bananaking21 said:
No. That definition is deeply flaughed. A 6 year old kid can't play the role of a maniacal serial killer. He can try, but he would fail miserably. And that's basically him playing something he is not. So your point of view of imvalin.
The goal of an actor is to play a role effectively and convincingly. And to do so requires actor to be the same gender, race, and age of the character. A 6"4 black dude with six packs can't play a teenage Asian school girl no matter how good an actor he is. |
Your counter-argument is really weak because it's purposefully ridiculous. I'll have you know that I actually do prefer for Hollywood to cast actors that can more easily relate to or fill in the role. In cases like this, it allows a more diverse set of people to become stars in Hollywood, and using someone who is already popular is a very boring move. However, the reason I'm arguing against the controversy is because it is overblown. It's one thing to prefer a more authentic actor to character experience, it's another to go out of your way to make a really stupid point by using the example of a 6 year old (who barely has a conscious as it is) to validate the opinion that an adult isn't capable of playing a Transgender person, even with all of today's special effects and advancements.
I mean your point is so bad that you literally say "And that's basically him playing something he is not." Oh really? As opposed to actually being a serial killer? Are most serial killers in movies actual serial killers?
Let me guess, your response will be "What I meant was he's playing something he possibly never could be, he's a kid so he can't possibly play a serial kil-" yeah, that's the point. He's a kid, he doesn't have the acting talent to possibly play something that different. Again, your point is ruined.
Scarlet Johansson playing a transgender person isn't even close to a white guy playing a black guy. Again, these points are so bad I really shouldn't be spending the time addressing them.
