|
|
Post by sick2b on Aug 23, 2018 8:09:36 GMT -6
Can an actor impersonate something that he/she/they/ is not?
This question got me thinking ever since the Scarlet Johansson/transgender role and (in Canada) the Slāv and Kanata sagas.
My initial take on this is that by definition being an actor means impersonating a range of people (more or less realistically), and that the true issue to tackle is the acute lack of diversity in Hollywood and beyond. Rather than fighting for a transgender to play a transgender, an Afro-Canadian to play a slave (Slāv), or a Native-Canadian to play a Native-Canadian (Kanata), I'd much rather like to see more non-Caucasian/ non-heteronormative actors in leading AND non-stereotyping roles across the board.
But I'd love to hear your views
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 8:31:51 GMT -6
I'd agree with your statement. As an actor any individual should be able to portray any role in theory. But the constant straight white washing is getting old, and better representation is the fix. We're making strides though. If you haven't watched Billions yet, I'd recommend it. Asia Kate Dillon is a non-binary actor and portrays a non-binary in the show and they do a great job. I'd love to see them in additional roles playing against that, but for now it's great to see representation there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweet on Aug 23, 2018 8:40:58 GMT -6
*Hubbins grammar post*
Here's the part that always gets me: anytime one of these situations arises, the actor/studio/whatever goes out of the way to defend the choice, as if it's anything other than a very transparent attempt to get a big name to sell tickets. Representation matters, and I can assure you as someone tangentially involved in the theatre seen, the issue is never "finding the right person" or whatever. It's to make money.
Edit: cleaned up my wording a bit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 9:14:03 GMT -6
i hate saying "it depends" cause that kinda is a given but i really cant decide where i fall on it as i've seen exceptions to both arguments.
i think when it comes to depicting real people with real identities, it mostly needs to be someone of a similar identity. and yet i've seen some straight cysgender actors do amazing work as lgbt figures and cant say im mad about it. on the flipside, i would definitely like to see more lgbt actors playing straight cysgender characters and not being typecasted as flamboyant punchlines. whitewashing is probably never okay but im sure there's some movie i love that did it and i didnt realize it.
when it comes to fictional characters i think the debate in general is a bit overdone. idris elba as the first black bond would be awesome. the Star Wars sequel are better for being more inclusive. i dont mind that ScarJo played an anime android character. RDJ playing an australian man playing a black man was hysterical. it should never be all straight white male dudes for sure but it doesnt upset me if they change it up from whatever canon it's borrowed from.
basically i think i agree with you, sick2b. having a cysgender person play a transgender person once isnt a sin and can be a part of an actor's repertoire. but it's definitely a tired hat at this point when we have transgender actors/actresses who deserve exposure and representation. especially now that lgbt communities are being recognized and respected more (compared to previous decades)
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeping on Aug 23, 2018 9:24:26 GMT -6
Something about that movie where Bob Dylan was played by six different people including Cate Blanchett.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 23, 2018 9:25:18 GMT -6
Yes, an actor must be a murderer to impersonate a murderer.
All joking a salad, I honestly think both takes are right. x-washing is awful, and shouldn't generally be tolerated, regardless of the skill of the actor, AND we need more prominent/leading/strong/thoughtful roles played by actors that don't look like what we've seen on screen for the past hundred years.
Gotta disagree with Wretched a little, I balk at both Ghost in the Shell and Dr. Strange, versus being...a bit more alright with Edge of Tomorrow/All You Need is Kill. In the latter, in the adapting thereof, the entire setting of the story was moved to Western Europe instead of Japan (which is its own type of shitty BUT makes updating the characters slightly more justified). In the former, you have stories taking place in specific nations, but you've changed the race of the character for no reason other than, ugh, 'bankability'.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeping on Aug 23, 2018 9:34:45 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that any actor can play any role because that's what acting is.
The problem is when people who come from marginalized communities are refused roles or not given the opportunities to act in those roles, and straight/cis/white/male/non-marginalized people do not have to deal with this.
I think it's great that Patrick Stewart played Othello (with a black Desdemona).
I think it'd be great if Idris Elba were considered for the role of James Bond.
