EDITORIAL.- The increasingly common presence of transsexual characters in cinema and television series has brought an issue to the fore: Why are transsexual characters not played by transsexual actors and actresses?
And we already have controversy in sight, with defenders and detractors, with extreme positions that defend to death the white or black forgetting that there are 256 shades of gray. The claim has its origin in this moment in the interpretation of the character of Lili in "The Danish Girl" by Eddie Redmayne. For much @ s it is splendid, spectacular, for another one rubs the histrionismo in some of the scenes. Be that as it may, the choice of the actor won the repulsion of transsexual collectives who considered it inappropriate and even dangerous for the role to be interpreted by a man. Let's briefly enumerate the arguments they raise:
- Do what perpetuates the inequality situation faced by the trans community in the film industry. For the casting of "The Danish Girl" actors and trans actresses were presented, but the role was assigned to a man.
- Choose a man for the role of a trans woman feeds the confusion between transsexual
dy transvestism. In some films like "Transamerica" the interpretation of the transsexual rests in Felicity Hoffman, there is correspondence in gender between character and actress, both are women. In fact the role of Einar before transforming into Lili could have been interpreted by a woman. - The interpretation by a man feeds the imitation of "the physical" without entering so much in the psychological profile. And the only form of transsexuality that is considered acceptable is the one that gets confused between the collective cisexual, which jumps from the male to the female profile. At no time is contemplated the expression of other non-binary identities.
The list of grievances continues and are probably true and justified, but the question would be: Do we want transgender actors and actresses to be relegated to interpreting only transgender roles? Perhaps Laverne Cox lacks interpretive talent to play a woman's role? or are we going to resign ourselves to that splendid Jamie Clayton de Sense8 Are you only offered trans roles? They may seem like absurd questions, but the demands of the transsexual collective can end up being a double-edged sword. Wasn't Shakespearean theater performed exclusively by men in both male and female roles? The same situation occurred in the Japanese kabuki theater, in which young boys perform
They played the roles of women.
We do not intend to question the claims of the trans groups, only clarify that the interpretive art is and has always been that, the ability to be otr @, to incarnate another being, man, woman, hetero, trans, no matter what or who assumes a role and there is the possibility that asking transsexual people to interpret transsexual characters are limiting their interpretative possibilities. And is that not position is not well seen, not taking sides is considered cowardly, we have abandoned at the bottom of a drawer the flag of neutrality, the average term, the agreement, the consensus or at least the "except honorable exceptions". It has to be very something, a sac, seamless, tea or coffee, Barca or Madrid, active or passive, nocturn @ diurn @, beach or mountain. You have to get wet, make it clear on the side of what or who you are. But there are issues for which the extremes do not work, because they start from erroneous postulates that are dismantled to which they are subjected to a minimum of analysis, but we point to their cause because it is cool, because How are we not going to claim the rights of a minority, especially if it is the LGTBI collective?
Editorial Gayles.tv
Online TV
