Trans actors complaining about casting

[TimeForDebate]

Trans actors are complaining that cisgender actors are playing trans characters, and that this shouldn't be allowed.

But ...

If 'trans women are women, and trans men are men ...' surely ... under their own logic, it's completely irrelevant? It shouldn't matter a bit whether actors are trans or women etc. Aren't they getting all muddled up, suggesting trans men and trans women ... aren't?

Or is that only when it suits them?

www.glamour.com/story/should-cisgender-actors-be-allowed-to-play-transgender-characters

There are several theatres on London that are trying to ensure all new writing has at least 50% women’s roles. That means by exalt there is a higher likelihood of less than 50% male roles (you won’t get it bang on the nose so ‘at least’ will favour women).

There is an effort being made for women and their representation in theatre so it’s not fair to say no one cares.

Exalt = default

I think it’s got a lot to do with the aesthetic.. Hayley Cropper was 20 years ago, but a big part of her story was her relationship with Roy. Most TW don’t pass very convincingly, and it was probably thought that depicting that on screen might have been difficult and off putting for the viewer, and I doubt much has changed in the interim, with the studios at least. That isn’t a criticism of TW btw, it’s a criticism of how society expects relationships to look. Let’s have trans actors filling trans roles, being trans-is a very unique way of being and I don’t think it can be accurately depicted by someone who isn’t trans.

Betty DuMonde

Kathryn Hunter playing Richard III made a huge impression on me.
www.atgtickets.com/blog/women-in-male-roles/

Cool!

I wonder if the trans actor/s concerned are just shit actors and hence the casting director picked someone who could actually....act.

Given how authentically acting would seem to be a key factor in picking an acting role.

what a frustrating attitude. Would you say the same about any other minority group?

You can't just call yourself a minority group when there's absolutely no definition for "you" or "them".

Being trans is not like being deaf, no matter how you choose to frame it.

My comment was to do if the person concerned was a bad actor.

So unless you see "bad actors trying to get acting jobs" as a minority group, then I can't see what your point was?

(Perhaps I'll just pop over to Milan and demand priority on the catwalk, as I am a minority model? My fat ass and shortness aren't relevant, obviously)

www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/01/12/sean-bean-takes-on-trans-role-for-bbc-drama/

Does this mean Sean Bean is a woman.

Why shouldn’t trans people hope that a trans part would be awarded to a trans actor?

Yes, in the same way I hope a women's 800m race would be won by a woman, or an all womens shortlist would be made up of women.

Exactly.

It's a sad fact that most trans people don't 'pass'. It's the voice, the Adams apple or absence, the pelvis, the hands, the brow ridges, the jawline, the height ... Can you think of any trans man or trans woman who can convincingly pass who is also a fantastic actor? The audience would have to suspend disbelief to an extraordinary level to accept an unconvincing portrayal. Actors I've seen giving beautiful performances as trans people include Eddie Redmayne, and Haydn Gwynne - I did not realise Gwynne's Victorian character was trans male played by a woman until the story reveal, and I did not realise it was Gwynne until I read the credits. It was a magnificent performance by a woman playing a woman passing and living as a man. By an ACTOR portraying someone other than herself, immersing herself into the character. Until trans actors can pass perfectly the audience will not accept the casting other than in specialist productions. And at the end of the day - it's a business.

By this analogy, men can't play the panto dames at Xmas.

Under stonewall's umbrella they can, because they are women

The thing about acting is that it's not a scientific profession, it's an artform which is hugely subjective. If a character is trans, it may be appropriate to cast a trans actor. But there are always going to be other factors to consider. It's not a case of cast the person with the exactly corresponding characteristics as the character.

So, as disabilities have been mentioned, I'm thinking of the Dwayne Johnson film where he plays a man with only one leg. It's styled as a blockbuster action movie, and he's one of the most bankable action movie stars right now. It would make zero sense to find an actor with only one leg to play the part instead because there are other significant things to consider - not least that this is meant to trade on Dwayne Johnson's name. That's how the industry works.

Now, say the trans actor in Emmerdale now does really well. They're clearly well cast in a trans role, and it works because soaps have a history of raising awareness of various social changes. But say they become very popular and their profile is raised. Perhaps someone will write a vehicle with a trans character and they will be the perfect choice - not just because of their trans status, but because of their skills and popularity. That's how a popular career in acting flows. I have no problem with that at all.

But, like so many things, the TRA stuff wants contradictory things. They want only trans actors playing trans parts. They also want trans actors playing non trans parts because transwomen are women etc. and inclusivity blah blah blah. I can see half of the reasonable argument for the first sentence. I can't see it being compatible with the second sentence.

Representation and visibility is fine and a good thing. But this is not an industry which works solely by ticking demographic boxes.

