Transwimen actors call for trans quota quota for female roles

I think it's the plot of Victor/Victoria.

It's a bold demand. I wonder if they're prepared for an honest answer?

Acting is pretending. That's the deal - someone pretends to be someone else and the aim is to construct that fantasy so well that the audience totally buys it. Anything that doesn't quite fit - even a tiny detail like a TV aerial in the background of village street scene on Downton Abbey - jars the audience out of the fantasy. The illusion is spoiled and the audience drifts away to give their attention and their money to a different, more seamless construction of artifice.

People don't want to waste their chill Saturday evenings or their hard-earned cash on validating someone else's fantasy. That's not entertainment, it's hard work.

So in fact it was a female pretending to be a male pretending to be a female which wasn't even vaguely funny and was frankly ridiculous casting and incredibly distracting.
I dunno, sounds kind of Shakespearean.

Big sigh for Teh Grauniad.

I saw Rebecca Root in The Curious Incident and felt it was an odd casting, unfortunately Rebecca's acting wasn't good. The trans aspect was immediately obvious, and distracting in the context of the play. Rebecca seemed to gallumph about the stage a bit, out of step with the other actors. Casting Rebecca as a female character with loads of empathy in a play where the playwright asks "is being truthful the most human and the most important thing we can do to one another?" is a bit jarring.

😂

correct me if im wrong, but i always presumed it was the best fit for the role ?

I'd be up for a remake of Hitchcock's Psycho with a transwoman playing Norman Bates, but I'm not sure if it would be classified as a trans or non trans role.

The most ridiculous casting I have ever seen was on stage in The Madness of King George. The play was excellent. However there is one scene where a male character pretends to be a woman. It is meant to be funny. However they cast a biological female to play the male role. So in fact it was a female pretending to be a male pretending to be a female which wasn't even vaguely funny and was frankly ridiculous casting and incredibly distracting.

The purpose of film/tv/theatre is to enable the viewer to escape and you're supposed to become completely immersed in the performance. This stupid casting prevents that from happening.

I agree

I haven’t played the games, just watched the series. I find it odd that the Brotherhood of Steel, massively hierarchical relying on institutional bullying and sleeping in dorms, would have non binary members.

I can sort of the see the point for something like 'Its a Sin' that is specifically about the gay experience but if a role is 'neighbour', 'colleague' 'police man' or whatever who happens to be gay then I can't see why that role should be ring fenced for a gay actor when straight 'neighbour', 'colleague' or 'copper' would be available for a gay actor.

agreed. That actor was excellent.

Sting's daughter in Ripley playing a male was frankly ridiculous and incredibly distracting. It was also necessary since it isn't possible that she was genuinely the best actor for the role.

The actor who played Dane in Fallout was a female actress and model until very recently, She was in Wheel of Time playing a female. She's recently become a transman. I think she's supposed to be non binary in the programme rather than the viewer being expected to think she's male.

The trans woman in 'Baby Reindeer' was also very good. Obviously clocked that she was a transwoman straight away and was therefore relieved when it became clear that she was playing a transwoman and we weren't supposed to be suspending disbelief.

There was a rather enjoyable TV series in 2015 called Boy Meets Girl - with Rebecca Root (a transwoman) playing Judy (also a transwoman).

That one was perfectly cast; why would you seek to cast anybody but the most suitable and believable actor for any role?

The issue is that it actually changes the narrative. And casting directors know that. They absolutely know that if they cast a trans woman as a woman, the audience will see her as a man. No matter how much they want to be kind and inclusive, they will see a man. I'm sorry but I haven't ever met or seen a trans women who wasn't clearly a biological male. And the narrative in their minds as they watch will be 'that person was born male'. And it does subtly change the perception of everything from their relationship to their children, to their families, to how they may be perceived in their jobs to what they may be worrying about - and what may not affect them or be relevant to them. Let's say the story shows them being ostracised for some reason - the audience will think 'Oh this is the trans story'. If the directors push the narrative and make it clear to the audience we're meant to be seeing this male as a female - for example if the person explicitly refers to giving birth (which let's face it can only be done to a limited extent!) the audience will have a double jarring of 'Oh this male is playing a biological female'. It lifts them out of the narrative even further. I've never met or seen a trans woman who passed as biologically female so it does take your mind down a different path when watching a story. I've got a wonderful trans friend but if I'm honest I think of him as a male and I'm kind and pretend I see him as female (use she/her etc). But if my friend was in a movie and shopping for pregnancy tests, I would never think it was for them.

Sad thing is they probably get more auditions already than women their age.

Anyway, how do they know they aren't seeing TW on stage all the time? I thought they couldn't tell the difference?

😂

But if you can identify into being a female actor with no issues, what on earth is to stop you from identifying as decades younger than you would be if you 'believed in' boring old chronology?

To be fair they did this with both Grease movies!* *Those were some very adult looking teens.😁

Nah, it would have to be Brian Blessed, shouting "GARDINER'S ALIIIIIVE!!!!!!"

The original thread about the trailer (from 2018 which is earlier than I thought!) was one of the funniest I can remember.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3393093-So-apparently-Owl-made-a-film

Anyway in reference to the original topic, I agree with what everyone else has said about trans people playing trans people. Or potentially their correct sex (wasn't Izzard still taking male roles?). There is nothing wrong with being trans. But yes, we all have eyes, which is quite the stumbling block to people playing cross-sex roles.

On Fox and Owl’s film, do they not realise that it’s also very confusing for an audience? A transwoman is playing a woman (who theoretically may be read by the audience as a woman or a transwoman) who reveals themself to be trans to their neighbour. The neighbour thought the transwoman was a woman, but the neighbour themself is played by a transwoman, who presumably is supposed to read as a woman by the audience otherwise the whole concept doesn’t make sense because surely a transwoman is quite good at clocking other transwomen and also presumably wouldn’t be “anti-trans” to another transwoman? As a film it seems to expect an audience not to have eyes which is an interesting avenue to go down for a visual medium.

Actually I spotted at least one other woman in the background in the brotherhood scenes.

There's a transwoman in Dark (German Netflix drama), playing a transwoman prostitute. But the plot is that the person using the prostitute is a closeted gay man, so tbh it's fine by me as it's a transwoman playing a transwoman. Same with Baby Reindeer.

I haven't watched Umbrella Academy since I peaked. Really enjoyed Paige's character - was the original comic book character trans too, or did they change the series plotline so that Paige could continue in her "correct gender"?

Edited for spelling

There are still proportionally fewer roles for women than for men. Let's redress that balance first.