Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

[deleted] wrote

4

this_one wrote

this twitter thread (and this one that follows on from it) from a couple years ago explains it pretty well.

The particular way a lot of violence is perpetrated against trans people (esp. trans women) is rooted in not seeing that person as their actual gender. Casting cis people to play trans roles reinforces that idea, and therefore also contributes pretty directly to that violence.

2

selver wrote

The choice of scarjo is just cause they need a big name to push the movie, and there really aren't m/any trans actors that can sell a movie themselves.

I don't think it's offensive (other than the capitalism), they just care about making money. If people want breakout trans actors playing trans characters, they've probably got to go to indie films.

1

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

There are plenty of trans actors out there, if they want Big Names they can include them in supporting roles. I mean, everything hollywood makes is shit and i suppose that is to be expected, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize them.

3

selver wrote

Scarlet playing a trans character is a way bigger draw though, and probably Oscar bait. They eat that shit up.

There are tons of trans actors that could do it, but Hollywood loves to use the same 30 actors for fucking everything. Fame is all that's really relevant.

Of course it is a symptom of cis-normativity, but it's more just capitalism being capitalism.

2

noordinaryspider wrote

I don't know. I'm glad the movie is being made and I do think a trans actor could bring more autheticity to the role and make it a better movie. I have no idea if it is safe to be "out" as trans in acting or not.

My child was merely stating an OPINION and does not work in the film industry.

I'd personally rather watch "Roots" played by white people than not have "Roots" at all, but it would still be a better made-for-TV miniseries with actors who had the life experience to play their roles more believably.