GMA Danish Girl Oscars Skit with Tracy Morgan doing TransFace A Massive Fail

http://planettransgender.com/gma-danishgirl-oscars-tracy-morgan-blacktrans-face-skit/

Planet Transgender/Added by Kelli Busey on February 29, 2016.

"Last night during the Oscars Good Morning America tweeted one of the most transphobic skits since the 'Estro-Maxxx' debacale. It involved actor Tracey Morgan doing a low-brow transface parody of the Danish girl, timed for maxxx exposure during the controversial awards ceremony."

Lowest of low comedy.

 

Umm... Eddie Redmayne isn't trans either. But that hasn't stopped people in these forums raving about The Danish Girl.

Quote from: Serverlan on March 01, 2016, 06:44:00 AM
Umm... Eddie Redmayne isn't trans either. But that hasn't stopped people in these forums raving about The Danish Girl.

Eddie Redmayne did his best at the role, it maybe ciswashing.

If they had of asked me to do it and said I had to spend half the film as a man and do I need to have no boobs for the topless scenes I'd have certainly declined the offer. How could anyone but a pre-everything trans play that role?

Quote from: Serenation on March 01, 2016, 06:59:23 AM
Eddie Redmayne did his best at the role, it maybe ciswashing.

If they had of asked me to do it and said I had to spend half the film as a man and do I need to have no boobs for the topless scenes I'd have certainly declined the offer. How could anyone but a pre-everything trans play that role?

Well non-transitioning trans people do exit, while (as far as I know) Redmayne's transgender status does not. Which is why I believe that highlighting the fact that Morgan isn't trans is, as far as complaints go, drawing a long bow.

Quote from: Serverlan on March 01, 2016, 06:44:00 AM
Umm... Eddie Redmayne isn't trans either. But that hasn't stopped people in these forums raving about The Danish Girl.

Exactly!

Given the trope density in the Danish Girl, I saw it as nothing more than hitching their wagon to a popular trend.  It was careless and damaging.  I get some catharsis at Tracy Morgan lampooning this.  Is this exploitative?  Yes.  Is it more exploitative than the Danish Girl?  Not really.  Is it more honest than the Danish Girl?  Yes.

People are upset 'cause he's black, or because they weren't thinking critically about the Danish Girl.  Neither position holds much sway with me.

Besides, I've always found Tracy's gender expression to be a little on the queer side...

Quote from: Serverlan on March 01, 2016, 07:56:17 AM

Well non-transitioning trans people do exit, while (as far as I know) Redmayne's transgender status does not. Which is why I believe that highlighting the fact that Jordan isn't trans is, as far as complaints go, drawing a long bow.

Redmayne answered a question from a reporter during a press conference and said doing the role of Einar/Lile had made him question his own gender identity although he refused further comment about in what way it made him question it, saying that part was personal.

I have to agree with the article.  Can you imagine the uproar if the same type of skit was done with a trans person in blackface doing say a role from The Butler. 

I think the whole point was the racism in Hollywood and they were using the nominated movies to show their point of view. I watched it on YouTube until they shut it down. I'm more mad at the fact that they shut YouTube down before too many awards were given out. I'm sitting there finding out I could watch the Oscars and was having a great time  watching Hollywood getting it shoved in their face on the world broadcast. and the sea of white faces in the audience.

Quote from: Serenation on March 01, 2016, 06:59:23 AM
Eddie Redmayne did his best at the role, it maybe ciswashing.

If they had of asked me to do it and said I had to spend half the film as a man and do I need to have no boobs for the topless scenes I'd have certainly declined the offer. How could anyone but a pre-everything trans play that role?

CGI's pretty amazing these days ;)

plus there are many actors that play roles that they would find troubling to see themselves actually become in real life. it's part of the job.

Quote from: sparrow on March 01, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
People are upset 'cause he's black, or because they weren't thinking critically about the Danish Girl.  Neither position holds much sway with me.

I'm not upset for either of these reasons.

There is a thick line between humor involving trans people and humor at the expense of trans people.

When you perform a skit where the main funny thing is that you appear to be trans, your humor is exploitative.

One of the first signs of a community standing up for itself and refusing to accept marginalization is to call denigrating humor what it is. Apparently we haven't taken that step yet.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 01, 2016, 02:26:29 PM
Apparently we haven't taken that step yet.

I don't speak for the trans community.  We're not in lockstep.  I agree in principle, but disagree on the particular example.

I view this piece in the broader context of how it appeared.  The main point of the skit was to put black people in roles originally played by white people.... and they ended up casting a cisman in a role originally played by a cisman.  It was one of several skits that were being used to criticize the lack of representation of people of color.  Was it tasteless?  Yes.  But in my mind, The Danish Girl itself was more tasteless -- at least the skit was honest about being a parody.

