Representation in Art/Entertainment/Media • Page 16

How many trans gender actors are out there who are of the caliber to be in a major motion picture? That should be the real argument.

 

There are plenty of trans* actors talented enough to carry films and TV shows. Tangerine was one of the best films of last year, and it featured two trans* actresses in the leads. Unfortunately, there are very few studios who would greenlight a film with a trans* performer in the lead over a cis-gender performer with a bigger name, which is primarily why Bomer was cast. That and the thought just literally wouldn't even occur to most studios/producers to cast an actual trans* person in a trans* role.

 

you should read this thread

 

No, that isn't the real argument. It's incredibly insulting that you're even trying to claim that it is.

You're implying that any cis man is of the caliber to play a trans woman adequately. They aren't. I've seen many of their attempts to do so and every time I am blown away by just how wrong they get it.

I don't care about major motion picture success when real life trans women are dying because of the stereotypes and myths that Hollywood has had possibly the biggest hand in perpetuating. The fact is this has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable harm to the trans community.

Also, there are plenty of trans actors. As detailed in that video I posted earlier (and the Twitter thread @iCarly Rae Jepsen linked to), the reasons trans people don't get roles have little, if anything, to do with talent.

 

I'm really excited to see this, especially in the wake of comments made by Nate Parker.

 

Ryan Coogler says “no thanks” to joining the Academy

Really disappointed. I get what his motives likely are, I was just hoping someone as talented and vital to the film industry as Coogler would have accepted so as to affect change from the inside. His is certainly a voice the Academy could really use right about now.

 

He might just not want to be in the Academy. Woody Allen isn't either, some directors just aren't interested in the responsibility and without a statement I'd read it more along those lines than a protest.

 

I don't know what his motives are for sure, I just wish (as someone who follows the Oscars every year and just generally loves film) he had joined. Like I said, he's one of the most promising young filmmakers out there right now and his perspective is sorely needed inside the Academy.

 

Jill Soloway on ‘Transparent’ Season 3 & Casting a Cis Man in a Trans Role

 

I think actually getting a trans person should override making the decision based on a person's looks or even ability. Sense8 did it. Orange is the New Black did it.

Like, I don't care if there are no more big Asian stars that get movies made, quit whitewashing.

 

Hollywood Slammed as ‘Epicenter’ of ‘Inequality’ in USC Diversity Report

 

Nothing hurts films more than the Oscars and the cancerous reach that they have. Good for him.

 

Whether you personally like it or not, it's a thing that many people tune in and watch every year. Other than providing the industry a night to self-indulgently pat itself on the back, the Oscars create a platform for films to get notoriety that maybe didn't get it when they initially screened in theaters, because many people try to see as many of the nominated films as possible. As such, why would anyone who cares about film not want the institution to change for the better? Be more representative of the actual population of the U.S. (and the world, really)? So that instead of "hurting films," as you put it, the Oscars actually help films.

That "cancerous reach" is something that can change. But not without the right people pushing for it from within. And again, we don't know what his reasons are for not joining, it's just disappointing that someone who will be a prominent voice in filmmaking for the foreseeable future isn't getting involved.

 

Not really. The films that are nominated and win are almost always made for the exact purpose of winning those awards. They should be avoided so the entire thing can hopefully die out and disappear. You can't change something from the inside when it is by design a bad thing.

 

Yes, really. You absolutely can change those things from the inside, by having people recognize the Oscar bait-y films and not vote for them. The Academy votes on these movies, so if the make-up of the Academy is fundamentally changed, the types of films that get nominated will also change. It's literally the entire point of the #OscarsSoWhite movement.

The Oscars are absolutely not "by design a bad thing." There's nothing inherently wrong with members of the film industry awarding the successes of their peers. You just assume it is a bad thing because the current form it takes leaves a great deal to be desired. The medium of film needs something like the Oscars to the raise the profile of deserving films and get people to actually watch good movies more often. But, again, that only happens if people like Coogler, who are young, talented, and have a distinct voice/perspective turn activism into action by joining the Academy.

 

You may be right about the Oscars being cancerous or whatever, but it doesn't seem like you're coming to this conclusion from a place of concern for representation.

 

If by "current form", you mean its entire 90-year history, then I guess so. It is not about awarding the success of peers because the films that win never meet those sorts of criteria. The films that win are almost never the most financially successful films of the year or the most critically praised films of the year, the two criteria that you could judge "success" in art in.

Ryan Coogler made a bad movie, a good movie, and then cashed in to make a superhero movie like so many other directors have done recently. The idea of him somehow making the Academy better is pretty ludicrous. He would probably let his maid or nephew fill out the ballot the same way so many other Academy voters have done.

 

It is sort of like believing that electing a woman President is in itself a sign of positive change. Putting non-white men in corrupt and morally bankrupt institutions is only the answer for white Democrats who want to feel better about themselves.

 

Hilary may be untrustworthy and both parties may be corrupt, but having a female President gives little girls someone to look up to and say "that could be me one day" the same way Supergirl on TV gives them a role model, "even girls can become heroes." Supergirl might not be the best show, Hilary might not be the best candidate, and neither will make substantial change alone overnight, but there is a sign of some form of positive change there. I honestly don't know about this Oscar politics, whether or not Coogler joining would be a good thing, but look, I'm Asian and I can't remember the last time an Asian was nominated for an acting role. Yes, the Academy might always nominate people and movies that may be undeserving, but that's not the only thing wrong with it, and I'm just saying that while there is some validity to your statements, I think you're ignoring the representation side of things ...in the thread about Representation.

 

So girls seeing someone of their own gender bombing Middle Eastern countries, redistributing money to the wealthy, ignoring environmental degradation, and expanding the surveillance state is good because they might say "I could do that one day!"? That is bigotry of low expectations.

Every year there are incredible films with black, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, and whatever other group you want to talk about, but no one goes to see them because they are not full of superheroes. Hoping that a 90 year old institution that is almost always wrong is going to help is a tremendous waste of time.

 

My intention was never to argue, so I'll just say that this was a much more helpful response than

 

You're being way over dramatic about the harmful nature of an awards show.

 

Not really. If anything it is given too much leeway for what it does to the industry.

 

what does it do to the industry?

 

Again, the entire premise of your argument regarding this issue is flat-out wrong. It is about rewarding their peers, but it's voted on by people. And last time I checked not every person has the same tastes as every other person. Commercial success is meaningless, and critical success is subjective. The Academy votes on what the members want to vote for. The only way for the Academy to stop voting for the films it currently votes for is to change the demographics of it. I don't see what's so hard about that to get. You have still failed to raise a single issue with the Academy that can't be fixed by changing who is in the Academy.

Putting aside the condescending disregard of superhero films, some of which have been excellent films in their own right, again, this is the perfect example of a problem with the Academy that can be solved by greater representation within the Academy. Which, if you'll recall, is the entire point of this thread. And my original post about Coogler not joining. Imagine if one of Asghar Farhadi's films won Best Picture, how many more people would actually go to see it? Or how many will go to see Alfonso Cuaron's newly-announced, Mexico-set film because he is an Academy Award-winning director? This is what the Academy Awards can do for representation in the film industry. But that doesn't happen if the same old, white people are the only ones voting.