I want to see more people of all types in more roles of all types.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeping on Aug 23, 2018 9:38:48 GMT -6
Yes, an actor must be a murderer to impersonate a murderer. Big Robert Blake fan? |
|
|
|
Post by alady on Aug 23, 2018 10:36:08 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that any actor can play any role because that's what acting is. The problem is when people who come from marginalized communities are refused roles or not given the opportunities to act in those roles, and straight/cis/white/male/non-marginalized people do not have to deal with this. I think it's great that Patrick Stewart played Othello (with a black Desdemona). I think it'd be great if Idris Elba were considered for the role of James Bond. I want to see more people of all types in more roles of all types. This a bunch. I think the idea that trans actors are the only people who should play trans roles effectively maintains the ghettoization of that community. But as Bird notes above, it's ultimately about bankability. There are a few trans actors with name recognition now and the focus should be on getting them into more mainstream cis roles. If we want to tell trans stories (and it seems that in recent years there's more interest in this than ever) studios should invest in developing trans actors, writers and producers so we can hear more authentic voices. For example, Pose was a fresh and non whitewashed story that suffered from amateurish writing and acting. |
|
|
|
Post by llamaoftime on Aug 23, 2018 12:32:17 GMT -6
the entire setting of the story was moved to Western Europe instead of Japan (which is its own type of shitty BUT makes updating the characters slightly more justified). genuine question- what if there's artistic merit in setting it elsewhere?
noting that this is hypothetical as I'm not a movie producer with the means to acquire rights to an IP, but I have an idea in my head for a live action adaptation of a specific anime, but if I were to be writing it I would like to move the setting from Japan to USA because I believe that it'd have a lot of interesting parallels to things happening today and allow for some interesting creative changes. There's some extra layers I think I could add that the anime didn't touch on with a setting move.
where does something like that fall? like is it shitty?
btw I don't mean this like there's an empirical answer to this question, genuinely curious for opinions. also artistic merit is always debatable, but I'm asking more from an intentions standpoint
|
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 23, 2018 12:37:39 GMT -6
Can an actor impersonate something that he/she/they/ is not? Well if they can't, then I don't know how to explain how all these gay actors continue to exist because there sure aren't a lot of gay characters being written now let alone in the past |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 12:50:26 GMT -6
In the former, you have stories taking place in specific nations, but you've changed the race of the character for no reason other than, ugh, 'bankability'. this is more of an anime debate but to my understanding, GitS (the series) is in a fictional city and the shells are specifically non-racially designated. so she doesnt have to be of asian descent. only focusing on that aspect, it doesnt make the ScarJo choice optimal but i dont think it should draw cries of racism either. in the 2017 film i believe it does specifically say that it takes place in japan (tho i think a lot of the setting was shot in china and several cast members were chinese, which is a separate conversation about racism against asians in films) so they kinda shoot themselves in the foot with that rather than keeping it in a fictitious setting. idk i just dont think it should draw as much ire because she's essentially a generic military robot from the start. adding the twist that her ghost is a japanese girl who was murdered tho was a bad step. |
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 23, 2018 12:51:15 GMT -6
the entire setting of the story was moved to Western Europe instead of Japan (which is its own type of shitty BUT makes updating the characters slightly more justified). genuine question- what if there's artistic merit in setting it elsewhere?
noting that this is hypothetical as I'm not a movie producer with the means to acquire rights to an IP, but I have an idea in my head for a live action adaptation of a specific anime, but if I were to be writing it I would like to move the setting from Japan to USA because I believe that it'd have a lot of interesting parallels to things happening today and allow for some interesting creative changes. There's some extra layers I think I could add that the anime didn't touch on with a setting move.
where does something like that fall? like is it shitty?
btw I don't mean this like there's an empirical answer to this question, genuinely curious for opinions. also artistic merit is always debatable, but I'm asking more from an intentions standpoint
Appreciate the question, and it's definitely tricky. You've got to take a very careful examination of how the original setting may play into any of the themes, motifs, symbolism, etc,. of the original story. There could absolutely be merit in raising the questions of the original in a new location, but you could be robbing one of the primary pillars of the original work. To use a very old, and well discussed example, Godzilla is generally regarded as a response to and metaphor for nuclear weaponry. The second you move it out of Japan, you are fundamentally changing the very genesis of the story. Could you do it in a way that tackles a different nation's relationship with nuclear arms? Absolutely. Could you you just grab the cool looking monster without thinking, and rob it of that, or create terrible connotations? Absolutely. (Do some of the early Godzilla movies not concern themselves with that metaphor? Absolutely.) |
|
|
|
Post by irvred on Aug 23, 2018 13:04:49 GMT -6
Ghost in the Shell is in a very fictionalized cyberpunk future where people's brains are commonly placed in non-ethnic robot bodies and the protagonists are basically a UN/Interpol organization comprised of multiple ethnicities. ScarJo is not an issue.
I don't really see an issue in adapting IPs to different locales/cultures if it respects the source material and has an obvious reason for doing so. I don't have a honed, cohesive argument, but it always seems silly to me how bent up people get about altering anime when we've done so many alt adaptations of, say, Shakespeare. I suppose a better exanple would be taking Infernal Affairs and making The Departed. No one had a problem with that.
