celebrity

Sia, Anne Hathaway, Hugh Sheridan, and the one line of defence that has no place in 2020.

Every time an entertainment controversy bubbles to the surface in 2020, there's a familiar and irritating tune playing in the background.

A tune that actors, creatives and filmmakers have become all too comfortable singing whenever a concern is raised about their creative endeavours.

Think of it as a 'get out of jail' free card publicists used to toss to their embattled clients like an overwrought parent throwing a wipe to a food-covered child.

Except, not so much anymore.

Recently there have three key instances where people in the public eye have faced 'backlash' (a hyperbolic term often used in place of 'raised genuine concerns') and the reactions from the people in question have been wildly different.

In early November members of the disability community, including campaigners and Paralympians, condemned the depiction of the characters in The Witches, saying the use of distinct physical impairments in their hands was offensive to those with limb differences.

Watch the trailer for The Witches. Post continues below. 


In response, Warner Bros provided a statement that read “we are deeply saddened to learn that our depiction of the fictional characters in The Witches could upset people with disabilities. It was never the intention for viewers to feel that the fantastical, non-human creatures were meant to represent them.”


Unfortunately, Hollywood has a long and sordid history of not only casting straight, white, cisgender people in diverse and marginalised roles, but also loudly awarding them for bringing these 'characters' to life.

This trend was slightly upended in 2018 when Scarlett Johansson was criticised for signing on to play a transgender character in the movie Rub and Tug.

She initially responded to the critics by saying "tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto, and Felicity Huffman’s reps for comment" referencing actors who have been glorified for playing transgender characters in the past.

Scarlett eventually admitted she was wrong and dropped out of the film, but to this day there is still an army of voices that believe she should have stuck with the character.

The thing is, it's never just 'a character', at least until we stop putting the importance of fictional stories above the ones playing out in the real world. 

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

kathp 3 years ago 1 upvotes
Why would an actor *want* to be pigeon-holed into a part based exclusively on who they are? Sounds like the career kiss of death to me. All the rubbishy actors are just playing themselves rather than acting and it's so very dreary to watch.

If transwomen are true women, and transmen are true men, I don't see any issue with them being played by bio women or men. If there is an issue, I'm sure someone will explain it to me here.
laura__palmer 3 years ago
@kathp Transwomen and transmen simply aren't being given opportunities to play cis women and men. Which is why cis people should think twice about playing trans roles. Until there is true representation in Hollywood, cis people need to step back. Decisions of who plays a role are not made in a vacuum and discrimination against people who aren't cis, able bodied and white exists.
kathp 3 years ago 1 upvotes
@laura__palmer I think it is a little inconsistent to argue for the abolition of categories in certain instances and the maintenance of them in others.
<deleted> 3 years ago
<deleted>
laura__palmer 3 years ago
@kathp No, it's not when you consider that the choices to put cis gendered people into trans roles aren't made in a vacuum.

feast 3 years ago 2 upvotes
So, just a quick check here.  You are saying it is OK to put some in a role based on their sexuality, gender, skin colour etc?  OR only if it's the wrong sexuality, gender, skin colour etc?  
cat 3 years ago 1 upvotes
@feast what? Your question doesn’t make sense