Was the story and character relaistic. I want more TG stories.
I'll probably still see it either way [NO SPOILERS, PLEASE] cos it got very good reviews, but just wonderring if the story is rwealistic/typical?
I thought some of the supporting players were a BIT cliched and i found the was the main character was drawn at first (the kind of hyper-proper routine) to be a bit...I dunno, maybe reinforcing of a kind of silly stereotype?
BUT Felicity Hoffman does a really convincing job with the part and as her character grows over the course ofthe film you get to a place where you really do like this person that started out so brittle - which is, to me, what makes the story ultimately work because you can see that even for all the effort that's already been put in, she really doesn't entierly know yet how to relax in her new identity and that's what she gains over the course of the film.
Still, as good a job as she did (and the roles of her therapist and the cowboy were both REALLY well played) there were moments that I found particularly uncomfortable. It's not a perfect film, or even a perfect trans film, but I think most of us would like it.
It starts off a bit flakey I thought, but it's a good movie really.
I also agree with Laura, some is too stereotyped, but in many ways really did capture a lot of what we go through. Even if you aren't trans it makes for a good movie.
I agere with Laura and Leslie. The thing I found interesting about it was that it would be a good story and a good film, even if the main character wasn't trans.
Yeah, it could have been better, but their treatment of the main character was really good. She was far more complex than in the the usual CD or "->-bleeped-<-" film. I think it's worth seeing.
- Kate
I think they really, really wanted to make a good movie, one that was accurate, to the point, and (of course, since it's the reason they make 'heartfelt' movies in the first place) could reach out and make a specific topic (transsexualism) more general (being who you are supposed to be) and thus reaching out and helping people 'understand'.
So they managed to make it 'very real' - these are all people you might actually meet, it's not ->-bleeped-<- freak show time, but like all real people, their lives are not necessary good cinema because of it.
Reese Witherspoon owes Felicity Huffman her Oscar however, Ms. Huffman was amazingly good at being that person.
was seen as an abomination by others.
Perhaps by those that see abomination under every rock and behind every tree, but I just checked with IMDB* and skimmed five pages of reviews and never found a negative thing said about it (and that's rare at IMDB), most focus, as any film buff would, on the Huffman and Segers acting work, but everyone liked it, or at least didn't hate it.
*Internet Movie DataBase, for film freaks like myself, its a well worn tab on my Firefox. Aside from all the film credits (all hyper linked) and the usual stuff, it also has a good quotes section, a list of awards, a goof posting (for people who watch way too closely) and my favorite, because so many times I've been watching a movie and wondered, where are they shooting that, a list of filming locations.
Quote from: tekla on August 12, 2009, 07:42:01 AM
was seen as an abomination by others.
Perhaps by those that see abomination under every rock and behind every tree, but I just checked with IMDB* and skimmed five pages of reviews and never found a negative thing said about it (and that's rare at IMDB), most focus, as any film buff would, on the Huffman and Segers acting work, but everyone liked it, or at least didn't hate it.
Well then, let's don't let Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber and Michael Savage find out then! :laugh:
Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber and Michael Savage
Speaking of things found under rocks....
I thought it was ok but not great, though as someone noted, I think it aimed high. It just didn't quite get there.
The main character bugged me a bit cos she does what a lot of real transwomen do, and that is overdo the femme stuff. And yes, she was kind of Miss Prim at times. But that's the character. So I'm saying she portrayed the character as intended, but that kind of character makes me twitchy. However, I did laugh at and enjoy the scene where she is shopping for a sleeping bag and they are all dark green and brown and stuff, and she wants to know if they haven't got a pink one. :laugh:
That sleeping bag scene reminded me of the last time I went shopping for male clothing, which would have been in 2001 or '02. I wanted a turtleneck sweater and went to the men's dept. I found that I could have any color I wanted, as long as it was white, black, dark green or brown. Then I went past the women's clothing on the way to check out, and there was every color under the sun. I thought, "this is retarded, I'm never buying men's clothing again. And I never did.
