Scarlett Johannson Quits Movie

[jutaw22mu]

Poor decision to make a movie that caters to special interest groups anyway, especially groups that promote the use of dangerous hormone and other types of transformative treatments in pre-teens and teenagers.  Highly doubt anyone is going to shell out money to see the film anyway.

[GGGG]

Poor decision to make a movie that caters to special interest groups anyway, especially groups that promote the use of dangerous hormone and other types of transformative treatments in pre-teens and teenagers.  Highly doubt anyone is going to shell out money to see the film anyway.

LOL...I'm sure they're torn up about that.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Poor decision to make a movie that caters to special interest groups anyway, especially groups that promote the use of dangerous hormone and other types of transformative treatments in pre-teens and teenagers.  Highly doubt anyone is going to shell out money to see the film anyway.

I've heard trans people described as many things but special interest group is a new one.

[rocket surgeon]

Trans issue aside, it was a terrible casting choice.  The character she was going to play was a actual person who looked like this in real life:

isn't that william shatner?  before i put on another 25 or so?

[Hards Alumni]

I thought actors were paid to pretend to be people they aren't.  Did you know Red in Shawshank Redemption is an Irish white guy in the novel.  I loved Morgan Freeman's performance as Red.  Isn't this what actors do? Take on roles of people they aren't?

Oooooooooooo unpopular opinion, but I agree!

[GGGG]

Oooooooooooo unpopular opinion, but I agree!

Would it have been appropriate to cast Leo DiCaprio as MLK in the movie "Selma?"

Yeah obviously that's an exaggeration, but I think that is similar to how the trans community views this.

[Hards Alumni]

Would it have been appropriate to cast Leo DiCaprio as MLK in the movie "Selma?"

Yeah obviously that's an exaggeration, but I think that is similar to how the trans community views this.

Probably not.  At the same time, we are talking about people who pretend to be other people every day of their lives.  Where are we going to draw the line?  When an American actor portrays a French person?  Clearly that's okay... well unless you're a French actor.  What about mixed race actors?  Rosario Dawson is a New Yorker with PR heritage... does that mean its okay for her to play something besides that?  Or is she pigeon holed?

I find this whole conversation interesting, really.  Its a very grey line on what is culturally acceptable.

[WarriorDad]

Red from Shawshank is also a different situation. Red's race was not central to who he was as a character, nor was it central to the plot of the movie. In this case, the fact that the character is trans is the entire focus of the movie....plus the character is an actual person, not a fictional one.

You are also misunderstanding why people are upset. There are so few major roles that trans actors can play, it is upsetting for some people that when a role like this comes along, it goes to a cisgendered actor.

Another example of this was Exodus: Gods and Kings. The movie was about historical figures who were middle eastern....but they cast Christian Bale, Aaron Paul, and a few other white actors.

As Lenny pointed out, one reason is that there simply aren't many trans (or Middle Eastern) actors who are considered big enough names to carry a movie. So they cast cisgendered and white actors. But this creates a cycle. Trans and non-white actors aren't big enough to get lead roles but because they never get lead roles they can never get big enough to have lead roles.

In the end, all these people did was voice their opinion on the matter. It's ok to have a different opinion. Johannson didn't have to respond but she decided to. Personally, I don't see anything to get bent out of shape about.

I understand to a degree why some are upset, but it feels misplaced. Actors play roles that are different themselves.  Are people suggesting only gay people can play gay parts? If so, does that mean gay people can't play straight parts?  That would be crazy, which is why the original complaint feels unwarranted to me.

I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about.   The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout.  Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies.  It isn't even believable.  John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood.  So many others.   Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant.  Johnny Depp as Tonto.  Collin Farrell as Alexander.  Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.

[brewcity77]

I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about.   The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout.  Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies.  It isn't even believable.  John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood.  So many others.   Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant.  Johnny Depp as Tonto.  Collin Farrell as Alexander.  Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.

You did not seriously just list one of the most racist castings in movie history in your defense, did you? WTF is wrong with you? Might as well start endorsing blackface. What kind of racist crap are you trying to push here? Seriously, that's completely uncalled for and a terrible, terrible, terrible defense of your case.

[Pakuni]

I understand to a degree why some are upset, but it feels misplaced. Actors play roles that are different themselves.  Are people suggesting only gay people can play gay parts? If so, does that mean gay people can't play straight parts?  That would be crazy, which is why the original complaint feels unwarranted to me.

I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about.   The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout.  Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies.  It isn't even believable.  John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood.  So many others.   Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant.  Johnny Depp as Tonto.  Collin Farrell as Alexander.  Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.

