Laverne Cox On Why Non-Trans Actors Get Trans Roles

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.bustle.com/articles/25344-laverne-cox-on-the-casting-of-cisgender-actors-in-transgender-roles-why-it-probably-wont-change

I agree with Cox on this issue.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest KimberlyF]

Well, times are changing, so the Imperialist White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy seem to be greenlighting some of her projects.

The backlash against people staring in these roles that should go to actresses like Laverne Cox is slightly ironic since she was in a film about wheelchair dancing that left many in the disabled community wondering why parts didn't go to disabled actors.

[Guest JennyChloe]

Am I the only one who thinks the "trans roles should go to trans actors" idea is ridiculous? I can see it heading in one way only: trans actors would ONLY get trans roles, and they are not commonplace. throughout history, men have played female roles, and women have played male roles (though the latter less frequently outside the world of pantomime) many countries have in the past had laws prohibiting women from being "displayed" on a stage. Thankfully times have moved on. One thing which hasn't however, is casting. The roles are generally cast to suit the director / producers idea of how they see the production being played. Whether that's based on acting ability, the range of expressions, their delivery of molologue, their interaction with other cast members, or whether their face simply fits, and is likely to pull in an audience. It is a very rare occurence that the previous life experience of any actors has anything to do with the roles they were selected for.

I for one have never seen any fim depicting monarchy being played by a former monarch, or even someone of close royal descent. I'm pretty sure that Ian McKellan never had a history of wizardry (yet played one well in Lord of the Rings), and I'm even more certain that he's never had a magnetic control over metal (as in the X men series). As pointed out by Kimberly, Laverne herself does not have a history of disability, but also any trans woman playing a cis-woman has never had a history as a cis-woman, so if the argument were to be followed, ... well, you get the picture.

Trans actors do need more exposure. I do not deny this, but... many cis actors would have similar complaints that they are also unable to get the exposure they would like, as roles are given again and again to the actors that are more likely to bring in the big paychecks.

I think the problem is not with who gets what roles, but how the roles are percieved.A film is a film. It may be factual, it may be fiction, it may be a combination of the two, but it remains a film, and even if factual, will always have some errors or ommisions. It is what it's designed to be - entertainment, and who gets what roles here is only likely to remain - whoever gets the most exposure for the film and can bring in the money.

Now documentaries... that's a different question. A documentary should always try to remain as close to the facts as possible, and be as close to true as possible. If its about a certain person's story (whether trans, cis non-binary or whatever else) then it makes sense to cast the most appropriate person. Also any production designed with the sole intention of highlighting trans issues should use trans people, but I really cannot see the point in film and only see it being to the detriment of trans actors who in the long run may be dismissed from roles of cis people simply for the fact that they are trans. That said, if i were asked to star in a documentary about myself over the course of my transition, I can guarantee I would NOT want to have to play "him" - 34 years was more than enough!!

Here in the UK, there was a program a few years ago following a group of trans people who had been brought together for the documentary, going about their lives, experiencing their triumphs and struggles, and I personally found it far more enjoyable, and informative than any trans theme in any film I have seen. The program cast us all in a good light, and some of the stars have now gone on to make some more programs, which are likely to be aired in the near future. Personally, I feel this is a much better way of showing the world that we exist and are normal people, who deserve fair treatment than any breast-for tat "i'm more qualified for that than you" approach. Film is business pure and simple, and anyone who's ever applied for a job, and seen the job go to someone less qualified in their eyes is in exactly the same position.

[Drea]

You are not the only one Jenny. Congrats on not being a Kool-Aid drinker on this issue.

Now you are just the second to comment so the popular opinion hasn't taken hold yet...so your opinion will affect further respondents.

I saw a movie tonight where a woman played a man. Had nothing to do with trans. There were reasons I suppose and had I not known the facts with this movie I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

[VickySGV]

If the actor is doing well at their craft, even a TG actor / actress will still be playing the role of a TG person. The character will be a creation, not the reality of the thespian portraying that character.

A friend of mine who is a history major and theater arts devotee is willing to bet that one of the historical characters most often played by a male DRessed As Girl is St. Mary and other Biblical women, based on the "Miracle Plays" performed in many churches in the middle ages as a way of telling sacred stories when women were not allowed to have ANY teaching position over males.

I would like to know that Trans* actors could readily get jobs as if they were cis actors, but "Can they ACT???

[Carolyn Marie]

Now you are just the second to comment so the popular opinion hasn't taken hold yet...so your opinion will affect further respondents..

I have a much more detailed response in a related thread, here: http://www.lauras-playground.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62129&p=572455

Carolyn Marie