In reference to this article: http://www.transadvocate.com/the-rayon-effect-what-cisgender-actors-bring-to-transgender-characters_n_13344.htm
Well we can go deeper and discover the meaning of acting then. Is an actor capable of playing anything that is not the person the actor is? How do we go about fiction then? Why is no one questioning the writer who actually wrote the part? Does the writer/director/producer also have to be the same person the film is about? Is art really a collaborative effort?Can a certain level of authenticity really be achieved by fiction in general?
"When a man steps into makeup to become a trans woman, he embodies this mainstream trans narrative…" hmmm not necessarily. Isn't that a gross generalisation? Can an actor really play Romeo then? Can an Asian theatre group really interpret Shakespeare the 'right way'? I hear these arguments all the time and it pisses me off, to be honest. I'm not saying that the film was perfect. If you have problems with the specific performance then please by all means take it apart specifically but do refrain from making random statements that put people in a box.
As a filmmaker myself, I think this is an important debate and it certainly got me thinking but the article itself I found quite ridiculous, vague and lacking intellectual rigour on the whole.
On principle, there is nothing wrong with Jared playing the role. How the character itself was perceived by the writers and then interpreted by the director could be up for debate, but I personally did not see anything problematic about it and I don't think a comparison with the Mammy character in Gone WIth The Wind is fair to the filmmakers.
No comments:
Post a Comment