Aversions to actors playing certain roles?

[Bini]

There's some controversy over Jared Leto's performance in Dallas Buyers Club of his portrayal of transgender character, Rayon. This backlash has come from the GLBT community and those outside of it. Critics have compared Leto's performance to that of a white man portraying a black man and "blacking it up" as one quote said, ending on, "it's offensive."

I can see how actors picking certain roles can be taboo and quite upsetting to those that may or may not be represented through that character depiction but Leto had a great response:

Source: People

"You don't deserve to play a trans woman," the heckler answered, referring to Leto's character, Rayon, in Dallas Buyer's Club.

"… Because I'm a man, I don't deserve to play that part?" Leto said. "So you want to hold a role against someone who happened to be gay or lesbian – they can't play a straight part?"

"Historically," the heckler continued, "Straight-gender people always play transgender people, and all of them received awards and credit for it."

"Then you make sure that people that are gay, people that aren’t straight, people like the Rayons of the world would never have the opportunity to turn the tables and explore parts of that art," Leto answered, and the auditorium applauded.

Leto then offered to meet the women backstage and continue the discussion.

If we're talking about "art" which we are when it comes to acting, I don't believe there's any such thing as one role reserved for one type of person, I don't believe it exists. Another critic (not sure of his political leanings) accused Leto of being a bad Liberal for justifying his role in DBC. What? But that's what we liberals do! We go outside the box.. I don't see that as a bad thing. To add, I wouldn't be the least bit mad if Johnny Depp chose a gender-bender role portraying an Asian woman in the Philippines - bring it! - might be interesting.. But the point being, a good performance isn't based on being the genuine article, but based on having a believable performance that feels authentic. Leto did a fabulous job.

So... big question: Do you have aversions to actors portraying certain roles?

[applepansy]

I will never understand these issues. Its all pretend. Its not real. Its a portrayal. Movies can seem real. Plays can seem well. But in the end they aren't real life. They are a story.

I understand wanting something to be portrayed accurately. If there was a movie made about Chronic Pain I would expect the actor to "portray" what its really like to live with Chronic Pain. I do not understand the attitude of the Heckler. From the picture he looks very feminine shaved and in makeup.

I agree with Jared Leto's reply to the heckler. If the actor can pull it off they should have the opportunity. That's their chosen career/craft. Some people will like it and some won't. If nobody goes to see the movie then producers and directors won't cast that actor in a similar role again.

I don't have an "adversion" to certain actors playing certain roles. However, there are some actors I think are better than others in shedding themselves and getting into character. I like movies where I stop seeing the actor and see the character. Those actors are rare.

[Wingnut]

I have a hard time seeing Sandra Bullock in serious and/or dramatic roles. After building her career on movies like 28 Days and Miss Congeniality, it's hard to take her seriously. Same with Reese Witherspoon. I really like both of them, but I've accustomed to their lighter, comedic roles.

[Guest]

This was a giant bone of contention for the Glee guy in a wheelchair too. They were trying to say that Glee (traditionally upheld for their openness to diverse actors) should have chosen a real person with disability to play that role in the same manner that Walter White Jr. of Breaking Bad is a real guy with CP playing a part of a teen-ager with CP.

Their argument is that we are going back to the dark age days where women were not allowed to be actors so Shakespearean plays were acted out by men dressed in drag. Or the age of blackface were blacks were not allowed to be actors so they put blackface on a white guy.

I think this is silly, in my opinion. There is nothing in Hollywood or American law that says you're not allowed to hire a handicapped person.

So, why are there more non-handicapped people playing handicapped parts? Simple - Tom Cruise playing a handicapped person in Born in the 4th of July is a much better portrayal of the character than any other person, abled or disabled, acting out the same role.

So, if a handicapped person - or a trans-gender person, for that matter - want that role, they have to beat out Tom Cruise and Jared Leto just like anyone else. This is not a problem anymore with female roles or black/asian/middle-eastern roles because there is a whole slew of great actors to choose from who are female/black/asian/middle-eastern. But, how many Tom Cruise caliber actors are there in a wheelchair?

