EXHIBIT
|
SCREEN
EDITORS: Mark Allison and Zak Mahinfar
10 OCT 2016
|
27
Is Hollywood transphobic?
Deepa Lalwani makes the case that Hollywood should ditch star power in favour of representation
H
OLLYWOOD has made slow progress when it comes to telling LGBTQ stories. Although transgender characters and narratives are coming to the forefront of cinema, trans actors are not benefitting. In recent years, films such as The Danish Girl (2015) and Dallas Buyers Club (2013) have included trans characters played by cisgender actors whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth: Eddie Redmayne and Jared Leto. While it’s good to see famous names bringing these stories into the mainstream, the casting of cisgender actors in transgender roles is problematic.
tions. To say that a cis actor is better fitted to play a pre-transition character is ridiculous: it implies that pre-transition trans actors don’t exist, which they do, or that trans people are only trans once on hormones; also not true. Money is another issue that is mentioned a lot since cis actors are more well-known and usually have larger fanbases. The problem with saying that trans actors are “too much of a risk” because they won’t bring enough revenue to the film is that this becomes a vicious cycle: if trans actors are never given opportunities, how can
they even begin to experience the same amount of success and fame that their cis counterparts do? In television, trans actors are beginning to be cast more and it’s had an extremely positive impact, especially on Netflix: take Laverne Cox as an example. Her success playing a trans woman in Orange Is the New Black is evident from her Emmy nomination, and in 2014 she became the first openly transgender person to appear on the cover of Time magazine. This isn’t a fluke. Trans people obviously have the ability to be great
CASTING CISGENDER ACTORS IN TRANSGENDER ROLES IS PROBLEMATIC For a start, it lacks creativity. The Danish Girl was a box office hit, but it would have been even better with fresh talent: trans actors exist and should be given a chance to represent themselves. Casting cis actors in these roles ignores a whole community in need of employment who can act and who should represent themselves in mainstream media. The arguments against casting trans actors in trans roles are weak. One of the main ones brought up is “but that character is pre-transition!” which in itself has transphobic connota-
The Circle of Life
actors; if we continue to have trans narratives told by cisgender actors with different haircuts, makeup and clothes, we encourage the harmful and transphobic belief that trans women are just cis men in costume, and vice versa.
IN TELEVISION, TRANS ACTORS ARE BEGINNING TO BE CAST MORE Like everything related to LGBT issues and awareness, this is a learning curve. The criticisms faced by Mark Ruffalo in his casting of Matt Bomer (a gay cisgender actor) as a trans woman in the upcoming film Anything were replied to with acceptance, although no apology, “The movie is already shot [...] We are all learning.” (Ruffalo on Twitter). Still, notions such as these are passive and don’t do a lot to encourage trans actors at all. The film industry needs to start actively looking for and casting trans actors as trans characters; as fans it’s our job to call out directors of films that cast cis actors instead. In particular, cis people need to acknowledge the privilege that they have (myself included as a cis woman writing about trans representation). It may seem revolutionary but it’s really quite simple: in a cis-centric world where trans people are already marginalised and some of the most likely to be unemployed, the film industry needs to start offering up opportunities to trans actors, not giving them to already established cis actors.
George Pope defends Disney’s decision to remake the childhood classic
T
HE announcements of film remakes always have a way of polarising future audiences. While the excitement of revisiting some of our favourite stories can make some fans lose their heads, an often more vocal group tends to share its scepticism and downright dismay at the fact that someone is thinking of unabashedly exhuming the characters that they love. This was certainly the case when the news broke that The Lion King was to follow in the footsteps of Cinderella, The Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast by getting a live action (or in this case CGI) remake.
MANY SEEM TERRIFIED THAT THEIR CHILDHOOD WILL BE RUINED The public reaction has been fairly mixed, yet the main feeling seems to be one of very cautious excitement. There are of course people voicing more extreme opinions, many of whom seem to be terrified that their childhood
will be ruined if the director Jon Favreau messes this up. However, in my opinion the commercial and critical success achieved by The Jungle Book, released earlier this year and also directed by Favreau, seems to point to the upcoming remake following in its successful footsteps. Aside from the issue of the film’s quality, the recent announcement does seem to expose an arguable shortcoming on Disney’s side: does the company too often rely on nostalgia to make money? This is a valid question; in addition the remakes stated above, the Star Wars film series was also rebooted to huge commercial and critical acclaim. Many people are scpetical about the lack of new content being produced by Disney, who have been branded lazy by relying on old stories. I, however, disagree with this reproach. There is a reason that these remakes and reboots tend to do well; the average casual film-
viewer (a category into which I am unashamed to say I fall into) is not always looking for something totally new in what they watch. The familiar is comfortable, and when the yellow writing started scrawling through space at the start of The Force Awakens, I, like Han Solo aboard the Millennium Falcon, felt very much at home. Remakes tap into something in an audience that evokes that sense of wonder felt when first seeing the original films, which I believe makes them worth seeing even if it is just to experience this. As for direct remakes, such as The Jungle Book, they bring back the stories we love, allowing us to revisit them,while also making them accessible to more people. Younger audiences may be reluctant to watch a cartoon that is deemed as ‘old’ (the original Jungle Book was released in 1967), but may well be more receptive to a newer, shinier film. The new productions are made
with care: their purpose is not to ‘mess with’ the originals, but to bring their positive messages to a new audience while simultaneously reviving the joy of past masterpieces in slightly older generations.
NEW PRODUCTIONS ARE MADE WITH CARE The Lion King remains one of the most loved Disney films of all time and, in the steady hands of Jon Favreau, I am sure that a worthy remake can be achieved. The negativity surrounding these new films is similar to that felt by readers of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, released earlier this year. While they may think that the series and some of its characters are ‘ruined’, I and many others, despite not particularly enjoying the most recent release, are perfectly capable of seeing and treating it as a separate entity. The same can be applied to The Lion King. If you don’t like the remake, just watch the original and be thankful that you were lucky enough to have the luxury of choice between old and new.