[ SECRET POST #3174 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3174 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #454.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://oi58.tinypic.com/2vv2f6h.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Also...they are actors. It is their job to play someone else.

And in regards to trans people, it would probably be good NOT to force someone to play their pre-transitioned self. It can be triggering. Honestly, even Laverne Cox was played by her twin for pre-trans stuff.

[(Anonymous)]

Who's talking about forcing? Have actors started getting drafted unpaid now?

[(Anonymous)]

I seriously doubt Cox didn't play her pre-transitioned self because of triggering. It's because she doesn't look like a man.

[(Anonymous)]

That can be a factor sometimes, but Laverne didn't have a problem playing her character pre-transition. She was all for it, though the show runner was concerned it would be triggering. Ultimately, they used her brother because they thought Laverne looked too feminine for those scenes.

[(Anonymous)]

You really don't know what you're talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

lmao let's not have black people play black characters in movies that cover racism, it might hurt them

better hire a white person in blackface to spare their feelings :)

[(Anonymous)]

(Is that Cillian in Breakfast on Pluto? )

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it is.

[dancing_serpent]

I believe it is. ♥

[(Anonymous)]

I bought that movie literally last night. It was $1, and I was so surprised to see a copy of it in the bin. Such a lovely film.

[(Anonymous)]

And gosh darn it why do people get all up in arms when you blackie up a real actor to play a negro? #bringbackblackface

After all, it might be triggering for one of those poor savages to chose to take a role and get paid for it, lets decide that for them right away. We know better.

[(Anonymous)]

IMO, in most circumstances, you should cast the best actor for a given role

[(Anonymous)]

What is this from and who the hell is that? His eyes... so beautifully blue... Intoxicating..

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with actors playing LGBT roles if they don't identify that way, because they are acting. Demanding a gay actor play a gay role is stupid. As for trans characters, if they have transitioned, then in that case, I can see how it's much better to cast an actual trans actor - in that case, I'm not saying it's totally wrong to cast a non-trans person (because there's no one way a transitioned trans person might look), but in that case it seems more "accurate", as well as gives a job to an aspiring actor who is trans, who has very limited options otherwise.

[kitelovesyou]

Gender orientation and sexual orientation are very different. One is (usually) physical, the other is invisible. Yes, ideally trans people would play cis people and vice versa, but in the current state of play, it's actually pretty insulting that trans folk almost never get cast to play cis folk (reassuring audiences that even if they're seeing a trans person portrayed, they're really in drag which parallels deep down social attitudes), and sometimes the physique of someone trans (who's transitioning/ed) does not look cis in any way.

I'm using (trying anyway to represent) the argument of many trans people about this, and agree as a cis gay person.

[(Anonymous)]

There's also the fact that LGBTQ actors can - and have - played non-LGBTQ roles. I'm not saying it's a perfect world for LGBTQ actors, but I think it's improving and I don't find the idea of actors from one group (LGBTQ or non-LGBTQ) playing the other inherently offensive because it can go both ways. It can still be offensive in *practice* though, but I'd consider that to be more situationally dependent.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I have mixed feelings about this argument. Someone I read is going off on Tony in Orphan Black, but the show only works because Maslany and her double Alexandre are exceptionally good at what they do. I don't think the show can sell clone club without Maslany/Alexandre (they largely didn't with Castor last season.)

On the other hand, we have two movies in development about transgender identity where trans actors were not even considered. So the current status quo is locking transgender actors out of Hollywood with Cox, Ruby Rose, and Clayton as exceptions, and playing trans people is the new Oscar vehicle. The celluloid closet isn't quite as severe for gay and lesbian actors with established veterans like Sir Ian and Jody Foster out.

[(Anonymous)]

I wonder how many people would take your argument and twist it into casting LGBTQwhatever letter added since I last blinked -people in roles that correspond with their actual sexuality. Because if it's offensive to have cis actors play a gay or trans character, wouldn't it be as offensive for gay or trans actors to play a cis character?

Am just saying it's a slippery slope.

Then again I never understood the need to label people by their sexuality or gender. It's amusing how often the whole cis issue seems to annoy people, as if gays and trans people need to be certain way to be whatever. Can't trans people be cis after they've finished their transition? Also how about us bisexuals then? Where do we fit in?

Life is immensely more complicated than simple divided lines.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you. And anyway, it's called acting. [/Larry Olivier]

[(Anonymous)]

there are lots of closeted gay actors in hollywood, but queer or not it's not your place to say the same of trans roles unless you're trans yourself

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that there are a lot of closeted actors, some of them big name stars. That's pretty much an open secret.

[(Anonymous)]

For the most part I agree with you, OP.

I believe that the people in charge are right to cast whoever they feel will play the role best. And even in an ideal world, the person cast would probably still be straight the majority of the time, and cis a huge majority of the time. Because the majority of the population is straight meaning the majority of the people who audition for a role will likely be straight, making it more likely that a straight person will end up with the strongest audition. And the vast majority of the population is cis, meaning the vast majority of the people who audition will be cis, thus making it far, far more likely that a cis person will end up with the strongest audition.


However, I do think the film industry has some serious issues when it comes to diversity in casting. It seems pretty clear that gay people and trans people who do have the strongest auditions and who deserve to be cast are probably often overlooked in favor of someone straight and cis. Whereas I doubt this bias ever goes the other way.

So does it make sense to look at every straight, cis person playing a gay or trans character and accuse them of stealing a gay or trans actor's role? No. But it does make sense to look at the film industry and accuse it of often operating on a bias when it comes to gay and trans actors. Because in a fair world, out of every dozen or so actors to get cast in lead roles, statistically at least one should be gay. Yet I doubt that's what the film industry is averaging right now.

[(Anonymous)]

Cis actors should be considered for trans roles only if every other trans actor approached turned it down.

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno, there's just something kind of really... I dunno, plagiarizing? For cis people to take trans people's stories and get tons of money and attention and potentially awards.

Like... we think you're interesting enough to steal from, but we don't like you enough to share any of the credit or money. Especially when they pretend to do it for representation and visibility and to help out a group.

I mean could you imagine making a film about feminism, like maybe suffrage, and the message of the film is women are equal to men..... and all the actors and people on staff are men? So not a single woman gets a paycheck or an award on a movie that's supposed to be all about how great feminism is and the struggles and stories and whatnot.