Peter Dinklage, for example, is a high-caliber actor and a dwarf. So, when a movie/show/play needs a dwarf - he is on top of that short list of dwarf actors. But, Peter Dinklage did not limit himself to dwarf roles. In fact, he routinely turns down roles that would have made him lots of money because it is a "traditional dwarf role" - like elves. He has done several of those and he wants to branch out. He fought for the role of a lawyer in Find Me Guilty - not a dwarf lawyer, a regular lawyer - and got the part! It is just as hard for regular actors - like, say, James Gandolfini, for example, to get that lawyer part when he is typecast as a mobster guy... same for Peter who is typecast as a dwarf... yet both of those actors have a better chance at that part than a real lawyer who can't act.

So, the problem is not in Hollywood's hiring process. I propose that the GBLT or Association for Handicapped Persons need to do more to promote these career paths within their community. There are lots of incubators for actors - Disney and Nickelodeon is one that targets children, and off-broadway plays is another for theater - that develop these skills within a community by writers/directors creating specific movies/plays for these actors as training ground.

Do you know what the average salary of actors are? $35,000. Yep. Because there are LOTS of actors and only a very very few who actually make millions out of it. So, why should handicapped or trans-gender people get special entry into these elite just because they are trans-gender or handicapped? If you really want equality - then you get to fight for that role like everybody else.

Edited March 11, 2014 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

The correct answer to this should be NO. I want my answer to be no. Perhaps an interesting example for people of Christian faith is Mel Gibson. Granted, he was a producer/director, not an actor in the Passion of the Christ. Nevertheless, there were strikes against him.

1. Initially, his Catholicism--including the use of extra-biblical sourcing--raised suspicion.

2. Amongst Catholics, Gibson's exposure to a conservative, anti-Vatican II form of the faith raised red flags.

3. Accusations that Gibson is anti-Semitic caused a lot of media stir--which continues to this day.

And of course, there was the R-rating and the graphic violence.

Yet, in reality, the Passion will probably draw more people to consider the claims of the Christian gospel than the much safer Jesus movies--including the recently released Son of God.

Truth be told, whether some here chose to watch it or not, God did use Mel Gibson, an imperfect vessel like us all, to create a masterful retelling of Christ's passion. Who am I to say that a class of people, or even an individual performer, is unqualified--whether because of type-casting, or because of their gender/race/age/religious classification?

[Bini]

Like I said, I don't quite understand it. I mean, I get it, but I guess I just don't agree with it. Casting roles based on whether the actor is the real thing or not? It should be based on his of her ability.

Apple, in DBC you wouldn't even know it was Jared Leto - honestly - I'd forgotten all about him since the 90's (when he was most known) until he popped up in this movie. Not one second did I go, "Oh hey, it's Jared Leto", I had absolutely no idea. Then my husband pointed out (and he doesn't know actors that well) that Rayon looked "familiar".... SUPERB acting. I would even say he outshined Mcconaughey in this one.

[pam]

I have a hard time seeing Sandra Bullock in serious and/or dramatic roles. After building her career on movies like 28 Days and Miss Congeniality, it's hard to take her seriously. Same with Reese Witherspoon. I really like both of them, but I've accustomed to their lighter, comedic roles.

Sandra Bullock has had some great dramatic roles. I like her just all around.

[Guest]

Like I said, I don't quite understand it. I mean, I get it, but I guess I just don't agree with it. Casting roles based on whether the actor is the real thing or not? It should be based on his of her ability.

Apple, in DBC you wouldn't even know it was Jared Leto - honestly - I'd forgotten all about him since the 90's (when he was most known) until he popped up in this movie. Not one second did I go, "Oh hey, it's Jared Leto", I had absolutely no idea. Then my husband pointed out (and he doesn't know actors that well) that Rayon looked "familiar".... SUPERB acting. I would even say he outshined Mcconaughey in this one.

You don't understand it because you're not seeing the TRUE argument.

This is not about casting roles. This is about transgender people whining over their victim status and taking it out on Jared Leto. Plain and simple.

[Bini]

You don't understand it because you're not seeing the TRUE argument.

This is not about casting roles. This is about transgender people whining over their victim status and taking it out on Jared Leto. Plain and simple.

I understand fine.

