Article written by Dylan Bell.
Recently there has been a controversy around Scarlett Johansson and the roles she has chosen to portray, the most recent being she agreed to play a transgender man and many people criticised her immensely, forcing her to abandon the role entirely. This whole fiasco got me thinking. Was what she did right? Or was she wrong for taking the role? Well, let's investigate shall we.
Firstly, why did people criticise her for taking this role? Well, that answer is simple. People who were upset about this were simply saying, why have a cisgender woman play a trans man character when there are trans actors out there who could easily play the role? That critic isn’t wrong by any means, and I do personally believe they should have chosen a trans actor to give the role more depth and reality. However, we must remember one crucial thing: to a studio making a film, landing an A-list actor is more important than an accurate actor.
What do I mean by this? Well, A-list actors like Scarlett Johansson bring in a larger audience, therefore they make more money at the box office; but if they go with an actor less well known, they lose potential audiences. I am not justifying this practice in any way, I am simply pointing out why they would prefer Scarlett, no matter how right or wrong that may be.
Something else we should consider that is vitally important, is intent. What was intended by this role, this movie – and of course, Scarlett. All my research indicates that this role was not meant to be offensive in any way, shape or form, but to portray a real-life person. I am not saying this excuses the casting choice, I am simply trying to give context of intent.
Now, we finally get to the root of this article: Was choosing Scarlett wrong? I have conflicting feelings on this matter. On the one hand, I don’t see much issue with this casting choice as she is an actor playing a role, it's her job. If we start requesting actors who have literally experienced what the character they are portraying has, then we start to go a little insane. However, I also acknowledge that this is not a normal case. LGBT people don’t get a lot of representation in film – especially transgender people – and when they do, it's not being played by a trans actor. I understand both sides, and I can see both arguments as legitimate.
In saying that, I would like to ask you all a simple question: What did you think of Love, Simon? Did you enjoy it? I certainly did. I, in fact, wrote a review praising it (check that out if you haven’t already). But did you notice something odd? The actor who played Simon is not gay; he is a straight man. Yet, I didn’t hear any of you criticise that. Now, you could say that it is a different situation, but why? Why are we okay with straight people playing gay or lesbian people, but not okay with cis-gendered people as transgender people? This is a legitimate question, and I am not certain I know the answer, so please, I’d like to hear from all of you. What do you think of this?
To conclude this article, once again I am not certain who is right in this situation. I truly do not mean to offend anyone who reads this, however I refuse to lie, and I must say that I do not know whether Scarlett Johansson made the right decision in accepting this role. Nevertheless, there is one aspect of this controversy I am certain about; if a cisgender person accepts a transgender role, there is no reason for anyone to abuse them to the severity of what Scarlett Johansson has experienced. Yes, criticise her by all means so that people learn what they can and cannot do, but there is absolutely zero reason for why actors need to be abused in the way she has been.
Comments