Rub & Tug

[Flint Marko]

I mean...... she kinda has a point. Where was the outrage with Jeffrey Tambor, Leto, and Huffman?

I get it with Ghost in the Shell. This not so much because we’ve seen several examples of this exact thing within the past couple years and it seemingly wasn’t an issue until now.

 

[Aximili86]

Why do you get it with Ghost In The Shell? She wasn't playing a Japanese body in that, she was playing a Japanese person's mind/consciousness in a robot. No reason that can't look like Scarlett.

But yeah, it's typical moronic professional-outrage with this particular case. The character's a woman, who presented herself in a masculine manner. She wasn't transgender in terms of actually seeing herself as male.

Eddie Redmayne's not transgender either, these same people didn't give a **** about him getting an Oscar for something "more problematic" (ugh) than this.

 

[Dr.]

I mean...... she kinda has a point. Where was the outrage with Jeffrey Tambor, Leto, and Huffman?

Times, they are a changing - very fast. In 1999, Boys Don’t Cry was hailed as a gay positive film. But a couple of years ago, a screening on a college campus was protested by a trans student group; and the director (who’s queer) was lambasted for her “transphobia.” The main offense: Hillary Swank is cisgender.

 

[Zarex]

The problem with Ms. Johansson is A) She is very outspoken in her support of progressive issues, B) She appears to place her paycheck above said positions (Limousine Liberal!), C) She was roundly (and fairly) criticized for recently taking part in the GITS whitewashing and D) Her attack on those who would dare criticize her was quite Trumpian in nature.

This is a unique situation, and the controversy doesn't mean actors shouldnt be cast in roles that don't fit their own personal sexual identities. But it should be done more thoughtfully. And by a different actress.

 

[DarkKnight88]

but they defended her casting that with her it will not bomb even if its bad.

Then think of how much worse it would've bombed without her.

Times, they are a changing - very fast. In 1999, Boys Don’t Cry was hailed as a gay positive film. But a couple of years ago, a screening on a college campus was protested by a trans student group; and the director (who’s queer) was lambasted for her “transphobia.” The main offense: Hillary Swank is cisgender.

People are destroying actual positive films to make a point that is actually doing more harm to the cause.

And one person or one group who protest do not speak for all. Even though they think they do.

 

[Abudefduf]

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't care about any of the pearl clutching from the ranks of the professionally outraged keyboard warriors about how "problematic" (the most annoyingly overused word in the world that instantly makes me tune out) Scarlett Johansson is, I just think it's silly to cast Scarlett Johansson and then make her look like......that with Darkest Hour levels of makeup instead of just giving the lead to someone less "hot" who actually fits the role better in the first place.


It's like an unattractive heavyset actress can't even get cast as an unattractive heavyset character, we have to cast a slim pretty woman and then slather makeup on her?

 

[Aximili86]

That's all fair enough, Schlosser, and I tend to agree. Though I guess you've gotta take the same approach to Oldman himself as Churchill too, for consistency's sake. And that was obviously pretty inspired casting, could be here too.

The "hot person playing non-hot person" thing shouldn't be an issue. They're actors, just about all of them are "hot". Wasn't an issue for Theron in Monster.

Times, they are a changing - very fast. In 1999, Boys Don’t Cry was hailed as a gay positive film. But a couple of years ago, a screening on a college campus was protested by a trans student group; and the director (who’s queer) was lambasted for her “transphobia.” The main offense: Hillary Swank is cisgender.

Basically, the world's gone ****in' insane, everyone's lost their minds.

 

[Schlosser85]

Yea, bashing cisgender actors for playing transgender characters is just silly.


By that logic, no one should be allowed to play anything they're not in reality, including gay actors playing straight roles (like Neil Patrick Harris playing a ladies' man, or Matt Bomer on White Collar).

