Michelle Rodriguez to Star in Gender-Reassignment Revenge Thriller

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Sounds interesting. But since it's Michelle Rodriguez, can we assume she will die at the end?

 

[BreakfastMan]

I dunno, it could be a good thoughtful meditation on gender and sex. Similar movies with very similar plots have explored this before, to critical acclaim (See: The Skin I Live In). For myself, I will hold any judgement on whether the film is transphobic or not till it comes out.

Won't be watching it, though, because just reading about this film squicks the fuck out of me. Like, I just find the premise incredibly, deeply disturbing on a psychological level for a reason I can't quite pinpoint. D: Will be skipping this one, though I will be interested to hear how it turns out...

 

[CrystalShadow]

So when Chloë Sevigny was cast as male to female transexual assassin in Hit & Miss that gets a Glaad TV awards nomination. Michelle Rodriguez gets cast as a male to female transexual assassin in a movie that gets criticised. Hmm.

I don't quite think you understand the premise here.
This is someone that appears to have had surgery against their will.

That's just plain messed up, and has so many horrible implications...

 

[voltair27]

It sounds dumb because it's an uninspired plot with a gimmick that tries to make it unique.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Wait, how and why do they give this person an involuntary sexual reassignment surgery? Discarding the why for now, since I'm sure they'll have some contrived reason, how exactly do they do this? Forgive my ignorance on the specifics of such procedures, but don't they often involve years of hormone treatments? I mean, you could give a person surgery, but without the long duration aspects they'll still just look like a guy, except for down stairs. What's more, their voice would still be the same. In such a case, would it not be more accurate to cast a man to play this character, rather than a woman, since this character couldn't possibly look like more like a woman than a man after only the surgery itself? Unless this character is actually going to be kidnapped and given years of hormone treatment, or maybe some kind of sci-fi medical procedure.

I'm not expecting absolute accuracy, but if you're going to make inaccurate elements then you ought to do them in a way that's not immediately obvious. Considering I know virtually nothing about such procedures, yet have immediately noticed the errors, I'm not sure how I could possibly suspend my disbelief at all this.

Oh, and I have no interest in this movie, so if they think I'll watch it to find out, they're wrong. I'm sure I'll forget about it until it's released and people inevitably begin talking about it again.

 

[Loethlin]

Didn't realise transploitation is a thing these days.

 

[happyninja42]

Wait, how and why do they give this person an involuntary sexual reassignment surgery? Discarding the why for now, since I'm sure they'll have some contrived reason, how exactly do they do this? Forgive my ignorance on the specifics of such procedures, but don't they often involve years of hormone treatments?

To answer this question, I point you to the medical impossibility that is the Crank movie series. Hollywood has not a single fuck to give about whether or not something is actually medically accurate, if it can move a storyline forward for them.

 

[Erttheking]

Forced gender reassignment surgery as a plot point

Oh for god's sake...

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Didn't realise transploitation is a thing these days.

We've had; Nunsploitation, Blacksploitation and Aus-sploitation. What's another?

 

[Lightknight]

"People are making a movie we don't have to see about a topic we don't like?!!" So what? If someone paints a portrait of a monkey jerking off in a tree I just look for a different painting that I enjoy. I don't rage cry and demand that the gallery owner remove the painting from the wall that it might no longer offend me or try and demand that the artist do something else.

It's ridiculous to get outraged over someone producing art that they themselves care about. It is certainly fine to not like something. But to actually get mad that someone is telling a story? How self important do you (royal you) have to be to think that even our story tellers have to abide by your own personal rules?

 

[EvilRoy]

Didn't realise transploitation is a thing these days.

We've had; Nunsploitation, Blacksploitation and Aus-sploitation. What's another?

Revengesploitation and Bruce Lee-sploitation both exist. Former is pretty popular even today. I can't think of any more, but they must exist...

As much as I understand why people aren't really happy about this, number one: The Crying Game and Sleepaway Camp used this as a plot twist so at least the idea is being upgraded to a full on plot, and number two: part of being accepted in the mainstream is getting bad movies with stupid plots made about you - it happens to almost every culture now.

 

[happyninja42]

Bruce Lee-sploitation both exist. Former is pretty popular even today. I can't think of any more, but they must exist...

Tee hee, now all I can think of is Spoony's review of The Clones of Bruce Lee. xD

As much as I understand why people aren't really happy about this, number one: The Crying Game and Sleepaway Camp used this as a plot twist so at least the idea is being upgraded to a full on plot, and number two: part of being accepted in the mainstream is getting bad movies with stupid plots made about you - it happens to almost every culture now.