Yy Floral.

With disabilities in particular, if it ever gets to the stage where you have to have X to represent X, and nothing less will do, then for the most part it'll be easier not to represent X at all, and it will become invisible.

So a man dressing up as a woman can't play a man who dresses up as a woman?
Or a woman can't dress up as a woman who dresses up as a man?
My Aspie brain gets very confused by this.

Urbanbeetler

I’m not sure why you think that only a trans actor can play a trans character.

I think you’d agree that merely having a specific characteristic doesn’t mean that you can express it on-stage. What characteristic or characteristics do you think a trans person would be able to express that a non-trans person would not be able to express?

You say that trans people “have a specific characteristic which matches the role of a trans character”. Can you say what this “specific characteristic” is?

And again, what is a trans actor?

According to Reddit I'm trans as I don't subscribe to gender stereotypes about my own biological sex. Can I qualify?

Well, it's quite clear that for the purposes of the actor debate, TRAs are being very specific in their definition - they mean someone MtF or FtM. This is very much what I meant about wanting two contradictory things. Essentially, there is a desire for representation, but and equal desire for everyone to pretend that certsin people pass. This won't really work with non binary stuff, because almost every individual is, and it would make very, very flat entertainment to have each character a simple binary stereotype.

What is meant I should imagine is stuff like the Emmerdale situation I mentioned earlier, where an individual actor is born a certain sex and now presents as the other. It's very visible and obvious. Because essentially there's not a lot of point in pressing for visibility if no one can tell.

I can understand that, but it's got a limited shelf life as an approach, as LGB people are finding out - at first it was about presenting some gay characters, all good. Then it was a case of giving them positive storylines, again, a step forward. Then it was a further step to show the real lives of LGB people, rather than incessant tragedies or coming out stories.

But now the challenge for LGB representation onscreen is how to just have a gay character without needing to do more than a few signals the way you would do with a heterosexual character - the sight of a partner, specific casual dialogue and so on.

The Trans lobby will find that bit more difficult because a certain sector are so very, very invested in attention, and especially the part that pretends to want to break the gender binary but completely conforms to it, a la Fox and Owl looking like any old bog standard heterosexual couple so they have to keep holding up signs to set themselves apart.

I saw Maxine Peake give her Hamlet and was perfectly happy with her playing a young man. And then I heard her interviewed and she said 'I'm playing it trans' and I wanted to shout at her for being so fucking stupid.

Ha! They all played it trans back in the day!

Caitlin Jenner was on the Last Leg talking about this. They said thry were happy for Eddie Redmaine playing a trans part and thought it didn't really matter as it's all acting and was advised not to make that view public because there would be backlash 'within the community'. Then the two of them were at the same party and pressure was applied to stay away so Caitlin never got to say well done.

It was quite interesting hearing Caitlin essentially acknowledge that TRAs are trying to silence debate within the trans community as well.

Ha! They all played it trans back in the day!

Only the female parts. Hamlet, of course, was played by a man.

I think I would prefer to see transwomen play trans roles.
Because it wouod show very cleraiybthat actually no they dint pass, do have a different physionomh, despite all the surgery etc...
Rather than us getting used to see transwomen played by women and therefore who look like women. It’s feeding the myth that transwomen can be women iyswim.
If transwomen are played by men actors the fair enough.

Urbanbeetler

Any response to my post?

I guess what I mean is that they have the characteristics they have (which in my case would be being deaf, or being a biological woman, or being the age I am) .

Unless a director very specifically wanted to portray children in the bodies of adults (like’Blue Remembered Hills’) then I would never be cast as a 12 year old. Looking aged 12 is not part of my set of characteristics.

I.e. if an actor has lived through transition, they MAY have physical features which match the part such as one or more of things like hands or throats which resemble those of their birth gender. They may have slightly exaggerated awareness of movement and voice, a greater caution about small movements which could be seen as less feminine or less masculine in the social construct. It could be other things I am not aware of. I don’t know because I’m not trans and I haven’t lived that experience - that is my understanding.

I know actors don’t have to live the experience they are recreating but when it is possible to give a role to someone who has, surely that is more likely to lead to a more authentic performance as well as offering a fairer and equitable casting policy?

If you hear someone speaking in your regional accent who isn’t from your region, can’t you, as an insider, usually tell? Others from outside might not always be able to do so but you, as a speaker of English in that accent can tell. It might not always be possible but to cast a Liverpool character with someone who has an authentic Liverpool accent is always going to be more convincing than a ‘learnt’ one, however good.

I do understand the point about big name actors leading to higher revenues. For production companies, film, tv and stage entertainment is ultimately about making money.

These are just my opinions and I am not in the industry so I accept I may be wrong.