Printer-friendly version
Author:
Blog About:
Just wanted to pass along a heads-up regarding the new movie "Boxtrolls" - according to reports on Facebook, the movie is very anti-trans, hitting all the low points. The villain apparently dresses up as a woman as part of his schemes, he's sexually embarrassed almost continually while dressed, when he is finally unmasked he attempts to destroy everybody while still in a dress but minus the wig, and worst of all, some of the men who were harassing him say that they dodged a bullet insofar as they didn't do worse than grope him.
If I have anything to say about it, my daughter will not be seeing this movie ...
Comments
Ugg Us
Troglodytes who live under stromatolites do not go to movies, but thanks for the eyes down warning . These are people diminishing the good name of knuckle draggers every where. Good grief you would think these folks lived in the Cretaceous period they just need to ditch the extinct mind set from their hind brain [ sorry dinosaurs } and at least think with there little [head brain].
Come on people at least come up to the Neolithic and join the rest of our illustrious kin that failed to make the Darwinian cut for survival.
Sarcasm another service I offer.
P.S.
My chisel's just got back from being sharpened I need to get this next chapter written before the stone dries and gets harder.
With those with open eyes the world reads like a book
It's an animation
for older kids. I think you might be overreacting somewhat as everything will be over the top including the villains. Are we now getting to the stage where anything that portrays us negatively has to be condemned. I'm a woman, loads of films portray women badly but it doesn't make me angry, if anything I feel more a sadness about it.
I wouldn't believe anything I saw on facebook.
Angharad
It's not just on FB.
And as much as some folks dislike social media it's here to stay. It's also done a lot of good. GIW routinely gets put in check because of social media, if we don't use our voices we lose them.
Because there's an active anti-trans agenda out there and they sure as heck will.
Bailey Summers
I'm sorry, but this just
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like staying away from Earth Girls Are Easy because it portrays blonde bimbos and stupid surfers.
If you don't want to watch the movie, that's fine, but saying it's anti-trans because it has a exaggerated stereotype villian? The "Disguising yourself" trope is just that - a trope. Lampooning it is normal.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
It's a fair warning
For many transpeople characters like that can be very triggering. I get that you think we're being too sensitive, but the sheer number of times holywood has done this just makes it seem that's exactly what we are. We're either the butt of a joke, traps, tricking people, villainous, evil, mentally unstable, disgusting.
(trigger warning!!!!!!!!!!)
After all, WHO'S AFRAID OF THE GREAT BIG BAD TRANNY?
I know who I am, I am me, and I like me ^^
Transgender, Gamer, Little, Princess, Therian and proud :D
Lampooning is normal? That's not really excusable.
Saying something that's wrong shouldn't be normal, allowing it to be normal gives the entire trans degradation trope traction.
Bailey Summers
Regardless
Regardless of the villain,the plot of movie doesn't sound like anything I'd want to watch anyway.
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
And that's the right reason
And that's the right reason to not watch a film! :)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
The point just isn't the stereotypes about trans to adults.
What the message is to young trans girls just coming to grips with things and that continued narrative they're exposed to. One animated film might not be much to some of us but just where's that tipping point when that self hate voice starts.
We need to think about these things.
Bailey Summers
A lot of good points have been made on both sides of this...
I think there are a couple of things that need to be considered here, though:
1) is the presentation in the film played off as simply a scheming angle, or as an integral part of the villain's self-identity?
2) Is the negative response in the film played off on the basis of gender expression or due to other concerns with the character?
3) Is the contents of the film or reactions therein offensive of its own merit, or only due to interpretation of the character's gender or sexual variance based on personal experiences?
These are very important questions to ask.
Let's start by looking at question 1: is the presentation in the film played off as simply a scheming angle, or as an integral part of the villain's self identity? These two ways of tackling the subject matter -- as a means to an end versus a part of who they are -- will reflect a lot on the way that the crossdressing element is being handled in the film, and how reactions to it should therefore be judged. There are movies that play from both ends of this spectrum that are well-respected in the TG or LGBT communities in general, but there are also a lot of films that play this part for laughs not with the intention of being cruel to LGBT individuals, but simply due to the inherent human interest in the juxtaposition of two seeming opposites.