 

[Schlosser85]

Also as far as I've read, the person Johansson is playing wasn't even transgender. And neither are most of the people raising an outrage about this on the internet, if past precedent is any indication. They're cisgender fourteen year old white girls who are not affected or knowledgeable about what they're yelling about, just like most of the people outraged about Ghost in the Shell were not Asian, but patronizingly speak for minorities to get kudos on their Tumblrs by hijacking serious issues that actually affect people that they use for popularity contests on social media about how #woke they are.

 

[harlequinade]

Plenty of transgender people on twitter are voicing their outrage, so I don't know where are you getting this from

 

[Zarex]

If Scarlet wasn't an outspoken progressive who was just involved in a whitewashing controversy and responded aggressively to (mostly) reasonable criticism, there would be considerably less pearl clutching. I think it's a good thing that we are now treating transgender folks as people and not curiosities.

 

[scarlet-witch]

I don't think you always have to be X to play X in a film, but trans actors are a very marginalized group. You can enjoy past performances of cis actors playing trans while still acknowledging that more trans actors need to be cast period.

What baffles me about Scarlett is she faced a TON of rightly earned backlash for Ghost in the Shell, and that movie bombed at the box office. White washing almost certainly contributed to that. So for her to team up with the same director and play another role that could've went to a marginalized groups is just tone deaf at at his point.

You can't use "business" because Scarlett's star power didn't bring viewers to GITS or Rough Night. Rupert Sanders is best knowing for cheating on his wife with Kristen Stewart. It's a matter of her kind of being a hypocrite to be honest. Did a trans actor even get in the audition room for this? Or did they just give it to her?

 

[Aximili86]

Maybe it's intentional, did you think of that? A big "**** you" to unwarranted hyperbolic wussy-2018 criticism.

But again, the person she's portraying wasn't trans. There's no "you've gotta listen to us, have some empathy!" factor here like it's offensive to their particular group and Scarlett isn't grasping that. If they're offended on a personal level, they're wrong. This'll be Scarlett with short hair and men's clothes, just like the real lady. She didn't consider herself male, it was a business means-to-an-end.

You know, like the friggin' Shakespeare play.

At a certain point it's not her problem, it's theirs. You cannot function in this world at all if you get offended by so little.

EDIT: Also, GitS didn't bomb due to the "oh no, a white lady playing a white robot with an Asian lady's consciousness inside" factor. It bombed due to being a niche property nobody outside of nerds gave a crap about, and the movie being only okay.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Also as far as I've read, the person Johansson is playing wasn't even transgender. And neither are most of the people raising an outrage about this on the internet, if past precedent is any indication. They're cisgender fourteen year old white girls who are not affected or knowledgeable about what they're yelling about, just like most of the people outraged about Ghost in the Shell were not Asian, but patronizingly speak for minorities to get kudos on their Tumblrs by hijacking serious issues that actually affect people that they use for popularity contests on social media about how #woke they are.

I didn't know this character was suppose to be transgender. The only reason I know about this was yesterday I went on twitter to check on some of basketball twitter, and then Scarlett was trending. Thought that was weird, so I clicked on it. She seems to indicate the character is transgender with her answer.

It didn't seem like just a bunch of 14 year old cisgender white girls complaining about it. Though, I do wonder why that would matter if it was? Just doing a quick Google search puts the amount of transgender people in the US at 1.4m, as of 2016. Any movement in their favor is going to require a lot of people who are not transgender to get any traction.

I don't really think someone needs to be effect by something, to want to argue on the side of it. Empathy is important here. And I get people are over the top, and plenty don't actually care, but ignoring it seems really harsh and exactly the opposite of the empathy we are crying out for in the face of Trump. If that were the case, who argues for the young migrant children being taken from their family? Only other Hispanics from the specific region these families are coming from?

And I am of course not saying this is anywhere near that. It isn't. It's just a movie. But i don't agree with the idea that you can't argue on the side of others, even if you aren't effected. That is the general, "how does it effect me" situation with those that do not realize how important the current situation with the Supreme Court is. If they roll back LGBT rights, should non-members of the LGBT community not care or fight for it?

