Ranting For Redmayne (not Rowling)

Today I am feeling pissed off about the whole Eddie Redmayne / J K Rowling controversy.

Backstory: J K Rowling has been saying stuff and written a book perceived as transphobic which I have commented on before. Personally I see this as slightly problematic on two grounds
(i) personally I think she is less transphobic and more feminist: women are being erased from the women's rights they fought to gain by a movement to avoid trans exclusion
(ii) people are failing to differentiate between trans people and bog-standard liars who are using gender identity as a screen for their wrongdoing (and as this blog is largely about acting just Google the number of films this is an element of - eg Mulan, Mrs Doubtfire, LotR). Yes, it is an unfortunate stereotype but everyone who writes of predatory males and / or nurturing females is perpetuating gender stereotypes but when we try to dictate what stories can or should be told we're on very shaky ground.
Eddie Redmayne played Lili Elbe in the 2015 film The Danish Girl - a role he was vilified for as Lili was a trans or intersex woman at the time of her death. He is now playing Newt Scarmander in the J K Rowling spin-off Fantastic Beasts series. Redmayne has also been criticised as abelist for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything (2014) which has been brought up repeatedly in this latest controversy.

Disclaimer: I am agender (biological female) and, in amongst everything else, I am pissed off that there is a new binary here - trans or cis. There is NOTHING in the narrative for agender, non-binary, genderfluid, non-conforming segment of society. These are my opinions from my point of view and I mean no disrespect to others who disagree.

First off...
The interview that's got everyone's knickers in a twist has been grossly misrepresented as Redmayne defending Rowling, as if he were supporting her comments. No, he said categorically that her comments were absolutely out of line; what he also said was that death and rape threats are totally unacceptable, whatever 'provocation' people may perceive. People might try reading the story, not just the deliberately provocative headlines.
I have seen comments not only saying that Rowling deserves death and rape threats because she's a 'public figure' but that she's a valid target because she's rich and white. I am with Redmayne on this: no matter how awful a person may be threatening violence is VILE. Just because a person is 'privileged' doesn't protect them from fear, being able to afford security doesn't guarantee protection from violence. The fact that trans people are frequently victims of violence does not make this okay either.

The criticisms against Redmayne for The Danish Girl...
CASTING
Once upon a time I went for a job as a sales assistant. I had no experience. My mental arithmetic is shaky. I have social anxiety. Did I turn down the job offer saying 'there's probably a better candidate out there'? Of course I didn't! I took the job and by the time I left (to care for my mum) 9 months later I was acting deputy manager!
Sure, actors get paid A LOT more than a sales assistant earns but if they're offered a job expecting them to refuse if kinda loopy. As it is director Tom Hooper claims he ONLY considered Redmayne for the part. Presumably he was chosen for his acting skill and resemblance (although I don't see it); presumably he accepted because he wanted to take on the challenge. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/real-reason-eddie-redmayne-was-cast-trans-woman-danish-girl-10480658.html
In a weird parallel I suppose Alan Rickman 'should have' rejected the role of Severus Snape in Harry Potter as he was way too old - but J K wanted Rickman. So they made an entire generation of characters older to match and created a bunch of timeline issues instead. Over the years I have seen some very odd casting decisions but film makers quite often know what they're doing. I am still amused that English actor Colin Firth revealed with some awe that Australian actor Guy Pearce (who I remember best from his days on Neighbours) did a better English accent than him in The King's Speech (2010).
Endlessly bitching about actors 'stealing' a role from another actor is ludicrous. Maybe some people ought to have thought twice before auditioning but a director / producer / casting agent made the most important call.

ACTING
I am really baffled by this attitude that only a trans person should play a trans character. This logic doesn't follow to other criteria. Childless people play parents, vegans play omnivores (see the fake Twinkies poor Woody Harrelson had to eat for Zombieland), innocent people play serial killers... unless Keanu reeves really is a vampire there's a serious lack of creature-of-the-night representation. Sorry, I know that's being stupid but acting is all about pretending to be someone you're not, right?! There shouldn't really be any expectation that an actor is (in any way, shape or form) the character they're playing. Probably because of being agender myself I don't read a character's gender as a defining characteristic unless it is written / played that way.
The only time I see an actor's reality being significant is when it's regarding race as whitewashing / black-face / yellow-face etc need to be things of the past. However, racial ambiguity is also a thing and if someone looks right for the part (especially in biopics) surely that is 'enough'? Colourism and racism within ethnic groups are equally problematic as the more commonly thought-of form.

