Avengers Star Scarlett Johanson "I should be allowed to play any person, tree or animal."

[secret_no_03 959]

Scarlett Johanson has come under fire the past year for attempting to take up roles that several deemed insensitive at best and cultural appropriation and being insensitive to the LGBTQ+ movement by trying to take roles away from Trans and other actors. The Avengers Endgame star recently had an interview with As If magazine Scarlett where she opened about about political correctness in Hollywood.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7242081/Scarlett-Johansson-opens-politically-correct-casting-retro-spread-If.html

 

I'm curious to see what everyone thinks, but I mean...she's right. Right? Or is this just a whole lot of nothing? You decide!

[Shmilly 519]

I can understand how representation in the film industry (and many others besides) is a major issue, but on the other hand... surely the whole point of being an actor is that you can assume various roles and perform them convincingly? That's the definition of the job right?

[God 264]

the problem is, these roles typically don’t go to actual queer people, but rather cishet people.  i don’t, however, think the problem is so much in cishet actors playing these parts as much as it is that queer folk aren’t casted as often.  consequently, trans people (in cases where they are openly trans) should get roles as cis people.  so, no.  she’s not wrong.  this is what acting is.  alec baldwin voiced a literal baby.  😂

[nekkichi 6043]

well she probably should stick to playing trees, with her signature wooden acting and botox all over.

[sleepy coffee 1476]

[libertine 125]

.

Edited December 12, 2019 by libertine

[secret_no_03 959]

2 hours ago, libertine said:

She should put her money where her mouth is and play a gay tree.

So...Groots love interest, got it. 

 

[Gesu 1537]

9 minutes ago, secret_no_03 said:

So...Groots love interest, got it. 

 

All he says is "I love Groot" 🌲

[secret_no_03 959]

How fast can a person back pedal? Pretty fast.

https://ew.com/movies/2019/07/14/scarlett-johansson-trans-rub-and-tug-statement/

[Zeus 7997]

On one hand, acting is acting. I like to turn my brain off and enjoy the movie, TV show, or story. If the actor or actress is convincing enough, the accuracy of their portrayal of the character doesn't bother me much. So yes, she's right, she should be allowed to play a wide range of characters.
 

12 hours ago, secret_no_03 said:

https://ew.com/movies/2019/07/14/scarlett-johansson-trans-rub-and-tug-statement/

...but not every single character ever. This is the problem I have with her. Plenty of roles are available to her and she's cherry picking the roles least suitable for her, and the roles I'm least likely to suspend my belief over. She's not the only actress in the world. I understand why the trans community was up in arms about the casting decisions made for that movie, and I'm glad she bowed out. I don't have any recs on who would replace her, but that just means it's an opportunity for a new actor or actress to hit the stage.

[nekkichi 6043]

I really hate that media's over-saturation with this thing made me miss Megan Fox at her prime tbh

[YuyoDrift 1540]

Convincing arguments.

 

I always question whether using actors that appropriately fit the roles would be a better solution. I understand the history of Hollywood, and how people of color who could perform roles that would be just as good as their white counterparts, are never even considered. I want to believe that the actors that existed during the 90's (mostly Caucasian) simply had better connections in the industry, for roles that anyone could play, and for the most part they did. Feel free to educated me about the dark side of the industry, I'm all ears because we're hearing about stories of unfair treatment all the time.

 

I suppose with the rise of new studios, producers, and directors that  cast roles for characters they've conjured up have now become more cut and dry, making it known that they need this type of actor and this type of background for their movie. I think another problem stems from films that are adaptations of books, comics/manga, anime, etc., that clearly identify everything about the character for us to become familiar with. If we knew none of that, then there wouldn't be a problem, as we have no attachment to it (sentimental or another form of personal identification).

 

I always look at it from the perspective of an actor trying to make it in Hollywood, and would use this as my defense for them (the irony).

 

Say for instance (I really feel bad for using my boi) Leonardo Dicaprio's role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Are we gonna really say that it would have been better if someone who was actually mentally handicapped would have been a better fit for the role? My take is no, and the reason being is that playing the role of playing someone like that is the challenge for an actor. To be able to place yourself in that mindset, and some actors go out of their way to study the workings of someone/something, in order to properly portray them in film. To be able to do that, allows them to better understand that type of person/ideal/lifestyle on a level that only someone in acting can use to grow. So playing a gay or trans (sorry I don't know the terminology well) person should be no different because the process should be the same, and no interference from the fanbase or whatever should be had. This is why we have critics that do their thing after the film is released.

 

I wanna mention this because I wonder if anyone feels the same way as I do, but a film about a certain type of subject/theme, only played by a cast that are applicable to that subject/theme, always feels like it was only intended for an audience that can apply to it.

 

So in a way I completely understand what SJ is trying to say, but I wonder if they even needed to say it. Sometimes I feel actors forget that they can show them they are up to par by walking the walk, and talking the talk. Making an effort to show fans their processes as an actor/actress playing new roles, and how they get a better understanding of these characters says a lot more than a statement from the heat of the moment that can be cut up and misinterpreted.

