BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Zoolander 2

**Posted by Russell** November 23, 2015 8:21 pm

Yes, to both of you!

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** November 23, 2015 8:33 pm

I have actually been pondering about this a lot... If this is a bad representation of the trans community. My heart beat for those people and for what they go through and risk daily... I have even felt it myself since I apparently look a bit 'trans' to sone people (though I usually take pride, knowing how stron and brave trans people are).

Like it's already been said we only have a trailer yet so we won't know what the full extend of this character.

We know how Ben feels about LGBT rights so I really doubt Ben would do anything to offend or ridicule the community.

**Posted by Ah-chie** November 23, 2015 9:09 pm

I am very glad you brought this up Russell.

I think people like the one who started the petition will only accomplish one thing when all is said and done - alienate open-minded, generous thinking, allies (like Ben) who are sympathetic to gender issues and yet are being put down without any true examination of the facts behind the satirical movie.

I don't like the feeling I get when I see a petition like this about a movie hasn't even been viewed yet. Someone (who is virtually anonymous other than a name that could be fake - who knows???) has sat as judge and jury and demanded that others not go to this film because basically they don't like it. That smacks of pre-ordained censorship. It also reeks of self-righteousness and a hostility towards someone who doesn't have any history of being intolerant.

I watched the clip and all I saw was a satirical bit that was poking fun at people (the characters played by Stiller and Wilson) who are an anachronism in today's society. Comparing this clip to "blackface" is outrageous and just shows me that the person behind this petition has no true understanding of that term and its context.

If this sort of thing snow-balls and is successful (think of the reaction to the movie Stonewall) then where does this leave artistic freedom? People are always saying on this board that they want Ben to make interesting, edgy films (and comedy as well... which includes satire). I think this role could be one that fits that bill (at least from the little clip I saw of it). But will he do something like this again if there is always going to be someone who finds loud attention getting offense with a clickworthy boycott? Will producers want to consider him for such roles if they think it will be thwarted by enraged SJWs at the BO even before the movie is out? Maybe... maybe not.

It seems to me that Ben can be very sensitive to others most of the time but there is also a feisty side to him who will just put up his middle finger and says "FU" to those who unfairly attack him. I for one wouldn't blame if he did just that.

As for the bit about a "cis" actor portraying a character like All... I completely reject that complaint. Ben is not a "cis" actor - he is an actor! He can be many roles.

If only the exact same entity were always chosen for a portrayal in a film, play or TV show that would be completely limiting and frankly ridiculous.

Think of all the magnificent performances that would be missing from our modern day culture. And that restricting would be a knife that cuts both ways. Only Brit actors can play British roles. Only Americans can play American roles. Where would that leave Maxine Peake's performance as Hamlet??? Gosh, wouldn't want that she can't become a he on stage!!! Ben can't be Alan Turing because he isn't homosexual. Zach Quinto can't be Spock because he is! Meryl Streep can't play Sophie Zawistowski because she isn't Polish. Daniel Day Lewis can't be Lincoln because he is from the UK. It just never ends. More restricting of artistic freedom.

I am very wary of trodding down that path. And I hope others would be too.

-Val

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** November 23, 2015 9:19 pm

Well put Val!

**Posted by nakahara** November 23, 2015 9:34 pm

I applaud you, Val, this couldn´t be expressed in a better manner.

Some people don´t get offended because something bad had happened - they get offended because they actually love to do so.

http://bronanthegnarbarian.tumblr.com/post/133541229755/tumblr

**Posted by nakahara** November 23, 2015 9:39 pm

Also, not everybody percieves Ben´s cameo as an insult. There are people whose outlook on these things are exactly opposite:

http://moriartysskull.tumblr.com/post/133536483977/and-heres-why-youre-wrong-about-cumberbatch

http://moriartysskull.tumblr.com/post/133580012762/as-always-you-are-overreacting-tumblr

**Posted by ukaunz** November 23, 2015 9:51 pm

An excellent, thoughtful response Val!

And good points reposted by nakahara too

**Posted by Yitzock** November 23, 2015 9:56 pm

lol nakahara (I see what that set of pictures is saying, but I will say it's good to use gender-neutral language in the correct situation).

Val, I like what you said. While I think more needs to be done for trans actors and other minorities to play characters of their identities, I do agree that artistic freedom is important. Some people are upset about Elle Fanning playing trans guy Ray or Eddie Redmayne playing Lili Elbe, that those people should be played by actual trans actors who have trouble finding work. While I see where they are coming from, I also want to see those films and I'm not really offended, especially since those portrayals are coming from a place of respect for the stories they tell.