A good example of the first type of film -- where expression as a gender other than one's own is used as a means to an end -- would be, well, there are TONS, ranging from full Hollywood movies to Disney channel sitcoms. For the purposes of our example here, I'll use an example that is a bit obscure, but where the situation was played strictly for laughs: the Disney Channel series The Famous Jet Jackson. In the series Jet has a friend who is a dyed in the wool geek: a little overweight, clumsy, and so on. When the fair comes to town, though, and he finds out that a very nice laptop is being offered as the main prize during a pageant, he decides to disguise himself as a girl and enter in an attempt to win it. What follows is your typical cross-dressed comedy: an awkward falsetto voice, lack of convincing presentation (not that anyone notices other than his friends of course,) and general messing around with the contrast of masculine attitudes or attributes with the attempt to pass oneself off as the opposite gender. The gender expression here, however successful or not-so-successful it may be, is not an attempt at representation of true gender variance, but merely the use of that expression to accomplish some other goal. The character, and the reactions TO that character, cannot be expected to follow the same "rules" as representing a truly gender-variant character because of this. It's, in many ways, the same type of comedy or drama that is implied by any other fish out of water scenario, and for the most part would play off the same as if the character were impersonating any other archetype they obviously do not fit into regardless of gender, such as the textbook good cop trying to act like a gangster or the street bum impersonating a business mogul.
On the other end of the spectrum, the film where true gender variance is meant to be a part of the character's gender identity, there are less options available for really good examples, but some that would be available would be films like Trans America and even -- bear with me here -- Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. In these films, the character's gender expression is relevant to who they are on a deeply personal level, and plays more than just a comedic element. That isn't to say that comedy isn't found in what goes on, but gender-variant comedy is very different from fish-out-of-water comedy.
So, the question remains: which one does the film make use of? From your post's description it seems implied that it is the former, rather than the latter. While this still has an impact on presentation of gender in film, the rules of how it is handled -- and what can be expected of such -- are very different from a true trans character representation.
Now let's look at question 2: Is the negative response in the film played off on the basis of gender expression or due to other concerns with the character? Or, to be more exact, is the response of the other characters to the villain's reveal as having been disguised as a woman due to the cross-gender element itself, or at least partially due to who the villain is as a character regardless of gendered elements? Your example of the character being appalled to have hit on or groped the villain is a great example of where this comes into play. If the character is offended due to it being the villain -- as in that specific person -- then that is different than if the person is offended due to the gender -- as in, simply because that person turned out to be male. This would also play into other reactions to the gender reveal of the villain: were they due to it being the VILLAIN under the disguise, or to the person under the clothes being male? If the former, then reaction really isn't gender-relevant, in that it's much the same as movies where a character is making romantic advances on another only to find that that person is someone they already know or, worse, are related to, in disguise. Again, it's about juxtaposition, the replacing of the expected with the unexpected, and not about gender or sexuality. If the reactions are based on the villain's sex, things get trickier, but let's face it, even for many of us within the TG community if we were dating or interested in someone and found out their presentation did not match their actual mental gender, many of us would have mixed reactions. Would the character who groped the villain have the same response if the villain had been physically female, and they had not known they were the villain?
And finally, the last element: Is the contents of the film or reactions therein offensive of its own merit, or only due to interpretation of the character's gender or sexual variance based on personal experiences? THIS is probably the most relevant question in the long run, because it removes the subculture elements from consideration and makes you look at the big picture. So, consider if the villain had been female the entire time, and let's take, again, the example of being groped when out and about. It seems implied by your initial post that such was done in the film and played off as supposedly comedic, but to me, doing so is an example of lowbrow, offensive humor, regardless of the gender of the person receiving the attention. Likewise, sexual humor of most types to me in a film that is supposedly oriented toward younger audiences is not something I find really appropriate, so the implication that there is a sexual element to interactions between any of the characters calls into question the film's merit regardless of implied sexual presentation or orientation.