It was an okay movie. I'm glad they cast a female in the role. Most other movies with a trans character I have seen have a man with an NFL player's body portray the trans woman. Using women in these roles is a step in the right direction, but I was annoyed with the makeup job they gave Huffman. She's a very attractive woman, but they really uglified her face for some reason. It distracted me through the entire film.
Quote from: ilikepotatoes on August 12, 2009, 09:29:36 AM
It was an okay movie. I'm glad they cast a female in the role. Most other movies with a trans character I have seen have a man with an NFL player's body portray the trans woman. Using women in these roles is a step in the right direction, but I was annoyed with the makeup job they gave Huffman. She's a very attractive woman, but they really uglified her face for some reason. It distracted me through the entire film.
Which begs the question should they have cast a woman, a man or a mtf in Hoffmans roll?
I enjoyed the movie overall and would watch it again.
=-{LR}=-
Quote from: Ladyrider on August 12, 2009, 11:18:06 AM
Which begs the question should they have cast a woman, a man or a mtf in Hoffmans roll?
I enjoyed the movie overall and would watch it again.
=-{LR}=-
I think it should have been done entirely with puppets.
should they have cast a woman, a man or a mtf in Hoffmans roll?
OK, I'm going to go real slow here, but here goes. As it turns out, Raymond Burr was not a lawyer, never went to law school at all - still, he was Perry Mason. The people on CSI are not scientists, the people on Law and Order are not cops. It's called acting. They were interested in casting her as the actor in that role, and her alone in that part, its not about gender, its about talent. Who exactly is the awesome MtF actor out there who would have done better?
Quote from: tekla on August 12, 2009, 04:11:24 PM
should they have cast a woman, a man or a mtf in Hoffmans roll?
OK, I'm going to go real slow here, but here goes. As it turns out, Raymond Burr was not a lawyer, never went to law school at all - still, he was Perry Mason. The people on CSI are not scientists, the people on Law and Order are not cops. It's called acting. They were interested in casting her as the actor in that role, and her alone in that part, its not about gender, its about talent. Who exactly is the awesome MtF actor out there who would have done better?
Dear me... Thank you for going real slow for me, it's easier for me to understand that way, you are such a dear. I would never have guessed
"Raymond Burr was not a lawyer, and that he never went to law school at all or that the people on CSI are not scientists, or the people on Law and Order are not cops."I don't even really know who the awesome MtF actor is or if in fact there is one. In fact I don't even know if they asked for any MtF to audition for the part. I was simply asking for opinions. I guess I'll take that as yours pumpkin.
-={LR}=-
I read somewhere that Felicity Huffman named her prosthetic cock "Andy."
Hollywood types don't make 'movies', they do projects. Most of the time the star is in place before the project is pitched to investors, its a package deal. And I say that because I'm amazed that we somehow expect that they should hire trans actors to play trans persons, but we don't hire cops to play cops, or lawyers to play lawyers. What's the difference?
It was good, in that it brought transsexualism into the minds of many people who didn't know much about. Was it a good movie? I didn't think so. I really didn't agree with the casting of a woman in the main role.
Normal was a much better movie. Jessica Lange, as the transwoman's wife gives an awesome and moving performance. Seeing Tom Wilkinson (who has no feminine features) playing the transwoman really drives home the point that sometimes the need to transition goes against common sense, logic, and pragmatism. There is an incredible scene where their local pastor takes a position that is totally unChristian. It also has one of the best movie lines ever, when Lange voices her frustration with her transitioning husband: "You're not a woman! Only a man could be this selfish!"
Quote from: Ladyrider on August 12, 2009, 04:43:14 PM
Dear me... Thank you for going real slow for me, it's easier for me to understand that way, you are such a dear. I would never have guessed "Raymond Burr was not a lawyer, and that he never went to law school at all or that the people on CSI are not scientists, or the people on Law and Order are not cops."
I don't even really know who the awesome MtF actor is or if in fact there is one. In fact I don't even know if they asked for any MtF to audition for the part. I was simply asking for opinions. I guess I'll take that as yours pumpkin.
