When I saw the name Scarlett Johansson trending on Twitter the other day, I knew it couldn't be good. She was being taken down by the cyber-mob due to something she said in a recent interview with artist David Salle of As If magazine. Here's the back-and-forth which got her into trouble.
Salle: "Are we seeing an acting trend today?"
Johansson: "Hmm... We live in such a weird time that is sort of identity-less in a lot of ways. I don't know if there's a trend in performance, but there's certainly trends in casting right now. Today there's a lot of emphasis and conversation about what acting is and who we want to see represent ourselves on screen. The question now is, what is acting any way?"
Salle: "Right. Who gets to play what roles..."
Johansson: "You know, as an actor I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job."
Salle: "Yes. Must you only represent yourself, your gender, your ethnicity, or can you, in fact, play beyond these categories?"
Johansson: "There are a lot of social lines being drawn now, and a lot of political correctness is being reflected in art."
Salle: "Does that bore you? Annoy you? Buck you up? Cheer you on? I know it's complicated, there's probably not one answer."
Johansson: "You know, I feel like it's a trend in my business and it needs to happen for various social reasons, yet there are times it does get uncomfortable when it affects the art because I feel art should be free of restrictions..."
The quote in bold has been the only one garnering any attention, as many on Twitter berated the actress, claiming she was comparing a transgender role she was originally going to play in a yet-to-be-released film to a role as a tree. Was the "tree" portion of her quote kind of ridiculous and she would have been better suited leaving that out? Yes. But let's get one thing straight - Scarlett Johansson was not in any way comparing her trans role to that of a tree. She wasn't even speaking solely about her and her work. She seemed to be speaking in general terms. She was basically saying, regardless of who you are, what your age, gender, race, orientation, etc. is, as an actor, you should be allowed to play any part you so choose; that your expression, experimentation, vision, and aspiration shouldn't be limited; and with that, the art in and of itself shouldn't be at all restricted.
If I'm interpreting her message correctly, and I think I am, I have to say I completely agree with her. Why should a transgender man or woman be limited to roles as transgender characters? Why should an actor in a wheelchair be limited to roles where he or she is physically handicapped? Why should a tree be limited to roles as a tree? Okay, just kidding on that last one, but you get my point (I hope you do anyway). Actors are artists, with a talent, a freeness, a drive, and the last thing we need is for them to condense who they are and who they could possibly become.
https://www.asifmag.com/story/scarlett-johansson-david-salle-collaboration-with-as-if-magazine
Salle: "Are we seeing an acting trend today?"
Johansson: "Hmm... We live in such a weird time that is sort of identity-less in a lot of ways. I don't know if there's a trend in performance, but there's certainly trends in casting right now. Today there's a lot of emphasis and conversation about what acting is and who we want to see represent ourselves on screen. The question now is, what is acting any way?"
Salle: "Right. Who gets to play what roles..."
Johansson: "You know, as an actor I should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job."
Salle: "Yes. Must you only represent yourself, your gender, your ethnicity, or can you, in fact, play beyond these categories?"
Johansson: "There are a lot of social lines being drawn now, and a lot of political correctness is being reflected in art."
Salle: "Does that bore you? Annoy you? Buck you up? Cheer you on? I know it's complicated, there's probably not one answer."
Johansson: "You know, I feel like it's a trend in my business and it needs to happen for various social reasons, yet there are times it does get uncomfortable when it affects the art because I feel art should be free of restrictions..."
The quote in bold has been the only one garnering any attention, as many on Twitter berated the actress, claiming she was comparing a transgender role she was originally going to play in a yet-to-be-released film to a role as a tree. Was the "tree" portion of her quote kind of ridiculous and she would have been better suited leaving that out? Yes. But let's get one thing straight - Scarlett Johansson was not in any way comparing her trans role to that of a tree. She wasn't even speaking solely about her and her work. She seemed to be speaking in general terms. She was basically saying, regardless of who you are, what your age, gender, race, orientation, etc. is, as an actor, you should be allowed to play any part you so choose; that your expression, experimentation, vision, and aspiration shouldn't be limited; and with that, the art in and of itself shouldn't be at all restricted.
If I'm interpreting her message correctly, and I think I am, I have to say I completely agree with her. Why should a transgender man or woman be limited to roles as transgender characters? Why should an actor in a wheelchair be limited to roles where he or she is physically handicapped? Why should a tree be limited to roles as a tree? Okay, just kidding on that last one, but you get my point (I hope you do anyway). Actors are artists, with a talent, a freeness, a drive, and the last thing we need is for them to condense who they are and who they could possibly become.
https://www.asifmag.com/story/scarlett-johansson-david-salle-collaboration-with-as-if-magazine
Comments
Post a Comment