Jared Leto's Oscar Criticized By Transgender Community
|
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Jared Leto's Oscar Criticized By Transgender Community
Jared Leto's Oscar Criticized By Transgender Community
You can't condemn a director for wanting an actor with experience to star in his movie.
[+]
Hollywood has a pretty good track record of claiming things are for the art when they really mean it's for the money, so you'll understand why I roll my eyes every time I hear a director claim that.
Its called ACTING. Its kinda their job... If every world war II movie only starred world war II vets those movies would look more like plays done in nursing homes. Its their job to play something and be someone whom they are not in real life.... I always hate it when this argument starts for any reason. Johnny Depp got the same harassment with his last movie because he's not a native american...
[+]
Acting is the only job I know of where everything you do is a lie. Unless you are Adam Sandler playing Adam sandler in Adam Sandler. Rated PG 13
[+]
What bothers me is the complete overlooking of the fact Jared Leto met with MANY different trans people while on tour with 30 Seconds to Mars to better himself for the role. We're talking months of meeting with people and learning their struggles.. that to me speaks very loudly.
And the fact he was in character the -whole- time while filming was going on. Matthew Mchonohay(sp) said he didn't meet Jared until after filming was finished, and he acted as if he was trans through the duration.
[+]
Cerberus.Leiberfond said: » Its called ACTING. Its kinda their job... If every world war II movie only starred world war II vets those movies would look more like plays done in nursing homes. Its their job to play something and be someone whom they are not in real life.... I always hate it when this argument starts for any reason. Johnny Depp got the same harassment with his last movie because he's not a native american... At some point you can make the argument that it's nearly impossible to find an actual actor that had experienced x event, but at the same time, saying you can't find an actor that experienced something as broad as race? Come on. You'll never see a Native American playing James Bond because he was "so good at the role". You'll never see a Black man putting on white makeup and playing Abraham Lincoln because he was "so good at the role". (And frankly I wouldn't want to myself, because those two have always been white people/characters) I mean, with LGBT people I suppose you can argue that people of all shapes and sizes fit in as far as physical appearance goes so maybe it's easier to accept there (although like someone mentioned, finding a gay person in Hollywood isn't exactly a difficult task), but if you tell me Johnny Depp playing a Native American character isn't something that'd irritate you it's likely because you are white and arn't willing to understand the frustration looking from the other side of the glass. I'm sure the guy did a fine job of acting but that's not really relevant to what casting directors or producers do. Sylph.Saviour said: » And the fact he was in character the -whole- time while filming was going on. Matthew Mchonohay(sp) said he didn't meet Jared until after filming was finished, and he acted as if he was trans through the duration.  He played a gay drag queen not a trans. Part of this mess is that mainstream media is unable to differentiate the two, so they use the words interchangeably. But yeah I agree him meeting with transgenders prior says quite a bit. The transgender community is just upset they didn't get a specific thank you to them in his speech and that they feel he misrepresentated a fictional drag-queen character. He dedicated his speech to those who've lost the battle to AIDS. That should be more enough, since that's what the film is about, not transexualism or sexuality. It seems to me that the transgender community has forgotten 1) who got the most slack during the 80s HIV/AIDS frenzy and 2) that they themselves have fallen victim to AIDS. So you're willing to make the distinction between a gay man in drag and trans, but not when it comes to who he consults for his method acting? The director and the actor didn't really respond to that question in that manner so it means either they don't see it that way, or they can't tell the difference themselves.
FTR I agree with the general sentiment that the major idea of the film is AIDS and things relating to it, but aside from movies being able to have multiple layers, the character himself is a completely fictional creation, so I would like to think this character served some kind of purpose. Every time I see this brought up though, it's deemed either irrelevant or unimportant (kind of a silly point when you consider it's not like the film makers are going to donate a penny of the proceedings to their local AIDS research center), and it ends up just being ignored entirely. If it's not supposed to be brought up in cases like this, I have no idea when it is. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it nor am I going to swear off buying any products, but dismissing it entirely makes no sense to me. Of course, if a trans person is succeeding, you can't name them for being trans. Their goal is to blend in to the community and just be.
Of course, that's not always true. Gay people come out. Post-lifestyle-change transpeople don't want to come out as once x or y. They.already came out to get where they are. One of the early bond women was transsexual, which only surfaced after tje film
[+]
Leviathan.Kincard said: » So you're willing to make the distinction between a gay man in drag and trans, but not when it comes to who he consults for his method acting? Leviathan.Kincard said: » FTR I agree with the general sentiment that the major idea of the film is AIDS and things relating to it, but aside from movies being able to have multiple layers, the character himself is a completely fictional creation, so I would like to think this character served some kind of purpose. HIV/AIDS since the 80s has had a gay male mascot. So desexualizing HIV, as this film does is a marvelous thing.