In this particular scenario, regarding DBC, it is about some transgender and some non-transgender people upset about a non-transgender man portraying a transgender. But this topic is less about GLBT issues and more about the mind set behind people (all kinds of people) feeling outraged about actors taking certain roles that are controversial. You gave a good example of the Glee kid. Another would be one that's already been mentioned, Caucasians portraying Ethnic people. One more might be an actor portraying a deaf person when there's real deaf people out there. That's the issue I wished to touch on.

[Guest]

I understand fine.

In this particular scenario, regarding DBC, it is about some transgender and some non-transgender people upset about a non-transgender man portraying a transgender. But this topic is less about GLBT issues and more about the mind set behind people (all kinds of people) feeling outraged about actors taking certain roles that are controversial. You gave a good example of the Glee kid. Another would be one that's already been mentioned, Caucasians portraying Ethnic people. One more might be an actor portraying a deaf person when there's real deaf people out there. That's the issue I wished to touch on.

Sure, and that's a great topic which I've replied on. But - let's put this in its proper perspective. Because, the people outraged over certain roles going to certain people are very miniscule - and this includes the Glee wheelchair. Jared Leto's case made it seem like a big issue because he just won an Oscar. But Jared Leto's case is more about a group of transgender people disgusted about the stereo-typical portrayal of the transgender in the movie (which has nothing to do with Leto - he was just an easy target) rather than Jared Leto being cast for the role.

So, I'm just pointing out here that although it may seem like there are a bunch of them out there thinking only transgender people can portray transgender roles, that is not the case. Their real number is so small to be insignificant.

So, trying to understand why they think that way would be like... say... trying to understand why people think Cuba is such a great country with amazing healthcare... they have no clue what they're talking about is the closest answer.

Edited March 11, 2014 by anatess

[beefche]

So, people are upset at actors because they are ACTING?

[Bini]

Sure, and that's a great topic which I've replied on. But - let's put this in its proper perspective. Because, the people outraged over certain roles going to certain people are very miniscule - and this includes the Glee wheelchair. Jared Leto's case made it seem like a big issue because he just won an Oscar. But Jared Leto's case is more about a group of transgender people disgusted about the stereo-typical portrayal of the transgender in the movie (which has nothing to do with Leto - he was just an easy target) rather than Jared Leto being cast for the role.

So, I'm just pointing out here that although it may seem like there are a bunch of them out there thinking only transgender people can portray transgender roles, that is not the case. Their real number is so small to be insignificant.

So, trying to understand why they think that way would be like... say... trying to understand why people think Cuba is such a great country with amazing healthcare... they have no clue what they're talking about is the closest answer.

No argument there.

That's why I emphasised "some" because it is a small group of people in the grand scheme of things. However, I was asking what people here on the forum felt about aversions to actors taking on certain roles.

[pam]

There must have been enough of Jared Leto's peers that thought he did a fantastic job to have won an Oscar for best supporting male.

So a few want to whine about it. Let them whine. There will always be someone.

[Lakumi]

Heck in this day and age, the whole thing could have been planned for publicity

[Wingnut]

So a few want to whine about it. Let them whine. There will always be someone.

Haters gonna hate.

[Backroads]

My response:

If an actor can perform a role well, that's what matters. People can whine all they want about "other" actors having a chance at the part and the unfairness of the audition system and personal connections and blah blah blah.

All I care about is what I perceive to be the entertainment and artistic value in the end.

[dahlia]

I guess I get offended by different things. I hated that Johnny Depp played Tonto. Pleeeze. I could care less who plays a transgender. I'm not sure I'd be offended by someone who could walk playing a character in a wheelchair ('Ironside' anyone?).

There are a lot of things that go into choosing an actor for a part. The person in a wheelchair or a transgender person may not have the star power or physical appeal needed to bring in the audience. They may not be able to act. Benedict Cumberbatch played Stephen Hawking as a college student and in the early stages of his disease. Should the producers have scoured the earth for someone with the same variant of ALS to play the part? Or was it better to get a qualified actor who could display what it was like for Hawking at that point in his life?

anatess - I think you're right about the victim status thing.