The flipside of that is, like, the Oldboy remake, which has zero Spike Lee flair, zero context or relevancy to the American experience. It feels like an easy cash-in; that story is so inherently Korean there was no way to Americanize it in an interesting way, so the only difference was inserting White People. And casting White People without a reason is the disrespectful part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 23, 2018 13:06:55 GMT -6
In the former, you have stories taking place in specific nations, but you've changed the race of the character for no reason other than, ugh, 'bankability'. this is more of an anime debate but to my understanding, GitS (the series) is in a fictional city and the shells are specifically non-racially designated. so she doesnt have to be of asian descent. only focusing on that aspect, it doesnt make the ScarJo choice optimal but i dont think it should draw cries of racism either. As far as the series, it generally takes place in Niihama/New Port City, which yes is fictional, but is still set in Japan. And, I'll grant you this, the director of the original film had no issue with it, for the reasons you mention. This roundtable, however, captures my feelings on the issue reasonably well:
And that’s deeply frustrating because it says that the Japanese original—written by Japanese people, set in Japan, and made with Japanese iconography—was ripe for the taking. Except for the part where the protagonist is Japanese. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 13:11:00 GMT -6
but like irving said, the protagonist isnt japanese. she's an non-racial cyborg.
we can infer that since she (and the world she's in) was created as a part of japanese culture, that the character would likely be similar to japanese people, but it's definitely never established. it's actually probably intentionally and specifically not mentioned.
it's pedantic but i do think it's the biggest factor in whether or not paramount "whitewashed" the character or if the character wasnt a race to begin with and paramount just went with a cashcrop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 23, 2018 13:18:37 GMT -6
I don't really see an issue in adapting IPs to different locales/cultures if it respects the source material and has an obvious reason for doing so. I don't have a honed, cohesive argument, but it always seems silly to me how bent up people get about altering anime when we've done so many alt adaptations of, say, Shakespeare. I suppose a better exanple would be taking Infernal Affairs and making The Departed. No one had a problem with that. My argument for Shakespeare would be that we've had approximately 700,000 straight up stagings of each individual Shakespeare play. There is not a dearth of versions largely as originally imagined. And generally, the straightforward versions are the most popular. So when someone places A Midsummer's Night's Dream in Arkansas, it's going to have virtually zero impact. On the other hand, I literally had zero idea that The Departed was based off of Infernal Affairs. You now have a original work that is absolutely dwarfed by a different version that took the 'best' aspects and then put in a location and language that gains so much more publicity. Having not seen it, I obviously have no idea what degree the original setting played a part in Infernal Affairs, so I'm not trying to make an argument on that front. And, as before, I'm not saying adaptations in a new locale are inherently bad, just that they require thought if you want to not be slammed by fans of the original. |
|
|
|
Post by alady on Aug 23, 2018 13:25:33 GMT -6
Can an actor impersonate something that he/she/they/ is not? Well if they can't, then I don't know how to explain how all these gay actors continue to exist because there sure aren't a lot of gay characters being written now let alone in the past Would you say 10% of content produced features a gay character? I might. |
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 23, 2018 13:28:19 GMT -6
but like irving said, the protagonist isnt japanese. she's an non-racial cyborg. we can infer that since she (and the world she's in) was created as a part of japanese culture, that the character would likely be similar to japanese people, but it's definitely never established. it's actually probably intentionally and specifically not mentioned. it's pedantic but i do think it's the biggest factor in whether or not paramount "whitewashed" the character or if the character wasnt a race to begin with and paramount just went with a cashcrop. Let's get pedantic! According to more than a few articles I've seen floating around, Americans tend to see manga characters as white, however, most Japanese tend to see them as Asian. Without a lack of overt racial signifiers, people tend to regard them as whatever their default is. So, just because Kusanagi is not called out as specifically Japanese in the manga, I don't think that suggests that's not the intention of the original writer / illustrator. Compare how Shirow drew a called out 'white person':  To be clear, I really don't want to pretend I can speak on this issue definitively from my position, and there are many people far more familiar with the originals works than me who are fine with the argument presented in the film. |
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 23, 2018 14:01:28 GMT -6
Well if they can't, then I don't know how to explain how all these gay actors continue to exist because there sure aren't a lot of gay characters being written now let alone in the past Would you say 10% of content produced features a gay character? I might. 10 or maybe 20%. I only say that, though, because in recent years there's been an uptick in stories involving such characters. It actually is starting to feel normal to have gay side characters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 18:21:40 GMT -6
The whitewashing is definitely excessive and needs to stop for the most part.
Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club, though. I think there are exceptions where an actor really believes in their role and puts everything into it and makes it believable. Is it always offensive for a non-gay/trans person to play a gay/trans role? I'm not the right person to judge, I guess. I thought he was phenomenal in that role, but there was probably a trans actor that could have done just as fine a job.
|
|
|
|
Post by cosmo on Aug 23, 2018 19:19:17 GMT -6
I saw an old episode of Bewitched and shenanigans ensue when a prospective client from Japan comes to Samantha's house and Larry Tate is acting, well...like Larry Tate. The problem was that the Japanese client was played by a white guy. It was awful. Samantha wanted to cook him his favorite meal and he said, in a terrible accent "hun gar an goo rash"
Yes, it was the early 70's but still awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeping on Aug 24, 2018 8:33:58 GMT -6
I saw an old episode of Bewitched and shenanigans ensue when a prospective client from Japan comes to Samantha's house and Larry Tate is acting, well...like Larry Tate. The problem was that the Japanese client was played by a white guy. It was awful. Samantha wanted to cook him his favorite meal and he said, in a terrible accent "hun gar an goo rash" Yes, it was the early 70's but still awful. You've seen Breakfast at Tiffany's, right? |
|
|
|
Post by thebosma on Aug 24, 2018 8:47:06 GMT -6
I was just thinking about how much I love that film sans the one character that is so unbelievably racist
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 9:03:51 GMT -6
Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club, though. I think there are exceptions where an actor really believes in their role and puts everything into it and makes it believable. Is it always offensive for a non-gay/trans person to play a gay/trans role? I'm not the right person to judge, I guess. I thought he was phenomenal in that role, but there was probably a trans actor that could have done just as fine a job. i think most of us agree with this. it'd be preferable for an LGBT person to play an LGBT character but there's no way around some cases were a straight cys person did a great job of portraying an LGBT character or vice versa. speaking of, everyone please watch Breakfast on Pluto. one of my personal favorites |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrecard on Aug 24, 2018 9:16:41 GMT -6
the entire setting of the story was moved to Western Europe instead of Japan (which is its own type of shitty BUT makes updating the characters slightly more justified). genuine question- what if there's artistic merit in setting it elsewhere?
noting that this is hypothetical as I'm not a movie producer with the means to acquire rights to an IP, but I have an idea in my head for a live action adaptation of a specific anime, but if I were to be writing it I would like to move the setting from Japan to USA because I believe that it'd have a lot of interesting parallels to things happening today and allow for some interesting creative changes. There's some extra layers I think I could add that the anime didn't touch on with a setting move.
where does something like that fall? like is it shitty?
btw I don't mean this like there's an empirical answer to this question, genuinely curious for opinions. also artistic merit is always debatable, but I'm asking more from an intentions standpoint
I think this is a great question, and my mind always goes to Apocalypse Now. Changing the setting from 1900's Congo (in Heart of Darkness) to the Vietnam war was an interesting artistic choice, and one which was very relevant and important at the time. Obviously it is an almost universally-acclaimed movie, however personally I think something was lost in translation from the atrocities of the 'Scramble for Africa' and the horrific crimes committed to the horrors of Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Post by ultravisitor on Aug 24, 2018 9:16:48 GMT -6
I honestly don't believe anyone could have done better than Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry.
|
|
|
|
Post by chvrchbarrel on Aug 24, 2018 9:20:01 GMT -6
i believe both jonathan taylor thomas AND matthew broderick did a better job playing simba than a real lion wouldve
but really, isnt this the least of our problems in a movie that takes place in the african jungle, yet all of the animals speak english
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyrecard on Aug 24, 2018 9:24:03 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that any actor can play any role because that's what acting is. The problem is when people who come from marginalized communities are refused roles or not given the opportunities to act in those roles, and straight/cis/white/male/non-marginalized people do not have to deal with this. I think it's great that Patrick Stewart played Othello (with a black Desdemona). I think it'd be great if Idris Elba were considered for the role of James Bond. I want to see more people of all types in more roles of all types. Couldn't agree more. I have zero problems with non-marginalized people taking roles of marginal communities ... as far as I'm concerned the best actor for the job should be selected regardless of race, gender identity, sexual orientation etc. etc. Of course this is not true, as there is not equal representation of minorities in Hollywood right now...the majority of celebrities are white straight individuals. I think alongside the LGBT community, the Asian community is the most overlooked in these discussions. Was listening to an interesting article on NPR about Crazy Rich Asians yesterday and about how it is such a rare achievement for an almost exclusively Asian-heritage cast to have success at the Box Office. I honestly had never thought about it, but thinking back I struggle to remember too many other movies like this since Crouching Tiger (which was a very, very long time ago). Essentially, I don't think the problem is about actors who aren't [...] impersonating [...], but the real problem I see is that Hollywood should represent all of society, and we are a very long way from achieving that. |
|
|
|
Post by Xamnam on Aug 24, 2018 9:24:26 GMT -6
i believe both jonathan taylor thomas AND matthew broderick did a better job playing simba than a real lion wouldve but really, isnt this the least of our problems in a movie that takes place in the african jungle, yet all of the animals speak english Umm, excuse me, let's not ignore the fact that Lion King completely removes the kill your uncle, yes because he murdered me, BUT ALSO because he's sleeping with my wife aspect of Hamlet. |
|
