The Danish Girl - Transgender Issues in the 1920s
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
Typical, they make a movie that's about a trans woman and get a cis man to play the role. Heaven for bid they at least get a cis woman to play the role, to make it somewhat more authentic, or you know actually get a trans woman to play the role. It's roles like these that are made for trans folk, yet not only do trans folk never get seriously considered for these roles... They insist on putting cis men in the roles of trans women and cis women in the roles of trans women. Some times it feels like they intentionally do this bad casting to give trans folk a bad image...
Just depressing, especially considering the movie isn't particularly good and over fictionalized.
Just depressing, especially considering the movie isn't particularly good and over fictionalized.
I agree with you in the broad sense, but I think it is a bit more understable in this case, as the movie shows an individual going through transition, starting out with them slowly getting into cross-dressing and realizing they are trans.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Hmm, I think I see what you are saying. I guess I just never thought about it in that way.MarsAtlas said:
MarsAtlas put it really well in this case. Most cis folk don't think about it, how absolutely insulting and back handed it is to cast a cis man in the role of a trans woman, or to cast a cis woman in the role of a trans man. It is usually a calculated slight towards our gender identities, to do casting that way. Unlike cis folk, us trans folk often don't have the luxury in overlooking this sort of thing. Especially important because if we champion this sort of portrayal, it'll get used against us as in attempts to deny us rights and violate us further in the legal system...BreakfastMan said:
Still that's not what really concerns me. In this case these roles get given away to up coming actors(usually, because they portray trans women) and actresses(for the rare portrayals of trans men), usually as a blatant attempt to bait for an Oscar. Rather than these roles being given to the trans folk who are struggling to get even stage roles, who generally find them selves in a lot less desirable sectors of the industry... If they're "lucky" enough to be trans women that is, as in that part of film and photography there isn't a market for trans men really.
But I digress, it's just another disappointment in trans portrayals, at least it's not a blatant insult like we usually get.
This is going to be a serious talking matter within this thread. Let's not make this heated, shall we?
Sweet. So get a transwoman, who might have some real experience with that (transition, not necessarily "crossdressing"), and maybe it'd add something to the role.BreakfastMan said:
I place more faith in the book and J.K. Rowling being good than my disdain for Eddie Redmayne so I'm thinking it'll break even and end up being good xDSmilomaniac said:
In any case, no problem! I personally love that book
I don't know, he was good in Thomas the Tank Engine.Smilomaniac said:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/ttte/images/8/88/Ryan.png/revision/20150729085857
Unless I misread the article, the story is about a man who dresses up as a woman and then slowly finds out that he's more woman inside than man and sticks with being a woman.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
So it is about a person who has a biologically male body, but identifies as being a woman, how is it more authentic to have this character portrayed by a biologically female person? It may be better that way metaphorically speaking, but more authentic?
It is set in the 1920's, a time when hormone therapy to make males look more feminine didn't exist yet, so for the time it is set in, I'd say that it is pretty authentic?
I think the issue is more of a lack of respect than authentucity. Had they went with the orginal female actor, that action might of spoken louder than any sentiment on trans people could have, since a cisgender women and a transgender women are still women by a lot of trans people's definition.bluegate said:
By choosing someone male bodied who is not trans, I think there would be a level of disrespect found, given people often conflate being a man with being a transgender women. Anyone's opinion aside, its obvious that people who identify as women do not want to be conflated with men.
Although to be honest I am not sure how a cis female actor could play the male presenting half of the character's life and be belivable, men can often have a much stronger voice than a woman. Maybe they could of used two actors or sfx. I guess this ultimatly depends on the quality of the actor though.
Well two things, the way the article put it is kinda vague... The main character was asked to pose as a female model for a portrait painting, through this they discover that womanhood fits them. Either way a lot of trans folk have discovered they're trans through some form of cross dressing, especially before the internet, and this rings doubly true for people who felt such things before transgender even was a term.bluegate said:
Possibly as a period piece, still it's not all that difficult to make a female actress look like a man at any rate. The point is partially validation on the premise of gender identity being what makes a man, a man, or a woman, a woman. More importantly trans women tend to show more feminine behavior, so having a cis woman play a trans woman would be closer to how a trans woman experiences the world and holds them selves, both externally and internally(not biologically). Still that's a half measure to have a cis woman play a trans woman, or a cis man play a trans man, because from an acting stand point they realistically can't express the deep feelings of a trans person. There are plenty of experiences and deep emotions that can be acted, gender dysphoria is not one of them. So trans characters should be played by trans folk, because that's we're the ones with the most authentic experiences to bring to that performance.bluegate said:
Not really, because generally using a cis man to portray a trans woman, or cis woman to play a trans man, is more about the statement that trans folk are more our biology, than what we identify as. It might be authentic from a technical biological point of view, but not from an identifying and experience based point of view. As I said before, this is more about authenticity in the acting, not the physical biology of the person, by that a woman can more authentically portray a trans woman in her acting, because she understands what it is to identify and be a woman. Besides that, make up and voice modulation could easily be used to make a female actress look and sound like a man.bluegate said:
In short the/TL;DR - It's more about the authenticity of the performance being given than it is about physical body of the person in this case. Having a cis gender man play a trans woman is kind of like saying that cisgender drag queens are the same as trans women. That's not exactly the case, a woman would be far better at expressing the emotions, experiences, and identity of a trans women. Still trans characters really should be played by trans folk of the same gender identity, that makes the performance completely authentic to the trans experience.
Edit: Whoops buggered up the quote coding.
So a trans woman actress can't be a competent actress and a trans man actor can't be a competent actor? Yeah sure because there are no trans people who are very talented and desperately need jobs? That's basically what you're saying there and it's totally untrue, also lets look at the facts shall we:Pinkamena said:
-There are a lot of talented trans actors and actresses, they could have gotten a trans actress for this role who would have done well.
-This is a story about a trans woman, from an acting perspective, a trans woman playing the role would have been better because a trans woman knows exactly what it's like to be trans. Meaning a trans woman in the role would have brought more authentic experience and emotion to the role than a cisgender man ever could.
-Eddie Redmayne isn't a universally considered a particularly good actor and a lot of people are saying that he fumbled playing this role competently. So if competence is the question, there is a huge plethora of talent they could have casted, that would have done the role competently, coincidentally there are probably more a few of those who happen to be trans stage actresses.
So the "a shoehorned in trans person for the sake of PC" doesn't particularly hold any water here. Especially because they shoehorned Eddie Redmayne into this role as a blatant attempt to score an Oscar. Seriously Oscar winning actor + Oscar bating with trans positive movie = Lots of Oscars for The Danish Girl, at least in the minds of directors and producers. So yeah your argument holds less water than a spaghetti colander considering those things.
They just wanted to make the entire film authentic to the experiences Trans people face every day. That's why they gave a job to a cis man instead of a more qualified trans woman. It's just like real life!KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Now I may have misinterpreted what they said but my understanding is they were saying they would rather have the best actor/actress they could get. NOT that there are no great trans actors/actresses. Simply putting it: There are way fewer trans actors/actresses so getting one to play the role would have been harder, at the same level. I do reject the notion that you have to have the actor be what they're playing, that's why it's called ACTING. I played the pope in shows (I'm not even catholic), I've played a murderer (I'm not one of those....), and I've played many other parts that I am not. Would it have been played better by a person who was those? Probably, but then again I'm not an A list actor. If someone can portray the character well I don't care what they are in real life.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
That being said: I haven't watched the movie nor do I particularly care to (rarely watch movies), but how was the acting by the person chosen?