If Benedict does a good job on All, then it just shows that he can do different genres and different kind of characters than we've already seen. And I do hope that this negative reaction is not considered too hard by the filmmakers, as far as not portraying certain characters. Them taking it into account for better representation in the future is good, shutting down attempts to have certain characters is bad.

I'm sure Benedict will let the water roll off his back, he is good at that and generally doesn't get caught up in the fanbase to any extreme. I'm interested in seeing what his interview for this film will be like, to hear what he has to say about the experience of playing the character and interacting with the people who created them.

And yeah, Stonewall...that really blew up. While, again, I saw where the people were coming from, I still think the Stonewall riots are and important piece of history and any effort to educate more people about it should be valued. Even if it wasn't the most accurate, it is a fictional film and not a documentary. If someone is interested in that topic, they will research it and learn more about it. While I think filmmakers should strive for accuracy and representation when possible, I also understand the importance of art and using it for expression and there is some room for choices to be made. Perhaps Stonewall was deeply flawed, but I don't think Zoolander 2 should get the same flak from a few seconds in a trailer. We really do need to see more. We need the piece in its entirety before we can know for sure what it is saying.

**Posted by Zatoichi** November 24, 2015 11:34 pm

Ah-chie wrote:
I watched the clip and all I saw was a satirical bit that was poking fun at people (the characters played by Stiller and Wilson) who are an anachronism in today's society.

That´s the impression I got, too. Zoolander and Hansel are being brilliant exhibits for "old" and "lamé" (^^), while All is beautiful and "so hot right now". In my opinion Benedict´s portrayal could only be considered cartoonish if he appeared like that in a serious movie, but within the Zoolander-universe, which is very over the top in itself, it is not. A trans-actor would portray All just as eccentric and "cartoonish", because that´s just what Zoolander does. So while you could ask why they didn´t cast an actual person of that identity I don´t think choosing Benedict (who is "so hot right now" in real life ^^) shows anything but respect and acceptance..

**Posted by Russell** November 26, 2015 6:25 am

Wow… came back to some great thoughts on this… thanks! Argh… exactly what I wanted to say… especially well said Val, and the tumblr links about how the point is being missed a little. Really awkward sometimes… I want to be sensitive (especially with being frustrated with the hate out there), while I don't really have those issues present in my head a lot or deal with first-hand like some do (or, as was the argument, the stereotypes and frequent/ignorant questions usually asked)… but there also seems to be those being a little overly sensitive, maybe? Like… I completely took the 10-second bit (and again, judging the movie by 10 seconds!) as satirical against Derek and Hansel and the fashion industry, too, not trans people! If anything, I was going more 'what in the?' at Ben's strange look! So yeah, thanks for the input. Hopefully things will get balanced a bit with minority people getting more roles or thoughtful coverage on their issues while the industry not being skittish about boycotts/offending with exploring that stuff in the first place.

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** November 26, 2015 6:53 am

Yes because the alternative is censorship, which I find difficult to support...

**Posted by nakahara** December 17, 2015 12:46 pm

**Posted by SusiGo** December 17, 2015 1:38 pm

Heavens!

**Posted by mrshouse** December 17, 2015 1:41 pm

Aw, both their faces are absolutely priceless!
Great actors in their respects .

**Posted by Yitzock** December 17, 2015 1:50 pm

Benedict looks pretty.
What magazine is that from?

**Posted by nakahara** December 17, 2015 1:58 pm

Yitzock wrote:
Benedict looks pretty.
What magazine is that from?

It´s Total Film Magazine:

https://twitter.com/cumberbatchweb/status/677418533408632832

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** December 17, 2015 2:09 pm

Ben is beautiful! Wow!

**Posted by besleybean** **Online!** December 17, 2015 5:42 pm

My new favourite image!

**Posted by IBelieveinSH** January 10, 2016 2:27 am

It makes me sad that people are boycotting the film before even seeing it. Why are people so sensitive? It's a COMEDY. Do comedies depict anyone "properly"? You don't see men calling out all the roles that depict them as lazy, worthless, cheating....etc. Or women upset and banning films because they depicted a woman as slutty. Why can't these people that are offended by the trailer look at what else is portrayed? That a trans is the HOTTEST and #1 model in the world and played by an amazing actor with respect for LGBT community, not someone that thinks it's a joke. Looks like 2016 will once again be the year everyone was offended. *sigh*

**Posted by Yitzock** January 10, 2016 2:38 am

While the example of "slutty" woman characters can still be a problem (it depends on your example, but it can be a problem), I do understand your point. A trailer is not enough to judge an entire film, especially a character we see in the trailer for a few seconds and nothing else. And as I've already said, trailers are heavily edited, so it makes it hard to tell what will actually be in the film and what we are falsely being led to believe. We have to wait and see the whole thing.