 

[Schlosser85]

Obviously I would hope non-LGBT people would care if Trump’s Supreme Court picks tried to roll back our rights. But I don’t think that’s relevant to a discussion about a cisgender actor playing an ambiguously transgender character in a movie. By that logic, gay actors shouldn’t play straight characters either as they have plenty of times.

 

[MadVillainy]

I didn't know this character was suppose to be transgender. The only reason I know about this was yesterday I went on twitter to check on some of basketball twitter, and then Scarlett was trending. Thought that was weird, so I clicked on it. She seems to indicate the character is transgender with her answer.

It didn't seem like just a bunch of 14 year old cisgender white girls complaining about it. Though, I do wonder why that would matter if it was? Just doing a quick Google search puts the amount of transgender people in the US at 1.4m, as of 2016. Any movement in their favor is going to require a lot of people who are not transgender to get any traction.

I don't really think someone needs to be effect by something, to want to argue on the side of it. Empathy is important here. And I get people are over the top, and plenty don't actually care, but ignoring it seems really harsh and exactly the opposite of the empathy we are crying out for in the face of Trump. If that were the case, who argues for the young migrant children being taken from their family? Only other Hispanics from the specific region these families are coming from?

And I am of course not saying this is anywhere near that. It isn't. It's just a movie. But i don't agree with the idea that you can't argue on the side of others, even if you aren't effected. That is the general, "how does it effect me" situation with those that do not realize how important the current situation with the Supreme Court is. If they roll back LGBT rights, should non-members of the LGBT community not care or fight for it?

I agree

 

[Aximili86]

How the hell did we get to Trump & LGBT rights here? Don't start something wider.

The point is, LGBT people being offended over Scarlett playing a lady who dressed like a guy for sheer business reasons and nothing more doesn't mean they're right in being offended over it.

It's literally a smaller jump than a straight actor playing a gay person or a gay actor playing a straight person. Schlosser's right.

 

[Schlosser85]

No one is arguing with that, Blackman.

 

[MadVillainy]

How the hell did we get to Trump & LGBT rights here? Don't start something wider.

The point is, LGBT people being offended over Scarlett playing a lady who dressed like a guy for sheer business reasons and nothing more doesn't mean they're right in being offended over it.

It's literally a smaller jump than a straight actor playing a gay person or a gay actor playing a straight person.

I really don't think so because there's no back and forth. Trans performers arent cast to play cis gender roles. At least not a lot and at least from what Ive seen

 

[MadVillainy]

No one is arguing with that, Blackman.

Did I say anyone was arguing it? I just said I agree with his sentiment.

 

[Schlosser85]

There’s not exactly an abundance of trans performers, let alone ones who’d get big studio backing.

 

[Aximili86]

Again: she's not playing a trans character. She's playing a woman who considers herself a woman but business partners think is a guy.

Like the friggin' Twelfth Night. Which nobody's had any issues with, ever.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Obviously I would hope non-LGBT people would care if Trump’s Supreme Court picks tried to roll back our rights. But I don’t think that’s relevant to a discussion about a cisgender actor playing an ambiguously transgender character in a movie. By that logic, gay actors shouldn’t play straight characters either as they have plenty of times.

I don't disagree with this. I think what got me on this was Scarlett's response, and her general dismissive nature of what feels like transgender actors. I don't think that was her intention, but it feels like that. Especially as I don't think there are a lot of roles for transgender actors outside of playing transgender characters. Are they going to start casting transgender actors, in cisgender roles on the regular?

 

[scarlet-witch]

EDIT: Also, GitS didn't bomb due to the "oh no, a white lady playing a white robot with an Asian lady's consciousness inside" factor. It bombed due to being a niche property nobody outside of nerds gave a crap about, and the movie being only okay.

Whitewashing absolutely played a part in that. People who were fans didn't see it because of her. The film had several problems on its own, but that was one of them.

I also doubt Johansson saw this as a "F you" scenario either. She paints herself as progressive.