 

* I am going to mention now that voice acting for an animated film/show is on a whole different spectrum, as most of the time the audience would not even know who the voice behind the character is, let alone their ethnicity/race of color, since voice pitch and mannerisms are taken into account (i.e Seth Mcfarland, Phil Lamarr, etc.).

[nekkichi 6043]

8 hours ago, YuyoDrift said:

So playing a gay or trans (sorry I don't know the terminology well) person should be no different because the process should be the same, and no interference from the fanbase or whatever should be had.

care to provide a comment on where all the gay kids from college theater groups vanish while beige-ass ScarJo and her likes get the gigs;

 

in case with SJ, the most recent argument was that her ~EsTabLisHeD BranD~ will attract people to watch the shit GITS remake, while in reality it couldn't compete with boss babby box office-wise, so even the "just business m8" excuse doesn't even realistically apply to the heffa;

 

it's literally pure cishet white privilege which she is proud to represent.

Edited July 16, 2019 by nekkichi

[platy 3018]

@YuyoDrift I see your point. Plus, putting an unknown lgbt actor in a movie about lgbt subjects might scare the mainstream away, so placing someone like Scarlet as the star at least makes it more digestible to people who wouldn't even consider a bowl of rainbow flakes for breakfast. In a way, it could be beneficial in the long run. 

 

The thing is, sure the challenge of playing a character that is completely different to your being could be a great experience for the actor.  But there are people who have lived these struggles. They are out there and ready to show others their story, or the story of their queer idols, if only they had the chance. Even if a more unknown lgbt actor applied for these roles and did a fucking great performance, Scarjo is available and she brings in the money with her pretty, harmless straightness regardless of her performance. You could almost say no one else stands a chance and I'd argue that this type of "ally" does more harm than good. It's all well and good to have a sexy cis actress play a trans man, we can all pretend we're okay with "them" as long as they're appealing to our eyes and just pretend. Try placing an actual trans person who might not be as well manicured and Hollywood-fied in front of the same audience and see them grab their pitchforks and recoil in disgust. 

[secret_no_03 959]

6 hours ago, platy said:

@YuyoDrift I see your point. Plus, putting an unknown lgbt actor in a movie about lgbt subjects might scare the mainstream away, so placing someone like Scarlet as the star at least makes it more digestible to people who wouldn't even consider a bowl of rainbow flakes for breakfast. In a way, it could be beneficial in the long run. 

 

The thing is, sure the challenge of playing a character that is completely different to your being could be a great experience for the actor.  But there are people who have lived these struggles. They are out there and ready to show others their story, or the story of their queer idols, if only they had the chance. Even if a more unknown lgbt actor applied for these roles and did a fucking great performance, Scarjo is available and she brings in the money with her pretty, harmless straightness regardless of her performance. You could almost say no one else stands a chance and I'd argue that this type of "ally" does more harm than good. It's all well and good to have a sexy cis actress play a trans man, we can all pretend we're okay with "them" as long as they're appealing to our eyes and just pretend. Try placing an actual trans person who might not be as well manicured and Hollywood-fied in front of the same audience and see them grab their pitchforks and recoil in disgust. 

I think it's safe to say for the foreseeable future the best hopes Trans actors have of breaking out is indie films that win praise as film festivals because Middle America or the Bible belt aren't going to show a movie that will have every church group in a fifty mile radius foaming at the mouth.

[YuyoDrift 1540]

12 hours ago, nekkichi said:

care to provide a comment on where all the gay kids from college theater groups vanish while beige-ass ScarJo and her likes get the gigs;

 

in case with SJ, the most recent argument was that her ~EsTabLisHeD BranD~ will attract people to watch the shit GITS remake, while in reality it couldn't compete with boss babby box office-wise, so even the "just business m8" excuse doesn't even realistically apply to the heffa;

 

it's literally pure cishet white privilege which she is proud to represent. 

Hmm, you seem more invested in this than I am, which is very little.

My defense for the actors/actresses was to go beyond SJ and simply see their "just business" take, as you said. Considering that there are still many actors that have yet to "come out of the closet" after a successful life in hiding their true identity, you may be hard pressed to believe those college kids in drama or acting 101 never disappeared. We're only what, maybe entering the second decade of openly gay actors in hollywood? I'd give it more time.

 

You could be right that she's overflowing with confidence/cockiness in an industry that calls for it in order to "make it", but as I've mentioned in another thread, part of the balance is being proud of what/who you are no matter what. If she is taking advantage of a system that's been catered to "her types of people", and well enough to piss someone like yourself off, aren't you glad she's the wrong person to make statements like these to make your argument hold more weight?

 

9 hours ago, platy said:

It's all well and good to have a sexy cis actress play a trans man, we can all pretend we're okay with "them" as long as they're appealing to our eyes and just pretend. Try placing an actual trans person who might not be as well manicured and Hollywood-fied in front of the same audience and see them grab their pitchforks and recoil in disgust.

