What do you think about the movie The Danish girl?

[Sebby Michelango]

What do you think about the movie "The Danish girl" and how it portrayed Lili Elbe?

My opinions:
I thinks the movie was entertaining. I gets more known with a artist community in Copenhagen where the painters Lili Elbe and her love belongs to, the artists interests, how they works and the difference relationships that several characters in the movie develop. There are also interesting to see how open and accepting Gerda Wegner (Lili's wife) is. She's very supportive, especially for her time; 1920s.



Even though it's a bit stereotypical when it comes to gender roles in the movie, it's also "right" and natural because the gender roles were more common and stricter at that time. There were also not so much information in the 1920's about being tg, so it was natural for Lili to wishing blending in with the other people and following the stereotypical gender roles. Perhaps she liked being feminine. I understands many people are a bit critical to stereotypical gender roles, but Lili Elbe lived in the 1920s; it was a difference time. (I knows gender roles are a separate thing from being tg.)



But I thinks some of the characters' lines were a bit weird and didn't make very much sense, or they could be said in a difference ways. The movie portrays Lili in a way so it seems like she believes she is two persons instead of one person. A tg person is one person who may be in the closet and play another role, but it's still only one person, not several persons. In addition tg people are still the same person, but when they comes out of the closet , they have just done some changes in the life, not becoming a new person. Therefor I thinks how the movie portrayed Lili Elbe is a bit misleading. When the movie makes Lili seems like two people (due her lines), it gets a more drag feeling. The movie didn't meant it like that, but they could improve it next time they makes a movie about tg people.

I thinks Eddie Redmayne and the actress who played Lili's wife did a nice job. But the script could improve a bit and it's not the actors fault. I have no idea how Gerda was in real life, but I expected that she would be more upset/angry and lesser calm in certain situations in the film. I thinks it's natural to be upset in situations that you doesn't understand.



I do recommend the movie if you are interested in how working as a painter could be at that time. But the movie isn't a source you can trust at if you wants to learn about how it's being tg. The times has changed much and the movie isn't clearly.

[Virginia Hall]

I rented the film and agree the art direction, set decorations, and cinematography were super and the performers were good.

I also believe that most trans movies are made for cis people. From an economic standpoint it stands to reason. If it was made only for trans people, it would be difficult to fill the seats. Also, the GD has to be spoon fed.

Elbe in an interesting character and there were parts of the screenplay that moved the story along. At the same time Elbe seemed a bit bewildered to the point of coming off simple-minded. If Elbe had been more self-aware and conflicted, perhaps the film would have struck a cord for me. Still, how far have we come!

[Sebby Michelango]

I rented the film and agree the art direction, set decorations, and cinematography were super and the performers were good.

I also believe that most trans movies are made for cis people. From an economic standpoint it stands to reason. If it was made only for trans people, it would be difficult to fill the seats. Also, the GD has to be spoon fed.

Elbe in an interesting character and there were parts of the screenplay that moved the story along. At the same time Elbe seemed a bit bewildered to the point of coming off simple-minded. If Elbe had been more self-aware and conflicted, perhaps the film would have struck a cord for me. Still, how far have we come!

Since cis-people are the majority of the world population, it does make sense they focusing most at making the cisgender audience happy. But since the movie are pretty much inaccurate, therefor I wouldn't use it as a education tool, but rather just pure entertainment. Most parts of the movie are simplified a lot and isn't the best thing to teach you. The movies isn't so very historical corrects at several things, not only how it's being tg. The movie are also inaccurate at how many surgeries Lili Elbe underwent and what the cause of her death was including a load of other factual things.

