Posted for Gracie Fogo H03
December 05, 2021
How many movies, tv shows, and books have you seen that have good intentions but completely missed the mark due to thoughtless, uninformed writing and directing? I have seen it done with so many topics. Movies that have the saddest excuse of a “strong female lead” that is insulting and misogynistic because a man created under false pretenses. An example of this, in my opinion, is the movie that was directed and written by a man. The film is about a female FBI agent, played by Sandra Bullock, that goes undercover in a beauty pageant. While the movie tries to tell an empowering story of a badass FBI agent it misses the mark because the movie is full of sexist remarks and reduces Gracie Hart, Bullock's character, to her looks instead of focusing on her skills. This happens everywhere in the media. Someone who does not understand what they are trying to portray creates media that does more harm than good. These movies and TV shows are mostly based on serotypes instead of well-researched and thought-out plots. The solution? Letting women write and direct movies about powerful women. Cast trans individuals as trans characters and gay people as gay people. Let people of color tell their own stories.
Members of minorities look at entertainment media for representation. They seek to be able to relate to characters and the stories told on the screen. This is not easy to find in an industry that has been controlled by white, cis-gendered, heteronormative, male voices for so long. Slowly the entertainment industry is progressing but some might say it is in the wrong direction. Debates are going on concerning Hollywood's use of diverse characters and how they are casting those roles. Why should a cisgender actor receive a role as a transgender character that they have no lived experience with? There is a trans actor who would be much more fit for the role and deserve to be cast. This is an ethical debate asking whether it is right to cast a cis actor for a trans character. The same goes for a straight individual taking the role of a gay character.
Plato refers to representation as imitation, or the Greek translation “mimesis.” The word was first used to criticize poetry and playwriters for not being original when creating new characters. Plato says that representation is the same as an imitation. When you create something, you are almost always basing it off of something else, mimicking something, or comparing it to something you’ve seen before. Every director and casting agent has to decide how they want the characters to be represented. How are they going to imitate the characters on screen? When a straight actor is cast for a gay character, they are having to imitate being gay to play their character. Because the actor is not gay this imitation is based not on their own experience but stereotypes of gay people. This makes the portal of the character false and illegitimate. It makes the character less relatable to the members of the audience who are seeking true representation from this character. Why should a straight actor mimic a gay character when a gay person could easily be cast? Many philosophers had strong opinions about mimicry; “Socrates defines imitation, develops two arguments against it, and finally proclaims that no mimetic poetry will be admitted into the city that the Republic is founding.”
I don't have a problem with actors portraying characters very different from themselves, that's why it's called acting... but the problems arise when portrayals are distorted and sometimes hurtful on account of either bad acting or unsympathetic (or just uninformed) interpretations by the actors. So your point is taken, better to give those roles to actors who know what they're about.
ReplyDelete