I still think that the bulk of complaints are likely due to the "horror" representation of the transgender issue. It's not being portrayed as a life affirming choice, that someone makes to have their out appearance reflect their inner identity of themselves, thus giving them a more solid personal identity and comfort in their lives. It's being presented as a body torture horror thing, being done to someone against their will, as a punishment for...well something, not sure what. Considering this is the main selling point of the movie probably with a lame tagline like the following:

"He was in the business of taking lives, they took his dick, now he's taking it back! With interest!" Or some such bullshit, I can honestly see why the people who are trying to get transgenders accepted as just a regular part of life, would take issue with having something so significant to them being represented as a form of torture/mutilation.

Regarding Crying Game (not sure about Sleepaway Camp, never heard of it), again, the transgender(or possibly just crossdressing, I dunno) aspect of the plot is something that was voluntary on the part of the woman in the story. It wasn't something forced upon her. Saying they've got the same plot concept is like saying that Crank and Untamed Heart both have the same plot concept, because they both involve heart surgery. They're not the same thing.

 

[Cycloptomese]

This reminds me of the time that I was scrolling through itunes movies and ran across the synopsis for Snowpiercer having no prior knowledge of the movie's existence. It sounded so goofy that I absolutely had to watch it right then and there. In no way was I prepared for how awesome it turned out to be.

So, I can't wait to see this.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

So you all realize that a both biologically and self identified man who was forcibly changed into a woman, is neither a woman nor a transgender individual, and the outrage at this would be less questioned if the plot read: a white man was turned into a black man against his will and now he seeks revenge!

but it doesn't matter any more, I don't get this community, good bye.

 

[Briggins]

This seems like a pretty bad idea, if only because the plot doesn't make much sense. There's no reason for the gangsters to just not shoot him and be done with it. If he was willingly undergoing surgery as a method of disguise, to make revenge easier, maybe it could be plausible. They need to fix the gaping plot holes before they can even begin to tackle the elephant in the room.

 

[happyninja42]

This seems like a pretty bad idea, if only because the plot doesn't make much sense. There's no reason for the gangsters to just not shoot him and be done with it.

Of course there is a reason. "Because badguy" Seriously, SO many movies have required the villain to act like a Hollywood villain, and not like a regular criminal. Similar to this is the example I keep using. Crank. Sure the criminal could've just killed him, but then we wouldn't have had a movie. If we veto'd movie ideas on the basis of "that doesn't make logical sense" then probably 75% of most action movies, and most romantic comedies too, would have to be scrapped. I don't really have a problem with the concept of a plot that makes no sense, depending on how it's executed in the film.

If he was willingly undergoing surgery as a method of disguise, to make revenge easier, maybe it could be plausible. They need to fix the gaping plot holes before they can even begin to tackle the elephant in the room.

Again, if it was ok for Crank, it's ok for this movie. Nobody gives a shit if it makes biological/medical sense, at least most people in Hollywood don't.

capcha: mustachioed. yes, that would be the kind of villain that would think this was a good idea to deal with an enemy. A Mustachioed Villain, complete with twirling cackle.

 

[Lightknight]

Didn't realise transploitation is a thing these days.

People have begun to confuse depiction with exploitation.

 

[EvilRoy]

I still think that the bulk of complaints are likely due to the "horror" representation of the transgender issue. It's not being portrayed as a life affirming choice, that someone makes to have their out appearance reflect their inner identity of themselves, thus giving them a more solid personal identity and comfort in their lives. It's being presented as a body torture horror thing, being done to someone against their will, as a punishment for...well something, not sure what. Considering this is the main selling point of the movie probably with a lame tagline like the following:

"He was in the business of taking lives, they took his dick, now he's taking it back! With interest!" Or some such bullshit, I can honestly see why the people who are trying to get transgenders accepted as just a regular part of life, would take issue with having something so significant to them being represented as a form of torture/mutilation.

Regarding Crying Game (not sure about Sleepaway Camp, never heard of it), again, the transgender(or possibly just crossdressing, I dunno) aspect of the plot is something that was voluntary on the part of the woman in the story. It wasn't something forced upon her. Saying they've got the same plot concept is like saying that Crank and Untamed Heart both have the same plot concept, because they both involve heart surgery. They're not the same thing.

I can see what you're saying, I just don't think its particularly realistic to consider this one thing off limits when basically nothing else is. The list of things done to people for reasons ranging from stupid to nonexistent in movies is so vast that I do think it is kind of silly to decry this because it isn't a positive example. Half of the reason that I'm starting to believe Hollywood has finally started to get over some of their race issues is that they are actually capable of having both positive and negative examples of black people in a film instead of all one or all the other.

