If people are hand-waving any issues with the decision because "it's just acting," aka, "it's all pretend and it doesn't actually matter who plays what role," then whitewashing and the erasure of transgender people is absolutely fair game.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Disney casts their first openly gay character, is played by a straight man, will be a stereotype
- Thread starter Razmos
- Start date
I will only accept this if he also plays Michelle, Malia, and Sasha.
And Bo.
Yeah, America isn't homophobic itself. :/
FOH with that Russia/China excuse
OP
OP
They will all be played by Scarlett Johansson. It will be like an Eddie Murphy comedy, only racist
Ok then you implied whitewashing is the same as a straight actor acting as a gay character which is very different. Each with their own controversies but theyre not the same thing!
What makes the post you quoted even more questionable is the implication that China and Russia would accept a film with an openly gay protagonist, but the openly gay protagonist being played by a gay actor? Wait a minute now, that's over the line!
They definitely aren't. Whitewashing is literally erasing non-whites from the fiction itself, cis people playing transgender characters is akin to blackface. This has nothing to do with either.
America isn't even close to how homophobic Russia and China are, I'm not even from America but let's be real.
I know it's slightly off topic, but does this give credence to the idea that a lot of gay kids self identity and tend to love the Disney villains since they are often coded as gay?
(also, thanks for your posts in this thread)
Yes. There is a great "needs more gay" episode with Rantasmo and Lindsay Ellis that deals with this topic btw.:
Again, if we accept this ridiculous idea that the actor playing a role doesn't matter at all because movies are meaningless pretend, then whitewashing and trans-erasure aren't an issue either.
(Also, I disagree vehemently that straight people playing trans roles os akin to blackface in terms of historical context and intent.)
Do gay men look different from straight men? These comparisons are very silly.
I struggled a little bit to not mention the blacker-than-black reality of sexual violence that many LGBTQ+ people experience, either by their family or close friends.
This is a reality that queer kids have to navigate, too. On top of understanding - bit by bit - why the same-sex characters of your favorite show will never kiss, and why that inclination is an enormous problem in modern society, still.
What movie was this?
I don't mean to overstep, but the reason casting a gay actor is important to the LGBT community is because of the lack of representation they have in Hollywood.
Making the ridiculous comparison of a white man playing one of the most recognized black men in history doesn't really help your case.
Slippery slope and false equivalency are both logical fallacies. Whitewashing explicitly changes the work itself, trans characters being played by cis authors plays into a set of stereotype regarding "passing" trans people. They aren't comparable to this situation because a gay man can play a straight character without issues yet a black person can't play a white character without racists jumping at them.
It was sarcasm. Disney doesn't release important movies. They are the Taco Bell of filmmaking. And yes, it's absurd that they wouldn't cast someone gay to play a gay character. It's doubly absurd that it sounds like this character is a stereotypical screaming queen, too.
Again, straight and gay men don't actually look different (unless you intentionally choose to). Black and white men do look different. Stop being silly.
I mean, if a movie studio puts millions into something and judges that it's more financially viable to go with a name that sells to make sure their product is successful, can you blame them?
I mean we could be pumping out thousands of films with 200$ budgets with actors pulled off the streets but they would stop quickly once everyone loses their initial investment because no one consumes the media.
It isn't the movie studios people should be trying to change, it's the population that's spending money to purchase their products.
Yes. Let's be real. The official government position on gay people in media is different from the general public. People unfamiliar with Chinese cinema wouldn't know that there were a lot of mainstream gay movies that don't portray members of the gay community as minstrels.
I wouldn't at all say Disney villains are coded as gay. But they are usually the outsiders, kicked out of their community and incapable of finding companionship which is something a lot of us in the LGBTQ+ community can relate to a lot more than being the sought after belle of the ball.
Not even going to acknowledge how obtuse some people in this thread are. We would like some genuine fucking representation and the damn chance to get our foot in the door. Why is that so difficult for y'all to understand? Yes, it is just acting but stop acting like we're in some damn perfect vacuum of a world. NUANCE, people.
Actually, there might be!
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/something-queer-about-that-face/
"These 90 faces were then shown to 90 participants in random order, who were asked simply to judge the target's "probable sexual orientation" (gay or straight) by pressing a button. Surprisingly, all participants (both men and women) scored above chance on this gaydar task, correctly identifying the gay faces. Even more surprisingly, accuracy rate was just as good when the images were exposed at a rapid rate of only 50 milliseconds, which offered participants no opportunity to consciously process the photo."
https://www.economist.com/science-a.../ed/advancesinaiareusedtospotsignsofsexuality
" Research at Stanford University by Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang has shown that machine vision can infer sexual orientation by analysing people's faces. The researchers suggest the software does this by picking up on subtle differences in facial structure. With the right data sets, Dr Kosinski says, similar AI systems might be trained to spot other intimate traits, such as IQ or political views. Just because humans are unable to see the signs in faces does not mean that machines cannot do so."