-={LR}=-
well i can't think of ANY transwomen actresses? I guess they could have done the "non-professional actors who are the real character" thing, like they do for a lot of ethnic parts. Like slum dog millionare, or maria full of grace? Could work? are there any movies that do that actually?
I liked Beutiful Boxer. I saw this first before Transamerica
Quote from: tekla on August 12, 2009, 06:45:33 PM
Hollywood types don't make 'movies', they do projects. Most of the time the star is in place before the project is pitched to investors, its a package deal. And I say that because I'm amazed that we somehow expect that they should hire trans actors to play trans persons, but we don't hire cops to play cops, or lawyers to play lawyers. What's the difference?
You're right. It's as ridiculous as finding a real deaf woman for
Children of a Lesser God, or a real black man for
In the Heat of the Night. :rolleyes:
i think whether it's a reasonable idea comes down to how common the trait they are trying to depict is, if it is a really rare trait you are unlikley (staistically) to find someone who has both that trait AND is good at acting.
For males and females, over 3 billion of each, you can easily find someone the right gender of each. For black, again pleanty around. for some ethnic groups they tend to go the non-professional actor route. But for rare traits they more often (and probably rightly?) get an actor who plays the part well and adjust them to make them look like they have the trait the character is supposed to. They didn't even get a real short-guy to play LaTrek in Moulon Rouge.
They didn't even get a real short-guy to play [Toulouse-]Lautrec in Moulin Rouge.
Nor a deaf, dumb and blind girl to play Helen Keller in The Miracle Worker.
However, they did get a blonde to play Tess Trueheart in Dick Tracy! :laugh:
blondes are kinda common, especially if we count the bleeched ones.
or was that character not supposed to be blonde?
So back to my initial remark I posted earlier...
QuoteWhich begs the question should they have cast a woman, a man or a mtf in Hoffmans roll?
I really didn't expect to be ridiculed but nonetheless there are some who feel that need to justify their existence. I should have said:
QuoteWhich begs the question should they have cast:
a. A woman
b. A man, or
c. A MtF
To play Hoffmans part.
It is obvious to most that generally speaking doctors are not cast as doctors, laywers are not cast as lawyers etc. However that was not the question. I asked should a "Woman" a "Man" or a "MtF" have been cast!
It really isn't that important but just something that I thought would have brought out some inciteful opinions.
Sheeesh!
-={LR}=-
Quote from: tekla on August 12, 2009, 06:45:33 PM
Hollywood types don't make 'movies', they do projects. Most of the time the star is in place before the project is pitched to investors, its a package deal. And I say that because I'm amazed that we somehow expect that they should hire trans actors to play trans persons, but we don't hire cops to play cops, or lawyers to play lawyers. What's the difference?
Adding to that, Felicity Huffman was also in the number one rated drama series at the time of the movie's release. Having her in the lead got the movie the attention it did. If an unknown trans actor played her part, the movie would have ended up as one of the obscure trans themed films no straight person would have heard of.
That's another reason I wish they wouldn't have given Huffman a makeup job that made her look 60. She's an actress and being eye candy is part of her job and if her character was made to look at gorgeous as Hoffman is, the movie would have made the producers more money. Instead, Hoffman's character looked forty years older than the woman who was her character's sister.
I would love to see a transgendered actress make it big in Hollywood, but I don't think that's going to happen for many years for a couple of reasons.
1) Most big name actresses start their careers young and usually begin building their resume before 18. An actress's career usually peaks in her 20s, But roles become harder to get in her 30s and almost disappear at 40. When an cisgendered woman can began an acting career, even a young transitioner is still usually distracted by still being in the process of transitioning. Hopefully that will be less of an issue as we have more MtFs transitioning as children and are done with the process by 18 or close to it.