The Crying Game and Sleepaway Camp are actually examples of the crappy plot twist thing I was talking about, I didn't make it super clear now that I read back. The Crying Game example is a reference to the saying "Everything you need to know about The Crying Game". The only noteworthy thing about the movie is that a character turns out to be transgender - there is absolutely no reason to watch once you know the ending, because it is a relatively unexpected twist in an otherwise wholly mediocre film. Same thing with Sleepaway Camp. It is a firmly not great slasher flick in a decade of not great slasher flicks wherein the only noteworthy part is that Angela turns out to not be the sex we thought they were. Although I guess in relation to your second point, it is never explicitly stated, but there is a firm implication that the killer in the Sleepaway Camp was being forced to live as the opposite gender by their aunt for a not-explored reason. You are correct that the Crying Game falls through in that way though.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

I can see what you're saying, I just don't think its particularly realistic to consider this one thing off limits when basically nothing else is. The list of things done to people for reasons ranging from stupid to nonexistent in movies is so vast that I do think it is kind of silly to decry this because it isn't a positive example. Half of the reason that I'm starting to believe Hollywood has finally started to get over some of their race issues is that they are actually capable of having both positive and negative examples of black people in a film instead of all one or all the other.

I mostly agree with this, except the likely response from the GLAAD would be something along the lines of "yes, but there aren't any (or very VERY few) positive examples of transgender in the public consciousness to balance it out." Like others have said, the most common pop culture concept of a transgender for a lot of people is Buffalo Bill. Which can't be called a positive example. xD Now, if we lived in a Hollywood world where there were a vast cross section of media examples of positive and negative transgender characters, then I would fully agree with your opinion that the outrage is unwarranted. But, I can't think of any examples, other than Nomi from Sense8, and the main character of the tv show Transparent (never watched the show, just heard about it). Considering that's only 2, that's not a big pool of samples to use. And yes, I would agree that it is an intentional effort on the part of GLAAD to try and drive the conversation, and public opinion a certain way. But personally I don't have a problem with it, given what their intention seems to be. So to try and make sure the majority of transgender examples in media are positive ones, seems a reasonable plan to me.

As to the idea of it being "off limits" while I agree with this in concept, that nothing should be taboo in storytelling, as long as it's done with respect to the source material (which I doubt this movie will). It's a lot easier to hold that opinion when you're not part of the group being mis-represented in such an un-realistic way. I personally find myself quite annoyed/angry when I see things that I consider my self-identifying traits, represented in a negative/stupid/simply wrong way. I usually keep it to myself, but I do at least acknowledge the feeling. When the lens is pointed at you, it's hard to not feel like you're under the scrutiny of another.

 

[Baresark]

That is even more contrived than the actual plot of the movie. The vast majority of people can easily separate fantasy from reality, no one is going to confuse this movie for a documentary or biopic about transgender assassin.

You're way wrong about that, sorry. I'm not saying that the movie shouldn't be made or whatever, but just by the very premise of the plot people, many people, people who vote on the rights of transgender people, will mistake this as being an accurate representation of transgender people. Stupid people or people who just don't know better, but people with the power to negatively effect the lives of transgender people to a major degree. I know this because politicians have brought out Buffalo Bill as a scare tactic to rail against laws accomodating transgender people. Its happened before, it worked, and it will happen again.

I hate to be the one to inform you but people do not need a reason to justify their prejudices. You are confusing justification for bigotry as a cause of bigotry. So, it's my opinion that I am not incorrect. The vast majority of people CAN in fact tell the difference between fantasy and reality. That does not mean that people who are transphobic, or homophobic, or any kind of bigot won't latch onto those things to justify feeling they cannot handle or are confused by. No, they will in fact use it as a confirmation bias about their feelings regarding it.

So far as Buffalo Bill is concerned: People have created a world where villains are not allowed to be interesting or different. Because they are a villain AND they are trans/gay/etc, they are not allowed to exist. There is no reasonable person in the west who sees that as a true representation of a transgender person. If you did, that is a problem with you. But I am not going to sit here and say, "OK, because 0.01% of the population thinks this is an accurate representation of a given population, then no one should be allowed to see it". No, that is kindergarten politics. Do I think more normative roles for trans actors and trans characters are in order, don't get me wrong. But that does not automatically disqualify them as villains just because there is presently a disproportionate number of trans villains. I mean, is that not what this wreck of a movie is trying to do? Even if it is extremely heavy handed, it's putting a trans character in the role of a protagonist.

That said, there has been a few movies/shows that have used transgender people in roles where they are not represented as freaks. One show that comes to mind is Sense8, which I very much liked. An excellent movie that did that as well was Predestination. In both of these movies a trans person is the protagonist and they are not represented as freaks. But we can't just not make movies and shows with trans characters simply because it doesn't match some arbitrary set of standards for what is realistic.

People don't need this to justify their prejudices anyway. They have an ever burgeoning amount of reality TV shows that will more readily justify their prejudices against trans people than this movie ever will.