This, like several other comments here, is really missing the point. It's not just that ScarJo isn't/doesn't look like a transgender person, it's that the casting of her in that part deprives actual transgender artists of one of their very few opportunities for a significant role.
Nobody suggests Morgan Freeman as Red deprives middle-aged, white male actors of a plum role, because nobody has more opportunities for plum roles than middle-aged, white male actors.
Nobody suggests Kevin Costner as Robin Hood is depriving British actors of their scant opportunities in Hollywood, because Hollywood trips all over itself to cast Brits.

Also, do you see a difference when it comes to the portrayal of fictional characters as opposed to real people?
Like, would you be as on board with "The Ronald Reagan Story" starring Laverne Cox?

And, as Brew notes, some of the examples you list above have been widely criticized as racist or, at a minimum, poor casting choices. Johnny Depp as Tonto was eviscerated (as was everything else about that movie). Mickey Rooney's Yunish was properly derided as racist caricature.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I understand to a degree why some are upset, but it feels misplaced. Actors play roles that are different themselves.  Are people suggesting only gay people can play gay parts? If so, does that mean gay people can't play straight parts?  That would be crazy, which is why the original complaint feels unwarranted to me.

I am in agreement this isn't something to get bent out of shape about.   The Shawshank example is one, but examples throughout.  Jack Reacher in the novels is this huge guy, but Tom Cruise plays him in the movies.  It isn't even believable.  John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn. Costner, an American, as Robin Hood.  So many others.   Morgan Freeman again as Alex Cross, a character that is supposed to be young and vibrant.  Johnny Depp as Tonto.  Collin Farrell as Alexander.  Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's as Mr. Yunishi.

Again, as I explained in the last post, no one is advocating that actors only play their own identities. The anger is at a system that keeps trans actors and makes it very difficult for non-white actors, to get major roles. There are precious few major roles that can be played by a trans actor while there are plenty of major roles that someone like ScarJo can get. At the end of the day, it is a job, so the best person who can reasonably represent the part should get the role but it does lend to the cycle I mentioned before.

Now all that being said the "can reasonably play the part" is something that I think sometimes we have struggled with as a society in the past. I would say Freeman as Red, Cruise as Jack Reacher, Costner as Robin Hood? Those are all situations where despite the person not being an exact match they can reasonably portray the person they are meant to. Wayne as Ghengis Khan? Depp as Tonto? Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's? Those are not reasonable and teeter (or in Rooney's case are) into the realm of racism.

I also think you are struggling to differentiate trans and gay. Gay is not a visual identity so a person of any sexual orientation can play that and it would be believable. Trans is a visual identity, though I would argue it is one that can successfully be portray by a cisgendered actor.

[brewcity77]

Here's the problem. ScarJo taking that role is blocking someone who actually suits the role from taking it. The argument that there are no trans actors that could carry the role is part of the problem. If you give the role to a trans actor, then they have the opportunity to carry said role. And by giving them that opportunity it will open the door for other opportunities.

Black Panther is a good recent example. Marvel gave Ryan Coogler his millions to make the movie he wanted. Hollywood's general reaction in the past was that black films with all-black casts (a few bit roles aside) wouldn't sell internationally. Instead, Black Panther killed at the box office and is the first MCU film to get legit Oscar buzz. Because of this, there will certainly be a sequel and it opens the door for other black filmmakers and actors to make movies and get roles they previously may not have had an opportunity for. Look at Danai Gurira, who was really just known as Michonne from The Walking Dead, and since appearing in Black Panther has been landing sponsorships and roles that she never would have been considered for before Black Panther.

Roles like Ghost in the Shell or Rub & Tug may have offered similar opportunities to Asian or Trans actors if the roles had been cast as written. Maybe someone breaks through with that role and it opens up new opportunities to them rather than simply regurgitating the same faces that audiences don't seem all that excited to see (certainly not for Ghost in the Shell). Maybe someone like Jamie Chung could've made a star turn with that role. Maybe Chaz Bono or Riley Milligan could've done the same with R&T.

If they don't get the chance, especially in the rare incidents when those roles come up, how are they supposed to break through? I think what is most irritating is that rather than own up to the BS of all this, Johannson now seems to be not making the movie, basically the taking her ball and going home strategy. It's like she is bitter about not getting any Oscar nods, and thought playing something in someone else's comfort zone was the answer. After GitS, I figured she would've learned that lesson. Guess not.

[muwarrior69]

That doesn't mean I have to think it's a good idea.

I read one article who said that if they can't find a suitable trans male actor, they should cast a cis male.  I vote
 for Patton Oswald.

chaz bono?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

You did not seriously just list one of the most racist castings in movie history in your defense, did you? WTF is wrong with you? Might as well start endorsing blackface. What kind of racist crap are you trying to push here? Seriously, that's completely uncalled for and a terrible, terrible, terrible defense of your case.

