Plan B Forum

Halle Berry has announced that she will no longer be preparing to play the role of a transgender man in an upcoming film project after a swift backlash to her discussion of the project.

“The woman is a trans character, so she’s a woman that transitioned into a man. She’s a character in a project I love that I might be doing,” Berry said. “Who this woman was is so interesting to me, and that will probably be my next project.”

“As a cisgender woman, I now understand that I should not have considered this role, and that the transgender community should undeniably have the opportunity to tell their own stories,” she posted on Twitter.

Halle Berry's spine is likely to be found along with those of the Senate Republicans. (And cisgender my arse)

Halle Berry's a woman?!?!?

Realistically, it's not any different from pulling a big name white star to play a black character. There are many trans men and trans women out there in the acting community who would be perfect for the role, so why "cis wash" it?

And as a heterosexual cis-gender male I will sale that Halle Berry is very easy on the eyes.

How many would that be, eq? We ain't talking drag queens here but folks who are going through sexual identity crises / changes / actions / whatever word is acceptable. How many of those are good actors? Or stars who bring in an audience?

And I may have de-emphasized the point

Berry has been roasted for referring to the transexual male as a "woman". She was interested in playing the role of a "woman" having the experience of being and becoming male.

Of course, Berry's heresy is that the "he" was never a woman. "He" was always a man who just happened to have breasts and a vagina. Silly Berry - what was she thinking?

Now Berry has been shamed into a grovelling apology and swearing never to play the part of someone she's not (oh, wait - that's the job of every actor under the sun)

The day may come when transgender actors are seriously considered to play cisgender roles. Until then, it's wrong to exclude them from consideration for the only roles they could ever hope to land by defaulting to cisgender actors for transgender roles, usually for the excuse of getting a "name" actor for the part.

MJM - a quick search has an IMDB article with 70 names on it

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls072599514/

I recently watched a series called "Sense8" on netflix. One of the characters was a trans woman and was played by a trans woman. The American TV show "9-1-1 Lone Star" has a character that is a trans man that is played by a trans man. It's happening, just not as quickly as some would prefer.

But I do understand the conundrum. If the story is about the "in transition" person, perhaps having a woman play the role makes sense if that's what they are focusing on. I do think, however, that having a trans male play that part lends some authenticity to it. Overall, it's an evolution. More and more they are getting Native American people to play Native American roles (notable exception recently was Johnny Depp as Tonto) and having black actors play black roles, etc. In the 60's Natalie Wood (Russian/Ukranian decent) played a Puerto Rican in West Side Story. In 2020, they'd choose an actual Latina actress.

I don't necessarily get outraged over the "white washing" (or cis washing as it were here) like many people do. I do often shake my head wondering why they chose a particular actor to play a clearly different ethnicity for a role. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the movie/show if it's entertaining, though.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:38 pm

The day may come when transgender actors are seriously considered to play cisgender roles. Until then, it's wrong to exclude them from consideration for the only roles they could ever hope to land by defaulting to cisgender actors for transgender roles, usually for the excuse of getting a "name" actor for the part.

More "wrong" than not making the movie at all?

Thanks eq

Big RR wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:24 pm

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:38 pm

The day may come when transgender actors are seriously considered to play cisgender roles. Until then, it's wrong to exclude them from consideration for the only roles they could ever hope to land by defaulting to cisgender actors for transgender roles, usually for the excuse of getting a "name" actor for the part.

More "wrong" than not making the movie at all?

Is that necessarily the outcome? 20 years ago it was seen as perfectly acceptable to cast Hilary Swank as a transgender man in Boys Don't Cry, and don't get me wrong, it was pretty universally acknowledged that she did a fantastic job with it. But she was chosen precisely because she was relatively unknown. If it were being cast today, there are probably several trans male actors who could do it justice, even if as relatively unknown as Swank was at the time.

Almost 15 years later, Dallas Buyers Club gets made, and Jared Leto gets cast as a trans woman. Nothing against Leto as an actor, and from all accounts he completely threw himself into the role to put out a great performance, never breaking out of character throughout filming, but he wasn't exactly a household name and hadn't made a movie in the preceding five years, and it can't be said that the picture wouldn't have been made but for his casting. That could have been a role for which a trans actor won an Oscar instead of him. Were any seriously considered? I guess we'll never know.

Interesting you point those out; Boys Donr't Cry was made for a "modest" $2,000,000 and grossed around $11,000,000 in the US; compare that to over $200,000,000 for Star Wars Episode 1 (not all that great a movie, but it was nearly $1 billion worldwide). The producers of Boys decided to make a small, primarily art house and major market release; ditto for the producers of Dallas Buyers Club--the darling of the critics and academy (in those days) but nothing expected to make much money or heave a wide release; ditto for The Danish Girl more recently. One does not want to cast Hallie Berry in that type of movie--her name recognition is set to get a blockbuster. If the producers wanted to make an art house film, they would have gone for a lesser known, possibly a transgender, actor or actress, but it appears they were betting a a wider release (and I wouldn't be surprised if such a release would benefit the transgender community more than the smaller audience film being seen by only the choir. Maybe the smaller movies could have benefited from transgender casting, but I don't think this will get made without the name recognition star.

FWIW, I might be inclined to skip a "big" film dealing with this subject because I think it would end up being too watered down so it could play at the multiplex, but I do think a major actor or actress could draw the mass audience into the theater and expose them to a story and characters they likely would not see otherwise.

The Danish Girl is another of those bizarre examples. Originally intended to star Nicole Kidman, the part eventually went to Eddie Redmayne. Again, nothing against the talent of either of them, but seriously? Let's cast a cisgender woman, no, wait, how about a cisgender guy? Did casting a trans woman ever even occur to them, not even for this "art" film?

I'm upset that actors are playing the roles of people who aren't actors.

Why not just do away with human actors altogether and cast four footed animals in every part. If gender doesn't matter in casting, then why should species?

Recommended (on Netflix):

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:52 pm

Why not just do away with human actors altogether and cast four footed animals in every part. If gender doesn't matter in casting, then why should species?

It wouldn't be easy to find a "four footed" transgendered animal to play a transgendered man but if the animal is a good actor, it shouldn't matter.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:52 pm

Why not just do away with human actors altogether and cast four footed animals in every part. If gender doesn't matter in casting, then why should species?

Wasn't Mr. Ed a guy in a horse suit?

Scooter wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:52 pm

Why not just do away with human actors altogether and cast four footed animals in every part. If gender doesn't matter in casting, then why should species?

You mean like this?



Besides, we are doing away with human (and animal) actors as it is.  Pretty much every major movie nowadays features green-screen effects and motion-capture imagery out the ying-yang, as well as purely computer simulated background effects and crowd scenes — for example, did you know that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Johnny Depp's Oompa-Loompas in 2005's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was computer generated from one single person (Kenyan actor Deep Roy)?  I mean, why hire an extra when you can create one through the magic of CGI?

-"BB"-

eddieq wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:19 pm

There are many trans men and trans women out there in the acting community who would be perfect for the role, so why "cis wash" it?

Laverne Cox does excellent work in Orange is the New Black. Can't be the only trans who is a good actor.

My performance of the Dame, in several pantomimes, was much lauded. Should I have stepped down in favour of a large breasted battle axe of a woman?

I understand that Gary Sinise in "Forrest Gump" did not (in fact) have both legs amputated for the part but was in possession of the entirety of bones etc. in the nether-limb area.

Can we not get a real person without any legs for the remake?