Filed under: Movie News

Hollywood's Ball-less Decision: Kidman as a Transsexual Male

And you thought it was a gutsy choice...

David Frank knows more than you. Care to disagree?

Gasp! Nicole Kidman plans to marry Charlize Theron and go faux-tranny in The Danish Girl. Yep, nut-less Kidman will jump in the role of Einar Wegener, the first man who underwent a sex-change operation. Hurry, someone grab James Lipton and his 10-foot tall stack of note cards. What a courageous, novel choice on the filmmaker’s part! And how titillating! Ooo-la-la. Kidman and Theron and the more than likely artsy-fartsy sex scene. I hope MrSkin.com is adding some more bandwidth.

Yep, those are the two main strains of opinions bellowed across the web when news of Kidman's casting broke. Either shock and fawning or pure meat-head mentality. What you didn't hear was many people calling bullshit on the casting. Well, bullshit, bullshit and bullshit.

Since Brokeback Mountain inexplicably lost to the opus of superficiality that is Crash at the Oscars a few years ago, there has been a growing belief among many that Hollywood's comfort with homosexuality is nothing more than a mirage betrayed by the reality of its product and environment (why are you still in the closet Mr. S—–?). A fine argument can be made for that theory. Yet, when it comes to material featuring transgendered individuals, there's no doubt Hollywood locks itself in the safe room.

More often than not when a male actor goes girly for a role, the character is your stereotypical movie drag queen, flamboyant, yet harmless, and somehow imbued with miraculous super-powers to transform the lives of the average, non-fabulous citizens. I half expect most movie drag queens to ride into the story upon a flying unicorn that farts out rainbow lightening. It's a condescending framing of the transgendered community and it's the way most Hollywood, and non-Hollywood films, render men dressed as women.

I'm sure The Danish Girl plans to avoid this pitfall. The film sounds like Oscar bait rather than To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. Yet, even though it's an indie, the casting of Kidman as a guy-gone-girl transsexual is a symptom of shrewd, safety-first Hollywood studio mentality. You can almost hear the financiers. She's a star! She'll boost box-office! She'll create instant publicity in a role like this! So it's not brave or novel casting, but a rather ball-less decision obsessed with the bottom line.

However, it also exemplifies a much crasser trend than the lovable drag queen stereotype. It's the Victor/Victoria casting couch where you have a woman play a man who portrays a woman. It's Hollywood saying we think you might freak if a man dresses up as a woman without any wink-wink towards the camera. We're afraid you won't stomach it for 2 hours. So instead, we'll comfort you by casting a sexy actress to do a Victor/Victoria routine, which guarantees you grannies in the audience won't get too weirded out and you proud heterosexual men will still feel secure with your sexuality if Kidman's character gives you wood.

The filmmakers of the mind-numbingly superficial Transamerica pulled a similar stunt by giving the film's lead role of a male-to-female transsexual to Felicity Huffman. Why isn't this akin to Ben Affleck taking on the lead role in a James Brown bio-pic? Sure, it lacks the offensive minstrel show roots synonymous with black face, but nonetheless it feels patronizing and not quite right all the same.

Despite caking on pounds of Nutty Professor putty makeup to conceal her natural femininity, Huffman still came off as overtly self-conscious and unconvincing as a man-turned-woman (screw the several award nominations) – just as I'd expect a tanned Affleck to fail in convincing me he's the Godfather of Soul. So if you cut out all the financial and audience comfort zone reasoning from the equation, why would anyone hire Huffman or Kidman and man them up in makeup when the more logical and honest path to these characters is hiring talented male actors and prettying them up? I honestly don't know. It doesn't make sense on a creative level. It's artistically dishonest. Especially when considering the filmmakers of those oh-so rare, serious transgendered-themed films such as The Crying Game, Soldier's Girl and Boys Don't Cry, filled the gender-crossing roles with actors whose sexes matched those of which their characters started as, resulting in superbly credible performances.

Yet, those successful casting stories won't deter spineless filmmakers from miscasting similar roles in the future. Nor will it cause some actors such as Kidman to pause and reconsider taking these roles. Kirk Lazarus would be proud.


Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

With more than a little bit in the way of intimate knowledge on this subject matter, and while I can agree with some of your sentiments, David you are 100-percent wrong about Huffman. This is one of the more thoughtful, emotional and utterly realistic portraits of trans person ever put to screen, and along with Steven Mackintosh in "Different for Girls," Lee Pace in "Soldier's Girl," Hilary Swank in "Boys Don't Cry" and Clark Gregg in "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" is easily one of the most affecting and most lived-in performances in regards to the topic you are ever going to find.

