|
|
Post by danb on Mar 10, 2020 16:03:12 GMT
Very well articulated Kathryn. I don’t think that being ‘outraged’ by an issue like this helps anyone.
|
|
290 posts
|
Post by southstreet on Mar 10, 2020 16:55:21 GMT
I agree that being outraged doesn't help anyone but not saying anything at all doesn't help anyone either, or at least not the minorities that are being marginalised enough as it is. Therefore I think it's perfectly acceptable for people to question casting decisions and keep pushing for more representation, as long as it's done in a constructive manner! :-)
|
|
5,691 posts
|
Post by lynette on Mar 10, 2020 17:03:05 GMT
I think there are ‘out’ gay people playing ‘straight roles. I won’t list, not my business but some of them are on the telly.
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 10, 2020 18:27:26 GMT
I agree that being outraged doesn't help anyone but not saying anything at all doesn't help anyone either, or at least not the minorities that are being marginalised enough as it is. Therefore I think it's perfectly acceptable for people to question casting decisions and keep pushing for more representation, as long as it's done in a constructive manner! :-) I’m not paying to put it on, and won’t be going to see it so it’s casting doesn’t touch my life but totally get why the trans community would be up in arms about it; not using someone specific for a role that is so specific appears madness. |
|
5,795 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 10, 2020 18:33:07 GMT
If after a thorough casting process, you can't find a trans performer who is right for the role, you have to make a choice - you either pull the project or you continue with it because telling the story is still of artistic value.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 10, 2020 18:37:39 GMT
It can't be very pleasant for the actors, getting all the negative tweets. I wonder if they'll think sod it, and quit?
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Mar 10, 2020 19:17:17 GMT
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 10, 2020 19:21:56 GMT
That puts a different complexion on things... |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 10, 2020 20:11:57 GMT
"I could not be in a show where a trans woman is once again seen as a man in a dress as this perpetuates the idea that this is what a trans woman is and leads to violence, even death."
What exactly is Kate saying here? That an audience at the Donmar doesn't understand an actor's craft, which is getting into a character, and that people who see a trans character played by a gay male actor at the Donmar are going to go out and punch or kill someone? And in Kate's worst case scenario, that someone might think trans = man in a dress, why would thinking a transwoman is a man in a dress, specifically, incite someone to murder?
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 10, 2020 20:27:13 GMT
"I could not be in a show where a trans woman is once again seen as a man in a dress as this perpetuates the idea that this is what a trans woman is and leads to violence, even death." What exactly is Kate saying here? That an audience at the Donmar doesn't understand an actor's craft, which is getting into a character, and that people who see a trans character played by a gay male actor at the Donmar are going to go out and punch or kill someone? And in Kate's worst case scenario, that someone might think trans = man in a dress, why would thinking a transwoman is a man in a dress incite someone to murder? Um no. Kate is saying that perpetuating a stereotype in that way could lead to violence, which wasnt something they wanted to participate in. My trans friends first question when I mentioned the play was whether a trans actor had been cast in the main role. This was released today as well |
|
2,850 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Mar 10, 2020 20:32:12 GMT
Like it happened with Falsettos last September, it's always sad to see how so many people on this board are quick to minimize and ridicule minorities' legitimate concerns about their own representation.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 10, 2020 20:41:38 GMT
perpetuating a stereotype in that way could lead to violence, Why? If someone is transphobic to the point of murder, I don't think believing a transwoman is 'merely' a man in a dress is going to increase or decrease their level of hate. Were they incited to violence by the movie with Cillian Murphy in the role? Or that film with Eddie Redmayne? |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 10, 2020 20:54:52 GMT
perpetuating a stereotype in that way could lead to violence, Why? If someone is transphobic to the point of murder, I don't think believing a transwoman is 'merely' a man in a dress is going to increase or decrease their level of hate. Were they incited to violence by the movie with Cillian Murphy in the role? Or that film with Eddie Redmayne? I dont really have to explain the correlation between negative stereotypes and violence towards a minority do I? Or how trans people being seen as just a bloke on a dress is a negative stereotype? It's a drip drip effect. It's not just one thing. And people are justified to not want to contribute to the dripping. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Mar 10, 2020 21:06:14 GMT
I dont really have to explain the correlation between negative stereotypes and violence towards a minority do I? Right. I am a 'member' of three underrepresented minorities, including something akin to what is being discussed here. I have experienced sexual, domestic and street violence. I have been punched, badly, on two occasions just for how I dress. My gay flatmates were hospitalized by a 'bashing', and another friend had his nose broken by a street gang because he dressed flamboyantly. I do not underestimate how vulnerable minorities can feel because I am one and I've experienced some serious crap in my time. But I still don't see why casting a gay actor (one who grew up in one of the most homophobic parts of the UK) in a trans role in a small London theatre could incite violence, or why this would be seen as perpetuating a 'negative stereotype'. It's an actor playing a role, and the character is portrayed positively. |
|
1,728 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on Mar 10, 2020 22:50:16 GMT
I've seen Fra Fee on stage, but only seen him singing when On the Town was on TV, so my main interest in seeing this would be to see him in a singing role. If they had cast an unknown trans person in the role, I would not be bothered about seeing it.
I can understand how some people might not be happy with the casting, but I don't see how campaigning for him to be sacked does anything to help promote understanding and acceptance of trans people.
|
|
421 posts
|
Post by carmella1 on Mar 10, 2020 23:13:29 GMT
A question when a trans man wins in the women's olympics is it fair? He still has not given up his muscles or height, etc. They used to disqualify "women" for taking hormone shots now its perfectly all right.
