[ad_1]
Scarlett Johansson is again in hot water after seeming to reverse her previous position on playing a transgender character. Last year, Johansson left the lead role (a trans-identifying man) in the movie "Rub and Tug" despite hostile reactions from the left and transgender activists who claimed that a trans actor must play this role. This week, in an interview for As if magazine, the megastar took a different tone.
She told the magazine, "You know, as an actor, I should have the right to play anybody, no matter what tree or any animal, because that It's my job and the demands of my job. "She went on to say that" I think it's a trend in my business and that it has to happen for a variety of social reasons. Yet there are times when it becomes uncomfortable to touch the art because I feel that the art should be free of restrictions. Society would be more connected if we simply allowed others to have their own feelings without expecting everyone to feel the same as us. "
Johansson is largely right here. In almost all cases, the job of the actor is to play someone or something he is not. An actor studies the character he is supposed to portray, almost always for the sake of empathy, and strives to understand rather than judge what motivates a character's actions. Saying that an actor can only play himself, or a person very similar to himself, is an insult to the art. Yet these issues can still be tricky.
As a theater producer whose company has produced over 300 short pieces from 2001 to 2016, I have frequently encountered the question of the color-blind cast. My approach followed a few simple rules. The first was to determine whether the identifier (s) of the role in question were "contextually specific" or "neutral in context". In the first case, the identifier is not only noted by the dramatic author, he informs the work and specifically mentioned in the text. In this last case, nothing in the text makes it possible to determine the identifiers of the actor.
In the case of "context-neutral" roles, there is no need to consider identifiers; we can simply select the best actor for the role. This is true even if the demographics of the role are involved historically or regionally. As "Hamilton" has proven, no one is particularly thrown by a black George Washington (more details on this case below). The public forget about it quickly and are content with work.
Contextually specific roles can be more complicated. If, for example, the author explores a very specific racial dynamic, it makes sense to present the piece or film at the will of the author. In the case of "Rub and Tug", the fact that, according to Johansson's critics, the identifiers that are transcribers are actually women, therefore seems that there is no reason for Johansson to be excluded from the role.
Returning to "Hamilton", the writer's will – or, in the case of film producers – plays a central role in determining the identities of the actor's identifiers. Lin Miranda Manuel made it clear that he still wanted color actors to play the lead role in "Hamilton". One may disagree or disagree with his decision, but it should be his appeal. This is also the case of the estate of Samuel Beckett, who is notoriously stingy to grant the rights of his plays to companies wishing to push the limits of specific words in his plays and character descriptions.
Just as a painter is free to create any person of any type on a canvas, a writer or a producer can do it also in his paintings or on his screens. But what Johansson rightly opposes is a different question, rather than a specific choice about a specific job. This is a general call to prevent "less oppressed" actors from playing a character belonging to a "more oppressed" population. This unique approach, based on privilege theory, is a mistake.
It is rooted in the theory of privileges, because nothing forbids a trans actor playing a non-trans character, a black actor playing a white character, a woman playing a man, etc. The ratchet moves only in one direction. At the beginning, this was a justified effort to get more roles for people of color in a very white industry, but now it's not an opportunity, but the limits of art itself.
Those who disapprove Johansson do not simply say that a transsexual actor has lost an opportunity, they say that a non-transsexual person can not presumably play the role accurately, having never experienced a transsexual person. It is there that ScarJo is right to defy his critics. I mean, Ian McClellan has never been a wizard. He pretends. It is perfectly normal to be sensitive to these casting choices, but to deny "privileged" actors the opportunity to play the less "privileged" is not the best solution.
Johansson deserves congratulations for having weighed on this delicate issue. It would be a lot easier for her to simply ignore it and take advantage of all the job offers that she undoubtedly receives. But she cares about her art and understands how much these non-liberal ideas can hurt her. Acting, which is the ultimate act of empathy, becomes on the contrary a caricature of oneself.
The measured change of Johansson on this issue should be welcomed by everyone. This opens the door to a real and honest conversation about the issue. And it is, until now, something that is sorely lacking.
David Marcus is the federalist correspondent in New York. Follow him on Twitter, BlueBoxDave.
[ad_2]
Source link