Could they have done a different movie and avoided throwing trans* people under the bus?  Yes, probably.  But this was made for a very worthy goal, and I think that it's morally neutral at worst.  At times like these, shouting and swearing and calling people out are only going to make things worse; further dividing marginalized communities and further marginalizing the people at the intersection of these communities.

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 01, 2016, 02:26:29 PM

Quote from: sparrow on March 01, 2016, 10:13:53 AM
People are upset 'cause he's black, or because they weren't thinking critically about the Danish Girl.  Neither position holds much sway with me.

I'm not upset for either of these reasons.

There is a thick line between humor involving trans people and humor at the expense of trans people.

When you perform a skit where the main funny thing is that you appear to be trans, your humor is exploitative.

One of the first signs of a community standing up for itself and refusing to accept marginalization is to call denigrating humor what it is. Apparently we haven't taken that step yet.

This ^^^

Being an actor is an Art that needs talent and sometimes sensitivity and sometimes lack of it to confront emotion. I remember seeing the actor (name forgotten I think Liam Neilson) in my Left Foot. Where the actor depicted the trials of being grossly handicapped. It was done with sensitivity, power and feeling. The actor won an well deserved Oscar for that performance.

No one had a handicapped skit at the Oscars following it. Nor should they.

I'm a transwoman. I'm not handicapped, though some of my sisters and brothers are. Do I have a right to 'skit' handicapped people?
Why not?

Humour is a safety valve and has always pushed boundaries. A funny joke about transgender people is a funny joke (not that I've ever heard one). Such humour can be useful.

I'm half Irish, I have heard a thousand million Irish jokes and laughed silly. I'm Australian and heard the same jokes and still find them funny.

But those jokes don't create fun at the expense of the marginalised. Handicapped people are marginalised. Muslims are marginalised. Jews were and are marginalised - I have never laughed at a Jew joke because they are not funny. I've never heard a funny Muslim joke, I have never heard a funny handicapped joke. Because they are not funny.

There is a difference between an insult and a joke.

A good comedian, as does a good actor, realises the difference.

Quote from: sparrow on March 02, 2016, 12:23:38 AM
I don't speak for the trans community.  We're not in lockstep.  I agree in principle, but disagree on the particular example.

I view this piece in the broader context of how it appeared.  The main point of the skit was to put black people in roles originally played by white people....
At times like these, shouting and swearing and calling people out are only going to make things worse; further dividing marginalized communities and further marginalizing the people at the intersection of these communities.

I'm with you on this one, Sparrow. I'm quite sensitive about such issues, but given the nature of The Danish Girl film and the intent of Morgan's skit, I find it very difficult to be offended by the latter, which was having a go at the lack of black representation at the Awards.
Morgan's skit itself isn't parodying trans people, but rather parodying a white cis male portraying, very badly, a trans person.

Certainly a large part of the skit was 'let's all laugh at the man in a dress'.  I can't get behind that. I dont understand how any of us can when it has destroyed so many of us and is part and parcel of our perceived identity as a laughing stock, something to be shamed and ridiculed, that results in deaths from suicide (as well as drug abuse, the two leading causes of death of trans people) and the general mocking and disdain for us leads to murder and hate crimes.

Quote from: BeverlyAnn on March 01, 2016, 10:36:50 AM
Can you imagine the uproar if the same type of skit was done with a trans person in blackface doing say a role from The Butler.

What would be the purpose of the black face, what would the trans person in your example be protesting, making an example of?

Quote from: Serverlan on March 02, 2016, 04:28:51 PM
What would be the purpose of the black face, what would the trans person in your example be protesting, making an example of?

Are you suggesting that it's okay to paint a trans person in a degrading light as long as you're protesting something?

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 03, 2016, 05:49:26 AM
Are you suggesting that it's okay to paint a trans person in a degrading light as long as you're protesting something?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm merely asking why someone would do black face for the sake of doing black face.

The target of the skit was a racist film academy (and possibly some very hammy acting from Redmayne), not trans people (or wild bears). I'm genuinely surprised that people here cannot make the distinction.

Quote from: Serverlan on March 03, 2016, 06:25:09 AM
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm merely asking why someone would do black face for the sake of doing black face.

The target of the skit was a racist film academy (and possibly some very hammy acting from Redmayne), not trans people (or wild bears). I'm genuinely surprised that people here cannot make the distinction.

Is it possible that I'm making the distinction quite well, but I still don't think it's ok to present a degrading image of trans people even if we weren't the target of the skit?

Quote from: suzifrommd on March 03, 2016, 06:44:39 AM
Is it possible that I'm making the distinction quite well, but I still don't think it's ok to present a degrading image of trans people even if we weren't the target of the skit?

Is it possible that we're allowed to differ on that particular point?

I was more offended by the pretense of The Danish Girl than I was of Morgan lampooning a cis representation of being transgendered.