[Amanda_Combs]

I really hate that film.  I have no complaints about the acting or set design.  But since most cis people know very little about trans* people, I am very afraid that people will confuse GD with DID, which is very not helpful.  I also feel like the directing is terrible.  Actors that I think are very talented are constantly giving cringe-worthy and hammy acting.  Probably because no one working on this film actually understands being trans*.  And I especially don't like that it gets so much positive attention just because it features a trans* person at all.  I could be totally wrong here, but I really do hate that movie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stephenie S]

It is helpful to know that the film is based on the novel of the same name.
The novel is based rather loosely on the story of Lili Elbe and her partner Gerda Gottlieb Wegner.
The author of the novel states very clearly that the story is an examination of what happens to the couple and their relationship. It is not an attempt to explain why Einar wants to transition and live as Lily. The story isn't meant to teach anyone anything about being trans.
It isn't a story meant for cis people either, it's just meant to be a story of two people who love each other and how they deal with the transition as a couple.
The true story can be found in the book Man into Woman which is based on diary entries and letters written by Lily.
In the true story Gerda was very understanding and compassionate with Einar/Lily.
It is also worth knowing that Einar lived a double life for many years, I think it was about 12 years before finally finding the doctor who could offer a surgery.
They weren't living full time until they had the first of two surgeries in 1929/30.
As for the actors, again it should be understood that they did in fact study for the roles and talked to trans women as part of that.
This film had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest where the director and actors were there for Q&A after the screening.
If you had heard them speak you would have seen that they really tried to be authentic to the times and the characters portrayed.
It is a film after all and is meant to entertain but at the same time it does open peoples eyes to our existence.
I think people get way too uptight about this film, like it's supposed to be the perfect story of what it is like to be a trans woman.
What people should be getting out of the film is the fact that Gerda loved Lily to the very end.

[BeverlyAnn]

It is helpful to know that the film is based on the novel of the same name.
The novel is based rather loosely on the story of Lili Elbe and her partner Gerda Gottlieb Wegner.
The author of the novel states very clearly that the story is an examination of what happens to the couple and their relationship. It is not an attempt to explain why Einar wants to transition and live as Lily. The story isn't meant to teach anyone anything about being trans.
It isn't a story meant for cis people either, it's just meant to be a story of two people who love each other and how they deal with the transition as a couple.
The true story can be found in the book Man into Woman which is based on diary entries and letters written by Lily.
In the true story Gerda was very understanding and compassionate with Einar/Lily.
It is also worth knowing that Einar lived a double life for many years, I think it was about 12 years before finally finding the doctor who could offer a surgery.
They weren't living full time until they had the first of two surgeries in 1929/30.
As for the actors, again it should be understood that they did in fact study for the roles and talked to trans women as part of that.
This film had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest where the director and actors were there for Q&A after the screening.
If you had heard them speak you would have seen that they really tried to be authentic to the times and the characters portrayed.
It is a film after all and is meant to entertain but at the same time it does open peoples eyes to our existence.
I think people get way too uptight about this film, like it's supposed to be the perfect story of what it is like to be a trans woman.
What people should be getting out of the film is the fact that Gerda loved Lily to the very end.

I think Stephanie did about the best job of reviewing the movie I've seen yet.  Personally I loved the movie because I saw so much of myself in Einar/Lile.  I cried through a LARGE part of the movie.  I saw it shortly before Christmas and have had a copy since it came out on DVD.  I just haven't had the emotional ability to watch it again.

[Sebby Michelango]

I really hate that film.  I have no complaints about the acting or set design.  But since most cis people know very little about trans* people, I am very afraid that people will confuse GD with DID, which is very not helpful.  I also feel like the directing is terrible.  Actors that I think are very talented are constantly giving cringe-worthy and hammy acting.  Probably because no one working on this film actually understands being trans*.  And I especially don't like that it gets so much positive attention just because it features a trans* person at all.  I could be totally wrong here, but I really do hate that movie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm agree with you in that. But the actors tried to do some research where they spoke with trans' peoples. But the directing and script is bad, in my opinion. It's not the actors fault and they did a nice job. A bad script and directing do affect the actors acting and portraying in a negative direction.

[SadieBlake]

(plot spoilers follow)

I disliked the book mostly due to a misunderstanding due to a false assumption on my part. Knowing that the plot was loosely based on the life of Lily, when I got to the part about her attempted uterine transplant I just assumed that must be where the story diverged from the truth because attempting that in the '30s was so clearly unworkable.