2) There's still a stigma among men that being attracted to a trans woman means your gay. No A list actor in the near future is going to want to have a trans woman as his leading lady and love interest in a film. William Baldwin had no issue with kissing Candis Cayne on primetime TV, but he's hardly A list. A Denzel Washington or Russel Crowe wouldn't want to suffer the damage to their careers that not being considered anything other than perfectly hetero manly men would bring.
OK, here is the insight - or if not insight, at least the facts where the rubber meets the road of reality.
It's as ridiculous as finding a real deaf woman for Children of a Lesser God,
Yeah, and of course, they could have gone, as they did for CoaLG to the trans equivalent of the International Center On Deafness and the Arts, or the National Theater of the Deaf that exist to train and support deaf actors. Yeah, what's the name of that Trans acting group again? Oh yeah, there isn't one. And of course, if there were such a group, like the ICODA or NTotD for trans persons you all would heavily support it wouldn't you? Just like the deaf population has organized and supports those groups.
Of course you wouldn't. My god, most of you are afraid to have your cover blown by just being around one transperson, much less a huge public display of them.
And, as good as those groups are, and NTotD is mind blowing good, and amazingly funny, they have succeeded in getting one, count them one, person into the mainstream.
Good actors - and I use the theatrical preference of a single word, non-gendered, for both male and females of the acting persuasion - can convince you of just about anything (which is why you never marry them). On a rare occasion you do get someone who really is that person. Errol Flynn was such a guy, a movie tough guy, pirate captain, extremely romantic lead who really could, and did, and loved doing it, kick major ass in a bar fight while drinking heavily and doing lots of drugs and have sex (lots of it) with teenagers while sailing his yacht the Scirocco across the Pacific. (Hence the phrase, In Like Flynn) But most movie tough guys are like Clint Eastwood, mild mannered, serious professionals who only play the part when the cameras are running.
And it's the whole cameras running deal that causes the problem. Time is money, and in no place is that truer than in making movies. Every second is the cost of the crew (large) and the rental of the equipment (also huge), plus the cost of the film and developing (ball park is $300-400 per minute, per camera) - not to mention the enormous post production costs - as well as the other costs like accounts, lawyers and cooks/craft service people that has to be paid in full, upfront, before a single penny of revenue comes in.
So that, currently, the average cost of a Hollywood movie (and we're talking average, not huge productions) is now right around $106 million dollars.
Who exactly, even in la-la land Hollywood is going to fork over $106 million dollars on something that was unproven? Now, TransAmerica was a low budget, independent film. No doubt a bargain at the mere $1 million it cost to produce.
So, who's got a spare million bucks that they can risk (and make no mistake about it, financing a film is pretty much the equivalent of taking that million bucks down to the track and betting the trifecta) on making a movie about a subject of marginal interest with unknown persons as actors? Any takers? Of course not, I read the posts here, half of you are having a hard time making rent, much less tossing around a million bucks.
Now TransAmerica made about $8 million, which was enough to cover the costs, pay back the investors, and maybe make a bit on the side. And why was that? As most of the people above have said, it wasn't an awesome movie, but Felicity Huffman (and a few other people in it) did fantastic performances that at least got the film buffs out to see it. If you go to the IMDB 90% of what is written about the movie in the 200+ comments is all about Felicity's acting job. Without her, the movie goes nowhere. Ever. And Felicity Huffman also was in at that time some TV series that was doing well, so that got some people to at least notice it.
If your good at your craft, you don't have to really be that person (method acting aside). Anthony Hopkins in real life is a perfect British gentleman, not not that evil, almost a delicious evil, as his character is in Silence of the Lambs. Though, by all accounts, Jodi Foster is very close to being Clarice Starling, minus the self-doubt. For sure many male romantic leads that make all sorts of girls squirm in their seats and get all wet were very, very gay, or at least very bi, in real life, like Montgomery Clift or James Dean.
And anymore you don't even have to be male to play a male lead, even of a very famous male. Watch I'm Not There and though most of it sucks, Cate Blanchett playing the circa mid-60s drug addled Bob is perhaps one of the great film portrayals ever. Like Felicity, she was robbed - hell she was outright mugged - by the Academy.
