The argument looses steam with an implicit demand that only trans actresses or actors play a trans woman or man. Trans thespians should always be sought after, and considered for such roles, but to insist that final casting be trans doesn’t work. Should Johansson have turned down the role for ethical reasons, and publicly called for casting a trans man? Perhaps, but don’t blame or vilify her for wanting to take on an acting challenge. That’s what she does. That’s what Glen Close did (beautifully) as Albert Nobbs. Self producing films may be the answer for Boylan and Richards. A thoughtful, informative and respectfully made film about trans man Dante Gill, would be the answer for the rest of us, regardless of who plays the lead.
157
"The argument looses steam with an implicit demand that only trans actresses or actors play a trans woman or man."
No it doesnt lose steam. If there were plenty of hollywood roles of that sort then sure let any talented actor play those roles. But these roles are VERY rare so it MATTERS who occupies those roles when one happens. A shame this became a times pick....
2
We will look back on this period as merely transitional. Scarlett is a fantastic actress and more than capable of
acting the role. It doesn't matter if she is playing a transsexual, transvestite, gay, straight, rich, poor, drug addicted or the victim of an assault. She should be judged by her performance....not her sexual identification. It's a movie.
104
I get Boylan and trans' activists objections but it's shortsighted and misguided. Trans rights--like those of all people--need to be won legislatively and less through the culture wars--been there, done that, and look what it has yielded: very little in terms of tangible protections and rights that matter. Too much energy on the left is invested in Hollywood, which is a business that produces entertainment, not laws. More needs to be invested in political capital: grass-root campaigning, nurturing electable political candidates, and VOTING.
55
Pop culture affects people's opinions. In a functioning democracy, that should affect the law. Don't thank Justice Kennedy for LGBT rights. Thank will and Grace.
4
I am sympathetic to the plight of transgender people trying to exist in a world of prejudice and ignorance. I have always believed that a person's sense of his/her gender is a private matter and that it cannot be changed by therapy. We are born the way we are born.
With that said, production of Hollywood films is a BUSINESS.
The object is to make money, and in order to do that, a project needs a name draw. Scarlett Johansson is an A-List actress with a proven performance track record. The argument made in this Op-Ed that only transgender people should play transgender roles doesn't hold up to scrutiny in my opinion, unless there is an A-list transgender actor who can draw an audience in to see the film.
But that would have nothing to do with gender, and more to do with bottom line profits for the production.
Where does Ms. Boylan's argument end? Italian actors only for any film about the Mafia? Jewish actors for any film about the Holocaust?
95
You can just hear what was said when this script was pitched: "We need a star or it won't get made."
2
I completely agree with the author. I'm not trans but my child is and this has helped open my eyes to more subtle offenses, including this terrible casting call. Just consider the more obvious, but equally egregious case, of a white actor being cast in the role of a black slave. Yes, the white actor could be painted black and probably respectably pass, but, I believe, most people would view this as highly offensive.
28
Trans here. Don't care about this relative non-issue. Play who you want to play. I care about my civil rights which are dwindling by the day.
158