For me, it is the performance that matters. While I tend to think it is more realistic and honest for a male actor to take on a MTF trans character (like Tom Wilkinson did so beautifully in "Normal"), I just as equally believe this does not always need to be the case. As long as the representation is honest, true and doesn't resort to cheap stereotypes, I'm all for as many genuine depictions of the trans community onscreen as you can find. If it takes "stunt" casting like Kidmans for this to happen, then so be it, because without her involvement I really do not see how this story A) would get any sort of attention from mainstream audiences and, B) would probably even get made in the first place.

If these stories are not told I don't see how we can ever get people to understand the situations so many trans individuals face and the journeys they have had to endure during their lives. The road to gender acceptance is far from an easy one and it is littered with doubt, despair and depression. But there are many triumphs, too, victories along the way that have made this community stronger and more vibrant than ever before. As long as filmmakers tap into the emotional wellspring, as long as they don't belittle and mock in ways that are hurtful and ignorant, I don't really care who plays these characters; all I care is that they get it right.

(Incidentally, of the actors listed about Mackintosh's is by far the most true-to-life and genuine, and even if the movie resorts to easy cliche and cheap melodrama during the climax this actor's performance is easily beyond reproach.)

- SaraMichelle
( November 12th, 2008 | 1:42 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

SaraMichelle said: If these stories are not told I don't see how we can ever get people to understand the situations so many trans individuals face and the journeys they have had to endure during their lives.

I always think this is an interesting argument for any one group and it is certainly a valid one, but from what I can tell it is one that doesn't make one bit of a difference. I know that is an extremely negative way to look at it, but the biggest problem is that the people that need to be affected by a story such as this or say Transamerica or the likes of Brokeback Mountain or the upcoming Milk, won't go see it based solely on their bias. I've been having a similar argument over on my blog (read here) and I hope society will wake up and realize people are people, but it looks like it is going to take a LONG time unfortunately.

It's like I said about Prop 8 in that blog story, I can't believe how offended I am by Prop 8 and I am not even gay. It's a sad state of affairs if you ask me.

- bradbrevet
( November 12th, 2008 | 3:18 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

David this is a very heartfelt and smart piece, and as someone who deeply cares about trans issues, I am always happy to see people be critical about trans representations -Hollywood or otherwise.

However, this story I find to be a bit more complicated than a "trans" story. I am not suggesting that what I am about to write has gone into the thinking of the producers, but nevertheless here is my argument about why it might be equally subversive to have a "woman" -Nicole Kidman- play the part.

Einar Wegener -Kidman's character- is someone who lived first part of their life as a man, and went through what was considered to be the first sex exchange operation, true. But Wegener had a condition referred to as the Kleinfelder's syndrom, and that is what complicates this story. Kleinfelder's syndrom is described as a condition only seen in "men", and here is a list of characteristics: These people have an XXY chromosome structure, sparse facial and hair, enlarged breasts, a small penis and small testicles, and they do not produce sperm. What all this makes me think of right away is whyand how it was decided to refer to Kleinfelter's people as "men with an extra X chromosome" and not "women with an extra Y chromosome." These people have quite a bit of the female secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts and sparse hairless etc.), and most importantly they do not produce sperm. Biologists categorize species into male and female according to the size of the gametes they produce. Larger gametes are called egg and smaller ones are called sperm, and of course we know who is supposed to produce what. In any case, a human being who does not produce neither cannot be categorized as either. The existence of the smaller penis and testicles might have been the reason why these people are assigned male at birth, however today we know the huge problems that arise with categorizing genitals neatly into male and female from intersexuality.

Also, it is interesting Kleinfelter's it is considered a genetic "abnormality" even though it is reported to be seen in every 1000 men. I even read a statement that said "a very common genetic abnormality" which made me smile given the contradiction.

All this makes me be very skeptical about the neat categorization of people with Kleinfelter's syndrome into the "male" category. This I partly attribute to what happens in the case of intersexed: instead of revising our understanding of gender and genitalia, it comes much easier to enforce random abstract "standards" upon actual bodies. It seems much more unacceptable to let people decide their gender later in life. In the specific case of Kleinfelter's, however, I also cannot help to think that this culture's fear of masculine women has to do something with this.

In any case, as I said, I have no idea if any of this went into the thinking about casting -my guess is not. I think Kidman will have to pull of an amazing performance, which I trust she will. Though when it comes to the politics of the case, I find it equally, if not more, subversive to have Kidman play this part. And I hope that this will make a lot of people think about bodies, sexuality, and gender once again.

ps: I have to admit that I still have not read the book, i just know the story. I am sure there are more details that complicate everything I wrote above…

- Evren Savci
( December 20th, 2008 | 4:07 am )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Nine ~ TV Spot
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!