As such, I'd assumed this was an obligatory tragic twist and feeling the inevitable ending had been telegraphed and was a clichéd plot device.

This of course was before Wikipedia and long before Google had any links to Lili's story so there wasn't any way I knew to check then. Still I feel silly for making that assumption.

Great film, I'm still not fond of the ending.

[Steph Eigen]

I agree with what's been written thus far.  It was a well conceived film that did a reasonable job translating the novel to the screen.  The actors were superb, ably portraying the struggles and difficulties of being transgender in the early 20th century. 

One aspect I think might have been better handled is the portrayal of Lili as essentially an alter ego or suppressed separate personality needing to emerge.  It struck me how the protagonist is portrayed as alternating between Lili and Einar, "popping" in and out of character as either male or female entities.   I take this portrayal as mainly a cinematic device  necessary to develop the plot, not to be taken to literally.

This has not been my personal transgender experience and doubt it has been the experience of the majority of us who are mentally healthy, without a psychiatric diagnosis multiple personality disorder.  I, for one, have a single entirely homogeneous internal personality structure.

[Stephenie S]

I agree with what's been written thus far.  It was a well conceived film that did a reasonable job translating the novel to the screen.  The actors were superb, ably portraying the struggles and difficulties of being transgender in the early 20th century. 

One aspect I think might have been better handled is the portrayal of Lili as essentially an alter ego or suppressed separate personality needing to emerge.  It struck me how the protagonist is portrayed as alternating between Lili and Einar, "popping" in and out of character as either male or female entities.   I take this portrayal as mainly a cinematic device  necessary to develop the plot, not to be taken to literally.

This has not been my personal transgender experience and doubt it has been the experience of the majority of us who are mentally healthy, without a psychiatric diagnosis multiple personality disorder.  I, for one, have a single entirely homogeneous internal personality structure.

Steph I can understand that this seems not terribly authentic based on personal experience and agree in that way but...
Einar really did see himself as two distinct people inside one body.
Understand that in the early 20th century people did not possess the language to describe the experience.
Imagine even now how difficult it is to explain ones feelings about ones state of being to a cisgender and have them believe that you are not crazy.
I understand that this sort of characterization in the film of the experience might sound like split or dual personality but it's not meant to be.
Again I would reiterate that Einar switched back and forth between male and female presentation often whimsically for about 12 years before finally presenting full time as Lili once she had surgery.
She thought of surgery as being the validation that she needed to be Lili forever after.
The film didn't effectively communicate the passage of time so that it could be understood as a years long process.
Film making often involves compressing time and also blending two or more characters into one. Both of which were done.
Also a lot of the novel and true story were left out.
For example, Lili fell in love with a man and wished to marry him, she had to divorce Gerda because same sex marriage was not allowed in Denmark, she had two surgeries not one.
The first was to implant ovaries and although not clearly stated I'm guessing vaginoplasty as well. The second surgery was the implantation of a uterus which they had to wait on until a healthy living donor was found.
Also in the novel, Gerda or greta as she was called was previously married and came from Pasadena California not Denmark.
Thats a lot of stuff to cram into a 2 hour film.
I understand that those of us who actually live this can have disagreement with the film treatment but understanding how story telling through film is done helps.
The story did touch on some common experiences both past and present though.
The first experiences expressing ones self, struggle to find help within the medical profession, being thought of as homosexual or schizophrenic, people wanting put a label on you and lock you up, violence from men, unwanted and uninvited attention from men, discord with and losing ones partner, and the desire to transition fully and live out ones life as the person you believe you are.
I think that is authentic and remember this is for a broad spectrum of people not just cisgender people.
What also matters is that this is just one story and we all know that you can't understand the scope of this experience from just one story.
Hopefully people will begin to have an understanding if they see this film, it may prompt them to learn about the true story of Lili and then others.

[SiobhánF]

I just watched this movie the night before last and I thought it was well done.

BUT, I didn't like the portrayal of Lili as having alter egos. That just reeked of misunderstanding in my eyes.