IC, IC

[🏀]

Here's the problem. ScarJo taking that role is blocking someone who actually suits the role from taking it. The argument that there are no trans actors that could carry the role is part of the problem. If you give the role to a trans actor, then they have the opportunity to carry said role. And by giving them that opportunity it will open the door for other opportunities.

Black Panther is a good recent example. Marvel gave Ryan Coogler his millions to make the movie he wanted. Hollywood's general reaction in the past was that black films with all-black casts (a few bit roles aside) wouldn't sell internationally. Instead, Black Panther killed at the box office and is the first MCU film to get legit Oscar buzz. Because of this, there will certainly be a sequel and it opens the door for other black filmmakers and actors to make movies and get roles they previously may not have had an opportunity for. Look at Danai Gurira, who was really just known as Michonne from The Walking Dead, and since appearing in Black Panther has been landing sponsorships and roles that she never would have been considered for before Black Panther.

Roles like Ghost in the Shell or Rub & Tug may have offered similar opportunities to Asian or Trans actors if the roles had been cast as written. Maybe someone breaks through with that role and it opens up new opportunities to them rather than simply regurgitating the same faces that audiences don't seem all that excited to see (certainly not for Ghost in the Shell). Maybe someone like Jamie Chung could've made a star turn with that role. Maybe Chaz Bono or Riley Milligan could've done the same with R&T.

If they don't get the chance, especially in the rare incidents when those roles come up, how are they supposed to break through? I think what is most irritating is that rather than own up to the BS of all this, Johannson now seems to be not making the movie, basically the taking her ball and going home strategy. It's like she is bitter about not getting any Oscar nods, and thought playing something in someone else's comfort zone was the answer. After GitS, I figured she would've learned that lesson. Guess not.

Here's the bigger problem, who's to say any trans actor is better than ScarJo?

While it sounds like she slated herself from the beginning, if she can play the role better, shouldn't she do it? Is this whole conversation mute if it's more open casting?

[brewcity77]

Here's the bigger problem, who's to say any trans actor is better than ScarJo?

While it sounds like she slated herself from the beginning, if she can play the role better, shouldn't she do it? Is this whole conversation mute if it's more open casting?

As mentioned above, this would be the equivalent of Leonardo DiCaprio playing MLK in blackface. On that basis alone, I'm going to say yes, they will play it better. Because they have an understanding of the role's nuance that she will never have and could never understand.

Further, the argument of "could she play it better" perpetuates the problem. When a character is defined by their race or identification or disability, is it better to have the same white cisgender performers taking all those roles, or should performers with an authentic understanding of that role be given the chance, and in the process open them up to greater opportunities?

It's as simple as asking if in this day and age we should have black roles played by white performers in blackface, or if all roles should be played by white men as was the case in Shakespeare's day, because if it was good enough for the Bard shouldn't it be good enough for us?

[🏀]

As mentioned above, this would be the equivalent of Leonardo DiCaprio playing MLK in blackface. On that basis alone, I'm going to say yes, they will play it better. Because they have an understanding of the role's nuance that she will never have and could never understand.

Further, the argument of "could she play it better" perpetuates the problem. When a character is defined by their race or identification or disability, is it better to have the same white cisgender performers taking all those roles, or should performers with an authentic understanding of that role be given the chance, and in the process open them up to greater opportunities?

It's as simple as asking if in this day and age we should have black roles played by white performers in blackface, or if all roles should be played by white men as was the case in Shakespeare's day, because if it was good enough for the Bard shouldn't it be good enough for us?

I don't think blackface has any equivalence in this conversation.

[GGGG]

I don't think blackface has any equivalence in this conversation.

Why not?

[🏀]

Why not?

Blackface roles were largely done as racist caricatures of African Americans. This is not the case.

[brewcity77]

Blackface roles were largely done as racist caricatures of African Americans. This is not the case.

I'm sure Johansson would agree with you. I'm just as sure many in the LBGTQ community would disagree.

[🏀]

I'm sure Johansson would agree with you. I'm just as sure many in the LBGTQ community would disagree.

To Wong Foo must have really been a call to arms for you.

[brewcity77]

To Wong Foo must have really been a call to arms for you.

Do you not understand that the landscape of representation has changed dramatically in not just the past 23 years but also in the last 5?

[Pakuni]

To Wong Foo must have really been a call to arms for you.

Bad example.
To Wong Foo was about drag queens, not transgender people.

[GGGG]

Blackface roles were largely done as racist caricatures of African Americans. This is not the case.

Fair point.

[🏀]

Bad example.
To Wong Foo was about drag queens, not transgender people.

I worked with a dead queen back around 2001 that really would have portrayed the Swayze role better though.