[Soulsearcher]

Lets have a look at the example from this week. They've picked a black man to play the Human torch in the new Fantastic Four movie. this has a great many fans upset because the character should be white. Is it wrong to have a black man play a character who is white being it in some ways can affect the story ( he's brother to his white sister in the movie, and the back story of the characters tells quite a bit about their parents), or do we go with an actor we like and tailor the character to the actor?

[dahlia]

Soulsearcher My son and I were just talking about this tonight. We think it's one thing if there's no info about a character, then you can make them black or a female, such as Eddie Murphy as Axel Foley or Sigourney Weaver as Ripley in the Alien films. Axel could have been white, Ripley could have been a man. That Ripley turned out to be a woman is great; the story isn't changed and doesn't suffer because she's female.

But if there is an existing character, why would you change it? And in this movie, the new black guy has a white sister? What is the point? It seems to make more sense to either not have a black character or bring in another character if you need someone black for audience appeal.

[Dravin]

I can see getting upset over how someone portrayed a role, less that they got someone who was not X to play a role of X.

Is it wrong to have a black man play a character who is white being it in some ways can affect the story ( he's brother to his white sister in the movie, and the back story of the characters tells quite a bit about their parents), or do we go with an actor we like and tailor the character to the actor?

It's neither wrong to choose an actor to fit the role envisioned or to fit the role envisioned to the actor. In other words -

1) Hiring a black actor that requires adjustment of the role or back story to make it congruent? Nothing wrong with that.

2) Hiring a white actor so that you don't have to adjust the role or the back story to make it congruent? Nothing wrong with that.

3) Hiring the black actor and simply ignoring it being incongruous with the back story? Nothing wrong with that.

Now will people get upset over any of those choices? Probably, but people get upset over them choosing white male actor A over white male actor B for various roles *shrug*. The choices may have some significance where it concerns appreciation of the audience of the production but I'd say which one you go with doesn't have any particularly moral significance as given.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Dravin

[Quin]

Who didn't know that Leto would make a gorgeous woman??? He's such an obvious pick!

But seriously... It's not like any gay actors portray straight characters... Wait.

Okay. Precedence. Precedence. Let's look at Shakespeare, then! Oh. Men always played women. Darn darn darn.

More modern? They only hire REAL cops and spies and star fleet captains to portray...Hmm.

The argument is legless.

Q

[Guest]

Lets have a look at the example from this week. They've picked a black man to play the Human torch in the new Fantastic Four movie. this has a great many fans upset because the character should be white. Is it wrong to have a black man play a character who is white being it in some ways can affect the story ( he's brother to his white sister in the movie, and the back story of the characters tells quite a bit about their parents), or do we go with an actor we like and tailor the character to the actor?

Apples and Oranges, Soul.

Comicbook fans are fanatic about their comics. They're not upset that Hollywood hired a black guy to portray a white character. They're upset that the movie production CHANGED the comicbook character. Human Torch fans everywhere (I'm one of them) is going to raise a ruckus over that just like we raised a ruckus that the Wolverine character is taller than every single mutant on the set. Wolverine is 5'3". Changing his height nullifies one of the most popular Wolverine quote: "It's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog."

But yeah, fans quit bickering after Wolverine dominated the show in the first Xmen movie. If he would have sucked, the ruckus wouldn't end.

When making movie adaptations of things with a fandom, you kinda have to get the character right because people already have a pre-conceived notion of what this character is in their heads. That's why, movies like The Hulk, Pride & Prejudice, Jane Eyre is remade over and over and over... it's not that people just want to see different movies of their favorite book... it's that movie productions get challenged to "finally make it right" according to the book.

And here's a shout-out to the latest Jane Eyre adaptation with Fassbender and Wasikowska. They finally got both characters right. I'm just waiting for the "finally got it right" Hulk to have his own movie...

Edited March 12, 2014 by anatess

[Wingnut]

Rooney Mara's Tiger Lily Casting Rumor Causes Backlash Over Native American Role In 'Pan'

[Guest]

Rooney Mara's Tiger Lily Casting Rumor Causes Backlash Over Native American Role In 'Pan'

What??? They're upset that Rooney is playing Tiger Lily and not the Aussie Hugh Jackman playing Blackbeard? I demand justice! Pirates are rowdy Englishmen!