Tag Archives: scarlett johansson

Scarlett Johansson and Minority Representation on Film

A few days ago, Scarlett Johansson was announced as the lead in a new movie called Rub & Tug about Dante “Tex” Gill, a transgender man who owned a massage parlor and became involved in mob crime. The casting of a cisgender actress to play a transgender man has generated an angry buzz, only heightened by a Johansson rep’s reply to it: “Tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto, and Felicity Huffman’s reps for comment” (cisgender actors who have played transgender characters onscreen). In the wake of this conversation about what it means to have a minority character represented by someone outside the group, I thought this would be a good time to talk about this subject in film history.

When the Hays Code first came into being in 1930, the code explicitly forbade miscegenation onscreen, which was defined as “sex relationships between the white and black races.” This applied not only to what was depicted on film, but also in who was allowed to play which parts, opposite whom. If a leading man was black, for example, the leading lady also had to be black. If he was Asian, the leading lady had to be Asian, if he was white, the leading lady must be white. In order to tell the stories that they wanted to tell, starring the celebrities that would make them the most money, the studios were frequently pushed to put actors in blackface or yellowface, thereby creating films that was marketable–but outrageously offensive. Films such as these were frequently picketed by the NAACP, but for many years the studios found the picketing a small cost compared to the box office revenue from the films, and they had little motivation to do anything about the racially charged nature of the films coming out of Hollywood.

Screen Shot 2018-07-05 at 10.50.53 PM

[IMAGE: Anna May Wong in a jeweled headdress, looking off camera.]

Meanwhile, careers were suffering. Anna May Wong, one of the few leading ladies of Asian descent in Hollywood in the 1930s, left for Europe out of frustration with the anti-miscegenation laws that governed how she could work onscreen. In Europe, she made a huge splash with such films as Piccadilly and Pavement Butterfly, but after her return to the United States when she signed a contract with Paramount, she could only be paired as a leading lady alongside Sessue Hayakawa–while Asian and Asian-American roles opposite white actors had to go to other white actors. Instead of procuring her onscreen roles, Paramount gave her a job as a tutor to teach white actors how to “act Asian” for their parts. The final straw came when the role of Chinese farmer O-Lan in The Good Earth went to Luise Rainer opposite Paul Muni. Wong had had it with Hollywood, and from then on only acted in low-budget films to finish her contract with Paramount, in later years donating her profits to United China Relief.

In 1942, the NAACP succeeded in its efforts to convince Hollywood to stop creating stereotypical characterizations of minorities, and to hire more African-American talent, but the anti-miscegenation laws continued. The role of Julie LaVerne in the 1951 version of Show Boat, a story that deals with the interracial relationship of a white man and a singer with African-American ancestry, was given to Ava Gardner instead of Lena Horne. In 1951, you could depict an interracial relationship–but not with an actual interracial couple.

Lena Horne sings “Can’t Help Lovin’ Dat Man” from Show Boat, in the movie Till the Clouds Roll By (1946)

Fortunately, these rules are now long gone in the movies. But their influence still echoes, in the desire to stick with already-established personalities who will bring profit to the movies, rather than prioritize authentic casting. While it is now widely recognized that white actors cannot play characters of color, the same understanding does not yet exist for transgender characters or disabled characters. When the movie Wonder came out last year, starring Jacob Tremblay as a young boy with Treacher Collins Syndrome, I couldn’t help but think how many kids with Treacher Collins would have loved to star in a movie about a child with their disability. Or how many aspiring young actors with the syndrome could have played that role to perfection, and were denied a chance at employment. Like the limited opportunities afforded minority stars in the days of the Hays Code, this tendency to procure big names over authentic casting is costing many actors their livelihoods, and the right to tell their own stories.


Marlee Matlin made her screen debut in Children of a Lesser God (1986), and won the Best Actress Oscar as a deaf actress playing a deaf role. She remains the only deaf performer to have won the award.    [IMAGE: Marlee Matlin signs in the dinner scene from Children of a Lesser God]

There is no dearth of transgender actors in Hollywood. The cast of Transparent, using authentic transgender casting, has earned numerous accolades and awards. Its stars, most previously unknown, have become veritable names in the industry. Had the producers of Rub & Tug managed to look beyond the reflex appeal of Scarlett Johansson and take a risk on an unknown transgender actor, they almost certainly would have found one, able to tell his own story truthfully and honestly. But as long as Hollywood plays it safe, continuing to recycle its moneymaking stars with no attention to authenticity, we will continue to see mere imitations and stereotyped portrayals on the screen, and miss out on witnessing potentially spectacular untapped talent.

There is an oft-repeated phrase in the disability rights community that has made its way into the LGBT rights movement–“Nothing about us, without us.” The producers of Rub & Tug would be wise to take that into consideration.


REVIEW: “Hitchcock” (2012)

In modern times, the backdrop of classic Hollywood is often used to convey a sense of glamor, chicness, and style. Made-for-television movies about classic Hollywood stars have abounded in recent years, and filmmakers often place accuracy and respect for their subjects on the back burner, preferring to focus on opulent aesthetics to catch the viewer’s eye. The quality of these films generally ranges from barely adequate to completely disastrous, and Lifetime’s recent release of the train wreck Liz & Dick has magnified the issue and made many classic film fans extremely upset.

Though theatrical releases historically have not been much better, the past few years have seen an upswing in the frequency and quality of classic Hollywood’s representation on film. Beginning with The Aviator in 2004 and reaching an absolute creative apex with The Artist last year, there has been a steady increase of films created as odes to classic Hollywood in and of themselves, with details carefully adhered to and history accurately portrayed.

I went to see Hitchcock with an open mind. I have high standards for films dealing with classic Hollywood, and I was equally prepared for a Liz & Dick situation as I was for a triumph like The Artist. What I got was neither extreme, but rather an overall well-made, well-acted film with a great sense of fun and creativity, focusing on the filming of Psycho based on Stephen Rebello’s non-fiction book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho. Hitchcock plays much like an episode of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, with the character of Alfred providing a clever intro and outro to the movie.

The filming of Psycho was a difficult one. Hitchcock was plagued by problems with the studio and with the censor board, and seemingly all odds were stacked the film, his pet project. Anthony Hopkins plays a very convincing Hitchcock, pursuing the realization of the film with all the calm determination that characterized his personality. His talented wife Alma, who all too often gets pushed aside in discussions of Hitchcock’s life and work, is played aptly by Helen Mirren. Though the character of Alma is rather more sexualized than her real life counterpart, Mirren’s take on Alma is that of a caring but rather dominating wife, concerned about getting older and seeking an outlet for her considerable talent as a writer and director. Outside influences on their marriage add another layer to the story, and the end result is a tight, thoughtful plot that interweaves the personal and professional life of Alfred Hitchcock.

Alfred and Alma Hitchcock.

Hopkins and Mirren as Alfred and Alma Hitchcock.

I would not be surprised if this movie were to be a contender at the Oscars this coming year. Hopkins deserves a nomination as Hitchcock, and I would also venture to say that Mirren’s depiction of Alma will get some attention. I recommend this movie to anyone interested in the life of Alfred Hitchcock or his movies. Though it is not as groundbreaking or noteworthy as The Artist, it gives the viewer a good piece of entertainment and some informational value to boot.

See you next time!