It's really hard to provide an answer to this because we both understand that the mainstream audience cannot handle a level of exposure like say, a film about the struggles/lifestyle of a protagonist who is gay, played by an actor/actress who has openly admitted that they are gay, what with everything that has been surfacing online regarding LGBT and the associated controversies with it. Even Hollywood, that have been black-facing/eye slanting/etc actors since forever because they feel that (It's a stupid way of looking at it today, I am aware) their revenue gained at the box office would come in more steadily this way, aren't ready/accepting for it. I even question if the current actors are willing to look the other way for success/land these cut/dry roles they know their counterpart could more accurately play. Aaaaaaaand then you have people like SJ saying "what's your problem guys? this is Hollywood and I (we) can do whatever the fuck I (we) want in our films."

 

That said, an indie film will always be the best method to do all of this, what with people being more open to smaller budgeted studios these days. Combined with the internet at their disposal to promote/bring awareness to the intent of the film, I'd say this would be a better route to go in order to break that mold. Leave the fuckers in Hollywood in their palace and create your own, ya know? Getting past the conglomerate that is the movie industry that controls possibly every movie theater out there with their own films could be tough, but after seeing films (that you wouldn't think would do well) that bring a satirical/compassionate form of awareness on issues here in the USA by newer directors like Jordan Peele and Ryan Coogler, I'd say it's possible to give Hollywood a run for their money.

 

I love it.

 

Edit: I just read @secret_no_03 post and I agree haha.

 

[secret_no_03 959]

1 hour ago, YuyoDrift said:

Hmm, you seem more invested in this than I am, which is very little.

My defense for the actors/actresses was to go beyond SJ and simply see their "just business" take, as you said. Considering that there are still many actors that have yet to "come out of the closet" after a successful life in hiding their true identity, you may be hard pressed to believe those college kids in drama or acting 101 never disappeared. We're only what, maybe entering the second decade of openly gay actors in hollywood? I'd give it more time.

 

You could be right that she's overflowing with confidence/cockiness in an industry that calls for it in order to "make it", but as I've mentioned in another thread, part of the balance is being proud of what/who you are no matter what. If she is taking advantage of a system that's been catered to "her types of people", and well enough to piss someone like yourself off, aren't you glad she's the wrong person to make statements like these to make your argument hold more weight?

 

It's really hard to provide an answer to this because we both understand that the mainstream audience cannot handle a level of exposure like say, a film about the struggles/lifestyle of a protagonist who is gay, played by an actor/actress who has openly admitted that they are gay, what with everything that has been surfacing online regarding LGBT and the associated controversies with it. Even Hollywood, that have been black-facing/eye slanting/etc actors since forever because they feel that (It's a stupid way of looking at it today, I am aware) their revenue gained at the box office would come in more steadily this way, aren't ready/accepting for it. I even question if the current actors are willing to look the other way for success/land these cut/dry roles they know their counterpart could more accurately play. Aaaaaaaand then you have people like SJ saying "what's your problem guys? this is Hollywood and I (we) can do whatever the fuck I (we) want in our films."

 

That said, an indie film will always be the best method to do all of this, what with people being more open to smaller budgeted studios these days. Combined with the internet at their disposal to promote/bring awareness to the intent of the film, I'd say this would be a better route to go in order to break that mold. Leave the fuckers in Hollywood in their palace and create your own, ya know? Getting past the conglomerate that is the movie industry that controls possibly every movie theater out there with their own films could be tough, but after seeing films (that you wouldn't think would do well) that bring a satirical/compassionate form of awareness on issues here in the USA by newer directors like Jordan Peele and Ryan Coogler, I'd say it's possible to give Hollywood a run for their money.

 

I love it.

 

Edit: I just read @secret_no_03 post and I agree haha.

 

Some of the best cinema comes from indies, Joe Penna's Arctic starring Mads Mikkelsen is an amazing movie that first got recognition at I think it was the Cannes Film Festival and it's one of the best movies this year. A film like this wouldn't work in Hollywood.

Edited July 16, 2019 by secret_no_03

[platy 3018]

@YuyoDrift I'm not invested or pissed off at the topic of discussion, I was simply presenting a different perspective as to why other people might be. At the end of the day Hollywood will be Hollywood and it's not the only source of movie making, although it does have a bigger social power than we imagine 🤷🏻‍♀️

 

[nekkichi 6043]

1 hour ago, YuyoDrift said:

We're only what, maybe entering the second decade of openly gay actors in hollywood? I'd give it more time.

we had glee debuting ten years ago, and we have literally no new major queer actors emerging recently, meaning that besides niche roles, low-paid TV gigs and local theatre, entertainment has nothing to offer to them.

 

nvm the general rise of social conformism and homophobia is also real, it's tangible and measurable, and this heffer with her transpropriation is just another symptom of a bigger process which, I suspect, is entirely ignored by the heterosexuals and the adjacent closeted crowd because it doesn't affect them/their job prospects.

 

1 hour ago, YuyoDrift said:

If she is taking advantage of a system that's been catered to "her types of people", and well enough to piss someone like yourself off, aren't you glad she's the wrong person to make statements like these to make your argument hold more weight?

ScarJo is a known imbecile, her google quotes page has been making rounds on twitter like literally yesterday again;

 

I don't see any reason to be happy about anything related to this person.