Eddie Redmayne says it was a mistake to play trans role in The Danish Girl

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59373295

Note: I don't know the movie nor do I know Redmayne - purely posted for conversational purpose for those here that know one or both.

Makes sense to me. I've seen people complain about the "woke brigade" regarding it, but it sounds like this is just a conclusion he reached on his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo

Makes sense to me. I've seen people complain about the "woke brigade" regarding it, but it sounds like this is just a conclusion he reached on his own.

---

Had Redmayne not been criticized - would Redmayne still have taken the role?
("We" the public will never know the answer)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Note: I don't know the movie nor do I know Redmayne - purely posted for conversational purpose for those here that know one or both.

---

Best known for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, for which he won the 2015 best actor Oscar.

Had an established star not taken this role, this movie would have never reached mainstream success. There are simply no big-name trans actors that would carry a mainstream release yet.

Producers are not going to risk millions on an unknown actor or actress to carry a weighty drama like The Danish Girl.

Trans actors will break into mainstream media more and more but applying a 2021 SJW sensibility to 2015 makes no sense. We might as well go back and say that trans-actors should have been in Too Wong Foo. Where does it end?

Also, more importantly....the sentiment works both or all ways. If a transgender actor should have been cast to play a trans character, then only Jewish actors can play Jesus or only actual mermaids can play Ariel in the live action Little Mermaid release. Furthermore, if we are pigeonholing...you should never cast a trans-actor to play anything but a trans character then.
Doesn't feel right when you expand the sentiment beyond the very limited scope SJWs tend to want to work in.

Furthermore, regarding the era the movie is set in and timeline of the plot that start pre-transition, does it not make more sense to have a male actor play the role, or am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iHeart_PONG

Had an established star not taken this role, this movie would have never reached mainstream success.

---

Fascinating perspective!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iHeart_PONG

Had an established star not taken this role, this movie would have never reached mainstream success. There are simply no big-name trans actors that would carry a mainstream release yet.

Producers are not going to risk millions on an unknown actor or actress to carry a weighty drama like The Danish Girl.

Trans actors will break into mainstream media more and more but applying a 2021 SJW sensibility to 2015 makes no sense. We might as well go back and say that trans-actors should have been in Too Wong Foo. Where does it end?

Also, more importantly....the sentiment works both or all ways. If a transgender actor should have been cast to play a trans character, then only Jewish actors can play Jesus or only actual mermaids can play Ariel in the live action Little Mermaid release. Furthermore, if we are pigeonholing...you should never cast a trans-actor to play anything but a trans character then.
Doesn't feel right when you expand the sentiment beyond the very limited scope SJWs tend to want to work in.

---

I'm with you. The only shaky thing about your analogy is I think why people would want a trans actor instead is bc there's so few roles for trans women. That's the argument I think.

But overall yeah, I get your point. Even just a decade ago no one would blink about it. And yeah, to carry a major movie no studio would do that in 2010s. I do think in the near future that will change though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corbindallas

I'm with you. The only shaky thing about your analogy is I think why people would want a trans actor instead is bc there's so few roles for trans women. That's the argument I think.

But overall yeah, I get your point. Even just a decade ago no one would blink about it. And yeah, to carry a major movie no studio would do that in 2010s. I do think in the near future that will change though.

---

It is critically important that you draw that distinction. To me, mainstream trans acceptance means that it does not matter if a person is trans...they should be hired on their ability to act in any role. If you were going to hire a short white man to play a lawyer on a show or movie, for example, why not hire Eliot Page as that character with no regard for the fact that he as a person is trans. If you need a hot blonde for your rom-com, why does it matter if the actress you hire has a dangle or a gash?

Once we start hiring trans actors for any role, we can finally live in a world that didn't initially reject a blonde Bond or isn't hasgtaging NotMyAriel because a black woman is playing the little mermaid.

I agree that in large part, trans actors will probably gain notoriety for trans roles but that has more to do with producers and casting agents limited purview and less about their acting chops; therein lies what needs to change. It isn't wrong the Eddie was the Danish Girl...it is wrong that a trans-actor would never have been considered for the role of Mary Jane Watson in the next spiderman movie.

But as many have said already, we are slowly moving towards greater acceptance or perhaps just forced tolerance in some cases (since bigots be bigots) but again, it should be about where we are going, not ret-conning old things.