[jaxie]

The discrimination thread brought this to mind as people were talking about not being allowed to comment if you aren't part of the minority.

More and more in the press we are seeing actors being shamed into giving up roles because they are not personally part of the subject matter which seems wrong in my view as acting is all about playing a part.

What it did to bring to mind though is a question. I'll use the most recent news case as an example. If an actress is not allowed to play a transgender character because she is not transgender does that mean a transgender actor cannot play any role but transgender ones and if not then isn't the nonn trans actress being discriminated against. Can we have a black bond or is that also discrimination against white actors because it is a traditionally white role.

Engage!

[Alf]

Was it Scarlet Johansson who's just been bullied out of a role?

[Oliver_W]

If people were only allowed to play their own sexuality, Broadway would have to close down!

When George Romero cast a black guy for the male lead in Night of the Living Dead, it was seen as controversial and a "big move". But he wasn't aiming for that - it was just that particular actor gave the best audition.

It's tricky. I can see that transmen actors would feel overlooked when the role went to ScarJo, but movies and particular mainstream Hollywood movies "need" to have big actors to bring in audiences.

Chances are that right now, several indie film makers are making films which have a character who's trans, and they'd love an actual trap to play the role, but the limited budget and pool of actors who probably live in their hometown probably mean they can't do that.

[montblanc]

minority/LGBT/etc. roles are already limited so when they're replaced like, for example, Scarlett Jo playing a trans woman or any whitewashing of a film, it kind of closes the already small window of opportunity that minority/LGBT/etc. actors and actresses have

[Northern Monkey]

The clue is in the name “actor”

[Alf]

That's what actors do, they play the roles of a different variety of people.

Cultural Marxism destroys everything in its path.

[Toy Soldier]

I think when the movie / show is specifically centered around a culture or certain cultural issues, it will be a much more "real" experience if the actor involved is actually rooted in that, so I get it there. I think it's creatively the better move. However if the character just happens to "be from a place" but it's not a huge part of their character or motivations, it shouldn't matter.

I think the "black bond" issue is different to be fair. The character is culturally British, that is a huge part of it, BUT it is patently false to suggest that its necessary to be white to be culturally "Super British". The tuxedos and well-spoken voice are the important aspects.

I'm not a fan of characters dramatically changing appearance if it's supposed to be "exactly the same character with the Canon history" (*ahem* Hermione) but if it's a new series / semi reboot, which Bond actor-swaps usually are, I don't think it matters.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jaxie

The discrimination thread brought this to mind as people were talking about not being allowed to comment if you aren't part of the minority.

More and more in the press we are seeing actors being shamed into giving up roles because they are not personally part of the subject matter which seems wrong in my view as acting is all about playing a part.

What it did to bring to mind though is a question. I'll use the most recent news case as an example. If an actress is not allowed to play a transgender character because she is not transgender does that mean a transgender actor cannot play any role but transgender ones and if not then isn't the nonn trans actress being discriminated against. Can we have a black bond or is that also discrimination against white actors because it is a traditionally white role.

Engage!

Good point Jaxie. Such attempted positive discrimination is far more reaching and discriminatory than clearly given a thought to . Very badly thought out. All or nothing as anything else would be discriminatory if that makes sense. If only a transgender can play a transgender then only a non-transgender can play a non-transgender. It can’t be all one way as that would be discrimination.

[Ammi]

...as Spike Lee said, really...more movie decisions should be made ‘around that table’ which would include black actors more and offer more diversity ...not the parts that would require a specific skin colour, but those roles where skin colour is irrelevant to the character..(as skin colour is irrelevant to character....)...which is quite a substantial amount movies, I would think...the world around us is a blend of many different skin colour tones and many stories in movies are based on the world around us in the Western world...so movies should reflect that in their ratio in selecting actors for parts...

...hmmmm, maybe the actual ratio of black actors is very small in comparison...that might be a thing as well, I guess...but if that’s so, if it was a say...90 per cent white actor to 10 per cent black, for instance...?...then the only way to balance that ratio more would be to consider diversity more, I would think...and it should be balanced more as that represents ‘realness’...in those movie stories where skin colour for a character is irrelevant, as I said...

[Withano]

No I think actors can play any role, and those saying that they cant are wrong

The same thing happened when a black actress played Hermionie in the Cursed Child.

[ethanjames]

the thing with the scarlettjo **** is that she is a woman and being cast as a trans guy which doesn't feel right,,, surely they should be casting even a cis guy to be playing a trans guy it doesn't make sense otherwise

[LeatherTrumpet]

just sick of the reverse bullying tbh

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by ethanjames

the thing with the scarlettjo **** is that she is a woman and being cast as a trans guy which doesn't feel right,,, surely they should be casting even a cis guy to be playing a trans guy it doesn't make sense otherwise

For all we know, the storyline could start when the character is still presenting as female, and could follow his transition.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

No I think actors can play any role, and those saying that they cant are wrong

The same thing happened when a black actress played Hermionie in the Cursed Child.

See I disagree on Hermione, because it's not a retelling / separate "universe", it's a direct sequel. If someone remakes Harry Potter or makes another separate series based on the same lore and Hermione (or anyone else) is black (or any other race) that's fine... But, if it's a direct sequel to the original story, then the characters should have as close to the same physical description as possible.

Completely unrelated to race also; I'd take as much issue with it if a character was established as being short and was recast with a 6 foot tall actor .

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

See I disagree on Hermione, because it's not a retelling / separate "universe", it's a direct sequel. If someone remakes Harry Potter or makes another separate series based on the same lore and Hermione (or anyone else) is black (or any other race) that's fine... But, if it's a direct sequel to the original story, then the characters should have as close to the same physical description as possible.