[+]
Valefor.Omnys said: » Of course, if a trans person is succeeding, you can't name them for being trans. Their goal is to blend in to the community and just be. Of course, that's not always true. Gay people come out. Post-lifestyle-change transpeople don't want to come out as once x or y. They.already came out to get where they are. One of the early bond women was transsexual, which only surfaced after tje film Some men might feel disgusted that they fapped over a trans, that's about it, nothing really interesting at the end of the day. I seriously don't get why people can find this information useful/interesting. As for the main topic, it's just pathetic. "You forgot to thank us for existing, now we angry!". I can understand the minority pride but that's plain HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Well I mean you just need to watch a season of RuPaul's Drag Race and you've got down Drag 101. Transsexualism/transgenders is completely different, there's a psychological component. Yes, so why is it that this distinction is significant when judging the film and not so when the actor states who he consulted for his method acting? It's either significant or it isn't, so which is it? Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » The reason the sex or sexuality of Rayon is being deemed irrelevant, I think, is because this film did something Philadelphia and And the Band Played On did/could not- it desexualizes HIV/AIDS. You have gay people, straight people, bisexual people and... Rayon(gay-drag/trans?) all infected with HIV in Dallas Buyer's Club. HIV/AIDS since the 80s has had a gay male mascot. So desexualizing HIV, as this film does is a marvelous thing. This is a separate discussion altogether IMO, but HIV continues to be a larger problem amongst gay men, statistics-wise. I don't really think there's a lot of people out there who still think being straight makes you immune to HIV aynmore, so I'm not entirely sure what good it is to make sure everyone already knows something. Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: » As for the main topic, it's just pathetic. "You forgot to thank us for existing, now we angry!". I can understand the minority pride but that's plain HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Did any of you actually read some of the comments that the site posted? The quotes in the article range from just people venting to well-reasoned statements, which are subsequently ignored (and people wonder why some of the Trans community can be crotchety when nobody ever takes them seriously) by sweeping statements like "but they're ACTING" like you don't have exceptions to that rule yourself. I again pose the question, would you you feel something is "off" if a non-white man played James Bond? Or to be fair in framing this, would a non-black man playing Martin Luther King? A non-(at least)Asian man playing Mao Zedong? And- this was mentioned earlier- a non-Native American playing Tonto? That comparison with WW2 vets only playing WW2 vets is absurd because there's probably close to 0 WW2 vets acting whereas there's likely plenty of LGBT people to play a given role. This isn't rhetorical BTW, I am actually curious where people draw this arbitrary line. Martin Luther King was a human that existed and was black. If a white man played him, it wouldn't feel like a proper historical reconstitution. However, James Bond, I don't care, it's a fictional guy so I don't care personally. I mean, realistically speaking, we've had James Bonds with different hair color and skin tone, which annoyed people, but in the end James Bond is just a name, not an appearance. Mao Zedong isn't just a name, he's a single human being so if you want to play his role, you have to be the closest possible or you aren't playing him, you're playing someone else.
Regarding the situation at hand, this is a fictional character. Said fictional character is supposed to be a trans or a drag, whichever, therefore, as long as the actor/actress is playing a drag/trans, the role is complete and is acted properly. Whether the actor/actress is actually a drag or a trans is irrelevant as the character is fictional, the actor will give us the same vibe in the end (assuming the person has worked on his/her role, obviously). I mean, are any of the James Bonds actual spies for Great Britain? As simple as that. People fail to make a difference between reality and fiction in this situation. Now, what I can understand is if this said actor played his role in a bad way, that didn't give them the vibe of the character he was playing, or if he did a few things that are seen as offensive. Then yes, they have a logical reason to be upset, but this has nothing to do with if the actor is an actual trans/drag, the actor is simply ***.
[+]
Leviathan.Kincard said: » This is a separate discussion altogether IMO, but HIV continues to be a larger problem amongst gay men, statistics-wise. I don't really think there's a lot of people out there who still think being straight makes you immune to HIV aynmore, so I'm not entirely sure what good it is to make sure everyone already knows something. I agree I don't think any heterosexual thinks that hetersexuality provides some immunity. That doesn't change the stigma that was fortified by such films as Philadelphia and And the Band Plays On. Also HIV statisically is a bigger problem amongst gay men because edit: in the past they tested more frequently that has changed somewhat.
[+]
Saw this movie a couple days ago. It was OK, I guess. Felt too much like an educational PSA at times but the acting was pretty great, although I guess that's a given at this point. Rayon was a trans woman and wasn't a drag queen. Drag queens are performers. They don't go to work or the grocery store in their full getup. I think her garish style could make it a little ambiguous, but I just saw that as part of her personality. Overall though, a very interesting and tragic character.
Anyway, the animosity towards Leto seems a bit misplaced. Based on the quote that got linked earlier, the cavalier attitude of the director was bound to piss people off. I don't think trans actors should be automatically enlisted for trans roles since that would lead to typecasting problems, but they should at least get the opportunity. The fact that they weren't even considered is pretty gross, and the director would be getting endless ***if he had said the same thing about any other minority group.