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 10, 2020 23:20:23 GMT
I dont really have to explain the correlation between negative stereotypes and violence towards a minority do I? Right. I am a 'member' of three underrepresented minorities, including something akin to what is being discussed here. I have experienced sexual, domestic and street violence. I have been punched, badly, on two occasions just for how I dress. My gay flatmates were hospitalized by a 'bashing', and another friend had his nose broken by a street gang because he dressed flamboyantly. I do not underestimate how vulnerable minorities can feel because I am one and I've experienced some serious crap in my time. But I still don't see why casting a gay actor (one who grew up in one of the most homophobic parts of the UK) in a trans role in a small London theatre could incite violence, or why this would be seen as perpetuating a 'negative stereotype'. It's an actor playing a role, and the character is portrayed positively. Sorry to hear about that stuff which happened to you and your flatmate. On the other point, trans people say the bloke in a dress stereotype perpetuates violent reactions against them. That's their experience.. |
|
5,795 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 11, 2020 1:31:12 GMT
So the performer who turned down a role has stated that the producers didn't do enough to find a trans actor for the role.
That is clearly just an opinion. I have to question whether they had sufficient access to the casting process to have a real insight into what efforts were actually made.
And I do worry about the rush to include death in the discussion. It is never helpful to use extreme language or examples - no matter how justified you think you are in choosing to use them. It tends to add heat rather than light.
On the limited evidence we have, I do tend to believe that the producers did make a sincere effort to find a trans performer and when they did not, they made reasonable efforts to address this by putting other measures/projects in place.
Assuming the casting stands, audiences have a choice as to whether or not to support the project by buying or not buying tickets.
And people can then judge whether the production accurately and sensitively portrays the story of this character.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2020 9:00:35 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID.
In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays.
If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery.
The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male.
How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there?
|
|
100 posts
|
Post by noboiscout on Mar 11, 2020 12:54:54 GMT
I fear that if I was producing this musical, that I'd throw in the towel at this stage, and cancel the production. Nobody will come away from this well, now.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2020 13:00:56 GMT
That is what effectively happened with Rub & Tug, the film Scarlett Johanssen was going to be in, that she pulled out of because of the outcry over her casting.
No-one has heard anything about it since.
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 11, 2020 13:18:42 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? I think this is a superb take on the situation. I wish some of the twitter accounts who are currently piling into the Donmar, the Birmingham Rep and Fra Fee could read it. It looks like a lot of people eager to display their LGBTQ friendly credentials are getting stuck in without knowing that much about the piece itself or the background. They'll only be happy if Fra Fee is sacked or the production cancelled. It reminds me of a trans commentator who was speaking about the Scarlett Johansson 'scandal'. They said that they would rather see trans stories being told, and given there were no trans stars of Johansson's status who could actually get a Hollywood film greenlit, it was preferable to have her playing the role. It's very frustrating. There are genuinely transphobic and bigoted people out there. The companies and indiviiduals being targeted here are not amongst them. |
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 11, 2020 14:13:10 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
|
|
2,481 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Mar 11, 2020 14:14:47 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? I think this is a superb take on the situation. I wish some of the twitter accounts who are currently piling into the Donmar, the Birmingham Rep and Fra Fee could read it. It looks like a lot of people eager to display their LGBTQ friendly credentials are getting stuck in without knowing that much about the piece itself or the background. They'll only be happy if Fra Fee is sacked or the production cancelled. It reminds me of a trans commentator who was speaking about the Scarlett Johansson 'scandal'. They said that they would rather see trans stories being told, and given there were no trans stars of Johansson's status who could actually get a Hollywood film greenlit, it was preferable to have her playing the role. It's very frustrating. There are genuinely transphobic and bigoted people out there. The companies and indiviiduals being targeted here are not amongst them. I think if you are committing to telling the story of a trans person, which this musical says it wants to do, you should cast someone appropriate to the role. In this case, a trans actor should have been cast IMO |
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Mar 11, 2020 14:27:13 GMT
I get very confused by all this, because at the same time as being told that a trans woman is ‘not a man in a dress’ we are also told that self ID means that literally anyone can be trans, regardless of how masculine or feminine they look or whether they decide to have medical interventions, that it is defined by self ID. In which case, why couldn’t a cis actor play someone who is self-identifying as trans? That’s surely no different than any other type of self-identification an actor portrays. If I recall the film correctly, the main character is biologically male, and expresses their trans identity via clothes and make-up. They don’t have access to hormones or surgery. The trans actor who turned down a role was cast as a biological woman - so would not have been suitable to play the lead, who is biologically male. How many self-identified trans women musical theatre actors who have had no medical interventions - and so will read to an audience as biologically male - and have the acting experience necessary to play a lead role in a high-quality production are out there? Its because saying a trans person is 'just a bloke in a dress' is a derogatory term by transphobes.
There is a network of trans actors out there. I don't really buy the ' He was the only one who could play the role' as a reason to be honest. I think for some roles, you have to be careful with casting and I think in this case, they haven't.
Anyway, its mainly other trans people attacking the casting choice really, which makes me think that they did mess up
@zahdif You're twisting what Kathryn said. She didn't say 'just a bloke in a dress', she said 'a man in a dress', which is how some members of the community who would identify under the trans umbrella (including cross-dressers, drag queens, gender fluid people who might identify as male at some times and female at others) do describe themselves. It's not helpful to misrepresent other people's points when this is already such an incendiary debate. I don't think anybody is saying Fra Fee is the only person who could play the role. But in the view of the creative team, they clearly think he's the best one. How many trans people (and their associated allies) who are attacking this choice are actually familiar with the piece and the character as described by Kathryn? It's understandable that they see a headline saying 'cis actor takes trans role'. But it looks as if this is far more nuanced. |
|