Sure, I guess. I can't speak for anyone but me, as far as my own queer history is concerned, but a lot of modern, academic media-reading concerns Disney villains.
Most villains in Disney movies are women who are doing something other than looking for a man. A lot of villains are also designed in a way that is atypical to standards of beauty (slim body, symmetric face, big eyes, lots of hair).
Is it really so odd that most queers - and a lot of girls! - feel more drawn to the ugly, boisterous hag who not only breaks from society's rules of decorum, but - on top of that - has actual, fucking cool magical power?
Why would anyone root for Ariel, when you know what Ursula is capable of?
Last edited:
Whitewashing erases roles for black people, so does trans characters being played by cis actors and actresses. This isn't the same thing, at all.
Yes
It was the big thing behind the ScarJo thread. You had numerous posters arguing it was more financially viable to go with Scarlett Johansson set to play trans person instead of an actual trans person in the industry, based on the premise that it'd be successful because her name was involved, months after that concept was already proven wrong with the same actress when Scarlett Johansson played Asian instead of an actual Asian in the industry in one of the biggest, and certainly one of the most notable, bombs of the year.
OK but Bo will be played by a chocolate Lab. Nothing against Portuguese Water Dogs, the casting was strictly merit-based and, well, the chocolate Lab played Bo REALLY well.
I think it's even more ridiculous that people think the actor doesn't matter at all because "it's pretend."
Well, alright, but they don't INHERENTLY look any different. Maybe there are some mannerisms that gay people more often take on and vice versa. But there's nothing biological different except for that one gene that makes someone gay (is there a gay gene? I think one was found?).
Even if we don't agree on the part you quoted, the third part of my post is what we need to look at. The first point is saying they go where they think the money is.
We don't need corporations to force change/acceptance. We need to be working to instill equality within all people. That's where the fight needs to be, not at Corporation A doing what they think is best for their profit margin, because if we get the people to change, the corporations would follow.
Bullshit. A white actor portraying the life of the first black President of the United States is so not the same as this. You're not arguing in good faith.
You're somehow trying to make an straw man out of everyone arguing with you instead of actually trying to argue with their arguments. Ian McKellen could play Magneto, a straight character, with no backlash, a black actor couldn't without racists jumping at him.
Also this video by Rowan Ellis about queer coded "sissy" villains to demonize femininity and homosexuality since the Hays Code by the Catholic Legion Of Decency (sounds like a DC villain supergroup) back in the 1930s.
Filmic Mag: From Sissies to Secrecy: The Evolution of the Hays Code Queer
I think, personally speaking, what feels most important in queer representation, especially in the case of large milestones like this is the notable involvement of queer individuals, from writing to direction to portrayal. I don't think its inherently problematic for straight actors to portray gay characters, and in fact I've seen some really excellent portrayals that have connected a lot with me personally which came from performances by straight actors.
I think the notion that causes, at least in my perspective, the real discomfort, are examples where, in these relatively early days of LGBTQ media representation we're seeing major examples of representation which appear to be helmed (both behind the camera and in front of it) by those who don't have first hand understanding of what it is to be queer. I'm excited and happy for more representation but it leaves a bit of a bittersweet taste in my mouth to consider the notion that the first major mainstream examples of gay characters are being done in large part by straight writers, directors, and actors on behalf of the LGBTQ community, building those forms of representation from second hand sources, observations, and other forms of media.
Growing up in a world that appears, at best, uncomfortable and unfamiliar with who you are makes the media that tells you that somebody understands you and somebody is like you so incredibly important. Were we to look behind the curtain and realize that these stories were in fact not made by somebody like us or somebody who innately understands what we're going through then it becomes a tragic loss of much of the peace and progress that comes with having and seeing that kind of media in our landscape.
I think the notion that causes, at least in my perspective, the real discomfort, are examples where, in these relatively early days of LGBTQ media representation we're seeing major examples of representation which appear to be helmed (both behind the camera and in front of it) by those who don't have first hand understanding of what it is to be queer. I'm excited and happy for more representation but it leaves a bit of a bittersweet taste in my mouth to consider the notion that the first major mainstream examples of gay characters are being done in large part by straight writers, directors, and actors on behalf of the LGBTQ community, building those forms of representation from second hand sources, observations, and other forms of media.
Growing up in a world that appears, at best, uncomfortable and unfamiliar with who you are makes the media that tells you that somebody understands you and somebody is like you so incredibly important. Were we to look behind the curtain and realize that these stories were in fact not made by somebody like us or somebody who innately understands what we're going through then it becomes a tragic loss of much of the peace and progress that comes with having and seeing that kind of media in our landscape.
They're posters of critically acclaimed movies with straight actors playing the gay protagonists, they have been recognized and awarded by LGBT organizations
OP
OP
Something tells me Disney's not looking to make the next Moonlight with this film. Just a hunch.