I didn't say they should have cast a transperson in Huffman's role. I said they should have cast a male. Like Tom Wilkinson in Normal or Adrian Pastar in Just Like a Woman.
Quote from: GinaDouglas on August 13, 2009, 06:35:58 PM
I said they should have cast a male.
??? As long as she did a good job, I'm curious as to why her sex matters. She was convincing, even though I didn't particularly like the character (somebody said it with the prim and proper business), Huffman was excellent. I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, but I can appreciate it.
Now, if you take a movie like Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (a wonderfully ridiculous movie :D), I think it was important that Terrence Stamp's character be played by a man. It fit the circumstances of the story and character, but I don't think the actor's sex matters for TransAmerica. An actor of either sex could have pulled that off, given they had the talent.
Quote from: Jaimey on August 14, 2009, 12:19:20 AM
??? As long as she did a good job, I'm curious as to why her sex matters. She was convincing
A woman looks like a woman and moves like a woman. No quality of acting or use of makeup can change that. Huffman is not even that good of an actor, certainly not of the Streep, Lange, Fields calibar. She got the part because her TV show gives her high level of celebrity that she could use to promote the film. I didn't find Huffman to be convincing in the role.
I don't think they care about 'convincing', they care about making enough money so they can make another movie.
I have the movie on my shelf. I haven't watched it yet and I've had it for over a year
Quote from: GinaDouglas on August 15, 2009, 03:58:44 PM
A woman looks like a woman and moves like a woman. No quality of acting or use of makeup can change that. Huffman is not even that good of an actor, certainly not of the Streep, Lange, Fields calibar. She got the part because her TV show gives her high level of celebrity that she could use to promote the film. I didn't find Huffman to be convincing in the role.
Actually, the fact that her husband was an Executive Producer probably had more to do with it.
Yeah, I had always thought for some reasons that the project was designed with her in mind, so that would make sense.
Quote from: GinaDouglas on August 13, 2009, 06:35:58 PM
I didn't say they should have cast a transperson in Huffman's role. I said they should have cast a male. Like Tom Wilkinson in Normal or Adrian Pastar in Just Like a Woman.
Why cast a male? The character in Normal was very early in transition, but Huffman's character was pretty far along.
Quote from: Jib on August 12, 2009, 03:27:29 AM
Was the story and character relaistic. I want more TG stories.
The acting was superb! I love Felicity. But they still showed Bree's femaleness as a facade. I didn't like that.
Quote from: Nero on August 16, 2009, 10:43:09 AM
Why cast a male? The character in Normal was very early in transition, but Huffman's character was pretty far along.
Agreed.
Quote from: Nero on August 16, 2009, 10:43:09 AM
Why cast a male? The character in Normal was very early in transition, but Huffman's character was pretty far along.
Agreed. I get annoyed when movies/TV shows cast a woman in drag as a transguy unless he's right at the beginning of transition. When they make the movie of my life, I'd rather be played by a guy (either cis or trans) than by a girl in drag.
Dennis
it had its moments that I could relate to, but the problem was what a cliched, prissy, wimpy, self absorbed dummy the main character was. I loved a lot of it, but to give out the message that we're self absorbed like that and uptight about it is just... Somewhat inaccurate, and insulting... I mean YES people are like that, but they're not the best example...
I agree that the main character was all of those things, but I don't think that she was meant to be representative of all trans people. She was a very specific character, rather than a stereotype. In her case, I think connections were made between her past and her current self. But if you think about those stereotypes, if you think about it in terms of someone who desperately wants to pass, especially if they are insecure, then they would most likely try to take on the stereotypical "female" characteristics...not that all women are prissy, wimpy, and self absorbed, but I think girls are taught to behave that way in front of boys in order to "get a man", or at least a lot of girls I grew up with act like that. My mom even told me that you should act helpless in front of men to make them feel important. ??? If that's the case (the learned behaviors), then that may have been her experience with girls when she was living as a man...it's just a theory though. It's by no means all inclusive or even remotely accurate. ;)