[+]
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: » Martin Luther King was a human that existed and was black. If a white man played him, it wouldn't feel like a proper historical reconstitution. However, James Bond, I don't care, it's a fictional guy so I don't care personally. I mean, realistically speaking, we've had James Bonds with different hair color and skin tone, which annoyed people, but in the end James Bond is just a name, not an appearance. Mao Zedong isn't just a name, he's a single human being so if you want to play his role, you have to be the closest possible or you aren't playing him, you're playing someone else. That's sort of the whole problem, isn't it? We like to say "Everyone should succeed based on their ability and not by who they are", which appeals to our common sense until you realize a lot of times that's not what actually happens in practice (or rather, it feels like it only happens one direction, and people nod their heads and move on without scrutinizing it because it's just a movie). You consistently see white men and women playing minority roles and I agree it will forever be something some people just won't be satisfied with (unless there's something more objective like statistics to quote, but even then lol), but at the same time I don't think it's something that should be casually dismissed. I'm not really singling out any particular person here, and I personally am not really outraged about anything (I think the people actively harassing Leto specifically should shove it, personally). Isn't that why things like affirmative action are so controversial, that we're concerned what things would be like without it? I dunno, I just think lot of people are taking this attitude of "they're actors, that's what they do" when I think what's being brought up is a bit more complicated than that. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » How is it a separate discussion? I meant it more as that it's a separate discussion from this whole claptrap about casting and just a discussion about the movie's themes itself. Quoting isn't working for me atm...
My point in bringing up the trans-actress was to illustrate the point that she wasn't out and was trying to pursue an acting career. She might have succeeded had she not been forced out. Some people like being centerstage for a cause like arquette and chaz bono but others just want to live their life. Being famous for a girl-who-was-once-a-boy isn't their goal. They want to be famous for their acting or singing. There are a lot of rumors Gaga was born male. Since she already has so much LGBT support, she would only damage her career if she admitted.it. Men would largely ignore her, vs say being lesbian because attracts a lot of guys lolol. Did Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, and Terence Stamp get this kind of backlash for "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" in 94'?
Did Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo get this kind of backlash for "To Wong Foo:..." back in 95'?
[+]
Valefor.Omnys said: » Men would largely ignore her I thought we were already!
[+]
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Did Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, and Terence Stamp get this kind of backlash for "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" in 94'? Did Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo get this kind of backlash for "To Wong Foo:..." back in 95'? Also, Pleebo, some drag queens do spend much of their day in costume. It's not especially common, but it isn't unknown. #2: That was the mid '90s when you could still reasonably expect to be beaten to death for being openly ***. Things have changed quite a lot in 20 years and one of them is that openly gay actors are common as muck compared to back then. Give it another decade or two and hopefully we'll have some trans actors lighting up the screen, but it does bear remembering that transgender people are an even smaller minority. And #3: actually, yes, the gay community did have its advocates crying foul at all these heterosexual men playing *** roles.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Did Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, and Terence Stamp get this kind of backlash for "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" in 94'? Did Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo get this kind of backlash for "To Wong Foo:..." back in 95'? Edit: Too slow! Anyway, they're not mutually exclusive terms but there is a distinction.
[+]
It's been almost a decade since I last saw those movies: who wasn't a drag queen? I assume you don't mean Leguizamo because he was a "boy in a dress"?
I think a lot people mistake transvestite for transgender, though men who drag for entertainment purposes aren't necessarily transvestites either. You'd have to throw Dennis Hoffman and Robin Williams into the transvestite field at some point, too.
Odin.Jassik said: » You'd have to throw Dennis Hoffman and Robin Williams into the transvestite field at some point, too. ***, by that rationale, so am I! I could not care less who plays who. I should prolly get out of the thread. Terrence Stamp's character was a trans woman who did drag.
[+]
Transvestism is generally seen as a fetish. It refers to people who get sexually aroused by wearing the clothes of the opposite gender. I have no idea if that applies to Dennis Hoffman or Robin Williams.
Cross-dressing is possibly the word you're looking for. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Transvestism is generally seen as a fetish. It refers to people who get sexually aroused by wearing the clothes of the opposite gender. I have no idea if that applies to Dennis Hoffman or Robin Williams. Cross-dressing is possibly the word you're looking for. I think he was referring to mrs. doubtfire, and ahaaahhhhhhhhh I forget the movie dustin Hoffman was cross-dressing in. Shiva.Onorgul said: » Transvestism is generally seen as a fetish. It refers to people who get sexually aroused by wearing the clothes of the opposite gender. I have no idea if that applies to Dennis Hoffman or Robin Williams. Cross-dressing is possibly the word you're looking for. I know the difference, probably just poorly worded it as I was trying to point out that most people don't seem to understand that someone born as a man dressing as a woman can be many very different things. Cross-dressing for entertainment purposes, both of those men played men who dressed as women in movies. Shiva.Onorgul said: » #3: actually, yes, the gay community did have its advocates crying foul at all these heterosexual men playing *** roles. Who?! The film has always been a gay cult classic to my memory, RuPaul was in it. But then again the gay community was far more uptight in the 90s. The hypersensitive nature of these transgender activists today is reminiscent of the time when gays took offense to the term "gay" and if you weren't gay you had to say "homosexual." LGBT need to pull the stick out of their *** sometimes I feel. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.