Completely unrelated to race also; I'd take as much issue with it if a character was established as being short and was recast with a 6 foot tall actor .

It was based off a book where Hermionie was only really described as having frizzy brown hair though (or something cba to find the actual quote). It just doesnt matter to me.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

It was based off a book where Hermionie was only really described as having frizzy brown hair though (or something cba to find the actual quote). It just doesnt matter to me.

That was a lie / misremembering by Ms Rowling... Hermione's skin tone is specifically mentioned more than once.

I struggle with this because on principle I agree that it shouldn't matter, but I'm a huge fan of fiction, and specifically I'm a huge fan of persistent universes, and maintaining the "integrity" of said universes IS important to me (and many people) as failing to do so breaks immersion / "bursts the bubble" so to speak and destroys the element of escapism.

So basically I don't care at all what race etc. any character is, but I do care that it's adhered to once its established within that storyline.

E.g. Again, it's fine with Bond as each new actor for all intents and purposes represents a new storyline / "new Bond" and always has, with a few small caveats.

And it would be fine to, for example, reboot "The Matrix" from the start as a TV show with Neo being Asian and Trinity black and Morpheus Mexican or any other combination... BUT if they were to make a sequel with a new cast, I would expect them to be as close in appearance to the originals as possible.

[Toy Soldier]

Hell give me a flimsy in-universe reason for the change and its still fine. Like Hermione decided to change appearance for some reason and used magic to do that. All good! It's why I have zero problem really with The Doctor becoming a woman... It's "alien Sci fi stuff" so no problem.

[bitontheslide]

i think it's important that the actor give a good, believable performance. That's where it ends for me.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think it's important that the actor give a good, believable performance. That's where it ends for me.

...that’s it exactly really...(..I love your slim word useage, bots...I try...but I fail..)...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think it's important that the actor give a good, believable performance. That's where it ends for me.

For new stories I definitely agree with that. I also think it would be MORE problematic for minority actors for it to be any other way; e.g. There are far more gay actors playing straight characters than vice versa, and also, a lot of minority actors would miss out in some huge roles if authenticity was insisted on (e.g. Most of the cast of Black Panther are not actually from Africa, they are American, their accents are learned etc)

Also the HUGE (strangely disproportionate!) number of British / Irish / Aussie actors who repeatedly play Americans... Scottish actors who play English characters... Et al.

[armand.kay]

It's just a bit of a slap in the face to the trans community when you're happy to exploit a trans persons story but would rather not hire a trans actor

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

It's just a bit of a slap in the face to the trans community when you're happy to exploit a trans persons story but would rather not hire a trans actor

It's business though and there aren't many (any?) who could carry a large, cinema-release movie reliably enough for a major studio to fund it, so it's a tough one. You could go with lower funding / indy... But then the movie isn't going to raise anywhere near as much awareness. Expecting a studio to front the money on a total gamble is unrealistic.

Although in this case, it may have been better to cast a new face as that role and then fill the supporting cast with big names for the "star power".

[Maru]

I don't pay attention to the actors themselves, I just let them tell the story. I'm completely disassociated from the person who is actually performing. I can understand someone with a particular physical disability having to play certain roles, but I think it's pretty much unnecessary for the person to check certain boxes... it's all in how well and realistically they play the part. Now, if the person is a different race and the white person plays them... that might be OK in something like a play? If the group is a traveling group... but even then, I think that staying at least within the right skin tone makes the most sense for the sake of immersion.

I don't think all actors/actresses have to have direct experience with the type of people they play though... but if the person who does have the experience plays the role and does it quite well, then it's probably ideal... my feeling though is when we are too close to our own subject matter, it's increasingly difficult to remain objective in portrayal... so I don't believe having personal experience is always a benefit... sometimes it becomes a crutch and may even weaken the way the role is played as the person is too internally associating themselves with the character they play... versus someone who takes the time to play it from the outside, they may be more willing to play up even some of the aspects that are not so positive... just a thought. We have this problem in most art forms, where it's important to be able to step away from our own work and see it from a distance (physically and emotionally)... harder to do that when we are so attached to a role and relate too heavily with it, to see it from all aspects I think. Not saying it can't be done, but it is harder.

[armand.kay]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's business though and there aren't many (any?) who could carry a large, cinema-release movie reliably enough for a major studio to fund it, so it's a tough one. You could go with lower funding / indy... But then the movie isn't going to raise anywhere near as much awareness. Expecting a studio to front the money on a total gamble is unrealistic.

Although in this case, it may have been better to cast a new face as that role and then fill the supporting cast with big names for the "star power".

Yeah that would of probably been the best thing to do. As it would also elevate the career of the trans actor who they did..


I mean I would of probably gone to see the movie anyway had scarlet stayed on because I wasn't outraged by it but I could totally understand the trans community's frustration.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by armand.kay

It's just a bit of a slap in the face to the trans community when you're happy to exploit a trans persons story but would rather not hire a trans actor

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's business though and there aren't many (any?) who could carry a large, cinema-release movie reliably enough for a major studio to fund it, so it's a tough one. You could go with lower funding / indy... But then the movie isn't going to raise anywhere near as much awareness. Expecting a studio to front the money on a total gamble is unrealistic.

Although in this case, it may have been better to cast a new face as that role and then fill the supporting cast with big names for the "star power".

...I would say it’s a bit of a Catch 22 really in that there aren’t trans actors to carry a leading Hollywood role already established in their acting experience ...but then if a trans actors aren’t cast for roles, then that experience will never be there...and this would be the perfect movie role to break that catch 22, irs an obvious one and one that would only come up once in a while..

...I do understand it’s about the dollars baby as well...and maybe there would be a worry about that, if it was an unknown trans actor...?...but surely the controversy of publicity in itself that it may create ...could be a raising of box office takings etc...