DANGER OF HARM TO ACTORS
A big cause of a trans-gender person's dysphoria is the expectation that they play a certain role society has assigned to them and this can be the root of deep and lasting trauma.
I saw several comments querying what danger it would pose to a trans-woman actor to be obliged to present as male, to relive their transition process. Certainly there are actors who'd be up to the task but even so it shouldn't be taken lightly. One douchebag person on set could make it horrific; and for that actor to have their former gender onscreen, online, made into GIFs and memes... that's a helluva Pandora's Box to open.
OBVIOUSLY that should be a trans-actor's choice but I feel that the public 'demanding' a trans-actor put themselves through that is a bit much. Different if the vocal opponents are themselves trans-actors who feel they should have been cast. Meanwhile, critics are saying a cis actor (who is at near zero risk from harm in the role) is unable to understand or explore gender identity? That's pretty insulting - do you really expect an actor who plays a rocket scientist, a politician, a doctor or a lawyer to understand those roles? Probably not. Can an actor understand those roles? Quite possibly, actually. People can have a great capacity for empathy and comprehension.

ASSUMPTION OF GENDER IDENTITY
I can't find anything where Redmayne confirms his gender identity as cis/male...or cis/het for that matter. This bothers me because the Twitterati are out baying for his blood because 'as a cis/het male' he should never have 'stolen the role' from a trans-actor to play a trans-woman. He never 'stole' anything - he was given it, and assuming his gender (and sexuality) seems off to me. He could easily be non-binary or genderfluid. Why do the general public feel so comfortable in assuming who he is?!
Eddie Redmayne is 38 years old... I was about that age when I realised I was agender, which tbh I didn't know was a thing until people started on about being cis-gendered. Lots of people 'come out' far later in life, or never. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean we're entitled to know how they identify. Using a masculine name and pronouns doesn't actually mean anything about how a person FEELS. Please stop assuming someone is cis/het 'just because' they're not out 'out' as anything else. they don't have to be. And NEVER 'out' anyone - maybe they haven't figured themselves out yet.

TRANS vs CIS
Over and over I've seen the comment that trans actors ONLY should play trans characters, while cis actors should stick to cis characters.
First up, why should any actor be limited to roles conforming to their gender identity, and once a person has transitioned why should they be pigeon-holed and type-cast as a trans-actor? They should just be an actor, as any other - right?! 
Secondly, if an actor such as Redmayne were genderfluid / non-binary / whatever where would that fit in?! Not to say a non-binary person could do it any better than a cis person.
Thirdly, if gender is not binary (male / female) then it follows that gender identity is not binary either (cis / trans). So who can non-binary actors play??? Who can play a non-binary character?! If I were an actor it'd be nice to think I could 'do' a cis woman. Maybe I'm deluded (I'm certainly no actor) but it *should* be possible.
In my humble opinion the depictions that should be condemned are the humiliating, derogatory ones where a trans or ambiguously gendered character has been used and often abused 'for a laugh'. How the role is portrayed ought, imho, be more important than who played it.

As for criticisms of ableism against Redmayne...
The Theory of Everything covers Hawking's early development of Motor Neurone Disease. Exactly how are you going to find an actor with the right type and level of disability to portray a character before and at the onset of their symptoms?
I should like to see greater representation for disabled actors but I can't deny that there are logistical problems here, especially for a progressive and incurable condition. There are also psychological considerations - how does such an actor cope mentally with 'acting' their real-world traumas?
In a story like Hawking's where he was well known there is also an importance of having an actor play him who can 'pass' as him. Assuming you find a disabled actor who is physically and mentally able to take the role what are the chances of them looking like a particular celebrity?!

Cleaner Controversy

This is an old news one but it popped up on Facebook again today and although I ranted about it elsewhere I decided a blog post was probably still called for.

The story in question surrounds a 'controversial' photograph of a female cleaner being 'made to' remove pro-International Women's Day graffiti from steps at Oxford University; and the university being 'forced' to apologise for their 'gaffe' (please pay attention to all the sarcastic quote marks here)

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-43335030

1) The cleaner's gender.

