The real reason Scarlett Johansson abandoned her ‘trans role’

[Lostinedinburgh]

Another cracking blog post in the Spectator - from Brendan O'Neill this time.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-real-reason-scarlett-johansson-abandoned-her-trans-role/

Final para: Harassing and silencing women is fashionable again, it seems. And just because it is being done in the supposedly progressive name of ‘trans rights’ doesn’t make it any better. It still smacks of misogyny. It still smacks of women being told to know their place, watch their words, and stop assuming they can take any job they want.

It's the same problem that Rupert Everett had, right? Once it became obvious that he was a flaming queen, nobody would consider him for the role of a straight love interest. Which makes me wonder, isn't the whole point of being a good actor the fact that you are playing a role convincingly? The great Sarah Bernhardt is said to have reduced audiences to tears in L'Aiglon, in which she plays the young Napoleon II.

yes

You just know the climate is bad for women when white dudes are noticing the amount of abuse towards women going on. O'Neill also noted it in another article, feminists getting no-platformed.

It is the height of hypocrisy, when TRAs complain about 'non-trans' ACTORS play 'trans' roles. Yet have no problem parodying women IRL. Or taking the places on AWSL.

I'm really confused, the character is either a lesbian (i.e. a woman) or a female-to-male trans (i.e. a woman) but it's wrong for a woman to play the character?? Huh?

The idea that female parts in the theatre etc should be played by men feels familiar somehow...

Did you see SJ in the film Monster? She can change her appearance most definitely!

That was Charlize Theron in Monster but yes the principle is still the same. Actors/Actresses can change their appearance remarkably well.

ended up on reddit with loads of people saying wtf she was a lesbian.

Also, of all the women/ lesbians/ women who presented as men to get by, they've chosen one who pimped other women. Lots of people pissed off about that too. When do we get films which don't have women being bought as either a central theme or just randomly in the background? I'm sick of being reminded what women are "for " every time I try to watch telly/ a film (USA seem incapable of making a film abbot anything without referencing women being sold).

@Ovahere 'I would have thought they would want to be able to take a variety of roles just as any other actor does or is it that they recognise that as too difficult due to issues of passing?'

I'd assume they do want to take any role, they just don't want anyone not trans playing a trans character. Which is a very selfish stance, I think.

Well it looks like the project will likely not be made now. Which seems like a possible own goal for the trans activists really, although I agree with a PP, the little we know about Gill doesn't make me think that she was a nice person. Still politically trans man, when not making news for giving birth seem to be most active in telling women that they should be frightened of them (in washrooms etc) so perhaps this was a story they wanted to be told.

And yes of course actors can in theory play anyone, I just wondered why Johansson saw this story and thought, yes I can /would like to play this woman even though I have no resemblance to her whatsoever. It just seems a vanity to me. But that may be because I'm still annoyed about Ghost in the Shell.

@Ihuntmonsters I didn't't see ghost in the shell. Why are you annoyed?

I saw this

Is Dwayne Johnson's disabled role in Skyscraper 'offensive'? - www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44852182

Interesting piece because it talks about the journalist who resigned over her piece on Scarlet.

This is the second trans related story on BBC today as they have actually covered the prison story.

italian because Ghost in the Shell is an iconic Japanese science fiction manga/anime that was produced by an American studio and not only gave the starring role to Scarlett instead of a Japanese (or at least Asian) actress (when there are great Asian/ Japanese actresses who struggle to get Hollywood roles) but also bastardised the story into a run of the mill American action movie, stripping out everything that was interesting and thought provoking from the original.

@Ihuntmonsters I don't think I will watch it after that review!

(My daughter loves Anime!)

Thanks

As a half-Chinese, I don’t think there’s a difference in offence between Blonde Western girl playing a Japanese character and Brunette Malaysian playing it.

Fair point ThunderInMyHeart, I think it would have been better if the film had not been made at all. Blond westerner just seems more egregious, but yes I see what you are saying Malaysian brunette playing a Japanese part does seem a bit 'all Asians look the same'. I was thinking more that Asians are very under represented in Hollywood films and this would have been an opportunity for some great actresses to get a break, something that Scarlett obviously does not need at all. But that's another point really.

italian, my dd says the 1995 animated Japanese Ghost in the Shell is fantastic. A bit fucked up mind!

Oscar-winner Jeremy Irons has castigated U.S. star Scarlett Johansson after she pulled out of a film in which she was to play a transsexual. She bailed in the wake of criticism that the role should have gone to a trans actor.

‘Acting is about playing different sorts of people,’ Irons tells me at the Xerjoff Royal Charity Polo Cup.

‘You don’t have to be a murderer to play a murderer, you don’t have to be a trans-sexual to play a transsexual. It’s ludicrous — she shouldn’t have done it.’

I predict nothing will be said to Jeremy.

TheresaMayIsATory I predict quite a bit will be said to him about representation.

Yes, I don't get it either.

Either:

TWAW in which case there is no difference between W and TW, so anything one can do the other can do.

Or:

TW and W are different, so different that it would be impossible for even a highly-skilled actor from one group to portray the other group.

So which is it?

TWAW?

Or TW and W are completely different?

TRAs can't have it both ways. As it stands, it looks as though TRAs want to have their cake and eat it - they want everyone to agree that TW can do every single thing that W can do and are entitled to be in every single space that belongs to W. BUT W aren't TW and aren't allowed to do anything that belongs to TW or invade TW's spaces in any way.

There is zero logical consistency.

And yes, it is all about who shouts louder.

I predict nothing will be said to Jeremy.

My thoughts exactly.

pftttI agree with you generally, TW are TW and have their own experiences which are not the same as women, and may or may not be the same as men, depending on what we actually mean by TW.

However in this case the scenario is about a supposed transman. Following the trans people are whatever they say they are line your logic actually runs like this:

Either:

TMAM in which case there is no difference between M and TM, so anything one can do the other can do.

Or:

TM and M are different, so different that it would be impossible for even a highly-skilled actor from one group to portray the other group.

Following your logic then you can see that if Scarlett Johansson is not trans then she is neither a man nor a transman. The transactivists said that they wanted a transman to take the role. Some said a man would be OK too. That Scarlett Johansson is a woman just like the individual she was hoping to portray is not to be said obviously.

But how do we know she isn't a TM? Given that being trans is apparently just a feeling, and not just that, but a feeling that people need only have part of a week?

It's clearly impossible to prove that anyone is or isn't trans or if you believe that TWAW, and TMAM, that anyone isn't a W or a M.

The problem with claiming as TRAs do both that a) TWAW and b) that there is no definition of W is that actually there is no definition of TW (or TM) either.

TW and TM are literally meaningless categories, according to TRAs, given that their definition is entirely based on being the same as something that TRAs claim strongly does not exist.

So Scarlett can be a TM, I can be a TM, anyone can be a TM. My dog can be a TM. My table can be a TM.

Because it is literally impossible to define TM (or TW). (Or table.) Because in this lovely post-modern, fascistic world, anything can mean whatever you want it to, and All News Is Fake.

Oh I agree it's all stupidly through the looking glass. Plus in this particular case the individual described themselves as a butch lesbian at least as much as they ID'd as a man.

Didn't Jeremy Irons say allowing gay marriage would mean men could marry their sons to avoid inheritance tax? Or something like that. So people won't say anything because a) he's a man and b) they'll just say it's Jeremy Irons wondering out loud again.