• Cleaners are stereotypically women as more women take part-time low-paid work. This is not a marker of social class, intelligence, capability or 
• Has anyone asked the cleaner what their gender identity is? I am biologically female and I am agender. I will use female pronouns in this blog to avoid confusion but this is an important point.
• The assumption that as a woman she would support International Women's Day and be offended by being 'made to' clean up the graffiti. Or perhaps conversely the assumption that a male cleaner would NOT support IWD and would not be offended by the task. personally I would have been 'offended' by the twat who wrote the graffiti that I then had to clean off.

2) Being made to clean up the graffiti.

• Literally complaining about her doing her job here. 
• I've seen comments assuming that she has no choice but to work as a cleaner - assuming she has no choice in her employment, assuming she has no qualifications or skills - that may indeed be the case, many cleaners ARE unskilled and most are not earning a decent wage BUT it's still a gross assumption. I earned a degree while working as a cleaner. I have known cleaners who do the job as 'pocket money' and a way to keep fit and active. Some are mums who just want something outside the home, some are older women just killing time before claiming their pensions, others have a well-paid spouse but still want independence.
• I've seen comments that a cleaner works INDOORS ONLY...obviously the commenter has never done cleaning work. I worked in a school and did tasks such as carrying classroom furniture into the playground to scrub it all down. There were also comments about it being one of the coldest days of the year which I find incredibly condescending - like women, by biology or gender identity, shouldn't be working outdoors in the cold; this is not equality.
• I've seen comments about it being 'the patriarchy' in action - men making a woman do a menial task. See above comments about the irrelevance of her gender in the argument. Also, we do not know whether she was told to clean it off or did so as part of her regular duties, we do not know the gender of any person telling her to clean the steps, we do not know the gender of the person who wrote the graffiti.

3) The acceptance of the graffiti.

• Apparently writing in chalk all over stuff is an 'Oxford tradition' and therefore acceptable. I thought Oxford was supposed to be a world's best educational institution so why are they legitimising childish and illegal graffitiing?! Next it'll be defending pub brawls as cultural property...
• Somehow being chalk rather than spray paint makes it acceptable.
  Yes, chalk is a better medium for drawing on a surface that isn't yours - for the very relevant point that it's EASIER TO CLEAN OFF - but mostly I think that if you want to make a political statement you should be doing it without defacing someone else's property. I REALLY don't like graffiti, can you tell?! I think it can be an amazing artform but unless it's done well and with consent I do not approve.
• The fact it's "Happy International Women's Day" rather than an expletive or a crude outline of a penis makes it acceptable. IWD is not a greetings card holiday which people go around saying this phrase to each other. I wonder if there would have been a similar outcry if it had been a black cleaner scrubbing off the phrase "Joyous Kwanzaa" or a Muslim cleaner removing "Eid Mubarak"?
• Being a political statement doesn't make it somehow better than other graffiti - "Loz woz ere" or whatever. I believe in equality but the presumption that women are somehow inevitably disadvantaged in a world of men is not something I either agree with and I think it is potentially very harmful. I literally just read this article* where a man is making light of his experiences as a domestic violence survivor and I can't help but think that's because of the way men are disadvantaged in our society. Men are frequently not taken seriously regards sexual assault and domestic violence, they are less likely to win custody of their children, they get less support during many scenarios such as when diagnosed with breast cancer. Inequality works both ways and cannot be resolved by feminism.
  *http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/girlfriend-sword-attack-scared-living-poop-article-1.3876246
• Mostly I think that you do not draw or write, in any medium, on something which is not yours. My dad is arguing against me painting a mural on the side of his shed despite the fact that it's an ugly breeze block wall which forms part of the boundary wall of my garden. I wouldn't dream of painting on his property (in the sense of (i) on the grounds of his property or (ii) off the grounds on a side that isn't mine - like the roadfront side of his garden wall) but I have doubts as to whether he can control what I do on my side of the line. It's HIS shed but it's also MY boundary. If I wanted to drill holes in it and put up trellis I'm reasonably sure I could... It'd be the same with painting your side of a garden fence on a boundary you do not own.