I don't use Facebook, and I haven't read/seen any news about Boxtrolls other than previews, but a lot of what you mention strikes me as the type of humor and content that is inappropriate not necessarily on the basis of TG presentation in films -- which this does not seem to actually be an example of -- but because it is simply the wrong type of humor for the target audience of the film, making it a crass inclusion that severely hurts the film's value. Personally, and again, this is based only on the information I've gleaned from your post and other responses here, a lot of the humor seems oriented not toward the character being TG, but toward them being decidedly NOT so, as such making judgement of the handling of the character based on TG standards about as relevant as getting offended over the jokes concerning Kevin Kline's presentation as a saloon girl in Wild Wild West.
In conclusion to this very long-winded post, use of crossdressing in a film is not the same as use of gender variance, any more than the use of a body-swap episode in your typical TV show is, and the response/handling of such should be judged based on what it actually is. Does it sound to me like the movie has offensive elements? Absolutely. Does it sound like they're due to any kind of judgement of TG individuals or the culture surrounding us? I can't say it does, or not intentionally at any rate. The only TG offense I see here is that which comes from applying one's own situation to the character rather than judging the character's situation based on who they are.
Melanie E.
But will all of those points make themselves to the child?
There's a tipping point, a point where all these messages come together and start or help to start the negative voices going.
Bailey Summers
That's almost immaterial. To
That's almost immaterial. To use a real example, my brother and I were _not_ allowed to watch the Three Stooges (and cartoons, etc) without an adult around for a while. That way, we could ask questions, and we could have it explained to us what parts were exaggerations for humour, which were real, which were not, and similar.
I wouldn't take my daughter (or son, if I had one) to a movie like this without going there myself - even though I don't like going to movies! For that matter, I probably wouldn't let them go to a movie by themselves until they were at least 10 or 11, definitely old enough to make better individualized judgement calls.
You're attacking the movie that nobody here has seen (apparently) based upon suppositions by someone who may or may not have seen the movie, on a social media site known for sensationalism. (Facebook - Fox Network for the Internet).
I think that people -are- excessively over sensitive to this. Next thing you know, "The Birdcage" (movie, not the play) will be attacked because it has a right wing Christian senator in drag, and that's offensive to drag queens everywhere, and looks badly on the TV/TS community.
Drag - which is what this is, not true transvestism, has been used in theatre for centuries. Farces have used it for a very long time, and I don't think it's going to stop. (Go search for "Nanna Hooter" it's a Joe Cartoon animation).
I'm sorry that many seem to have been hurt badly enough to be that overly sensitive, but _this film didn't do it to you_. No film did it to you. _Real live people did it_.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
A child wouldn't read so much into it to begin with.
Unless their parents have already started to sew the seeds of bigotry into the child's psyche, most kids can watch things and take them for what they are a lot more easily than adults. I child doesn't watch Bugs Bunny performing jazz in blackface and think about racial tensions and the history of social inequality: they see Bugs Bunny in funny makeup singing songs. Nor, in this case, would they likely see a dissertation on gender and the presentation of gender variant individuals in cinema, or how the public reacts to them: they would see a guy -- not a transperson, but a GUY -- trying to be sneaky and having all sorts of problems because of it.
Again, just from the impression I get from the post and some comments, this isn't a case of dealing with a gender-variant individual or the filmmakers wanting to express their feelings concerning such, but a standard juxtaposition farce played poorly. What the movie seemingly says about gender ROLES, with the implication from what I'm seeing of sexual abuse and treatment of the character as an object when dressed as a woman, THAT is more concerning to me, since that is inappropriate regardless of the character's gender, and will be much more easily read by children than the gender issues we are all spending so much time discussing.
*shrug*
Again, I can understand where people ARE coming from in being concerned about this, but I really do think those in our community are reading too much into what is implied, and how the target audience will take it.
Melanie E.
Taken with a grain of salt.
I say watch it yourself and form your own opinion rather than spout someone else's nonsense. If you've not seen it yourself, then you don't know exactly what your talking about. If you still feel as strongly about it after having watched it... well, then you're justified and can stand your ground on your beliefs.
two friends and I went and SAW it last night**SPOILER**
Here is what happens, without too much spoiler (not much more than is above really)
yes the main Villain has TWO scenes as a "Drag Queen/Transvestite"(depending on how you want to classify those terms, as sex is never seen, just dancing, but some innuendo at the end might suggest something happened) HE does not go through half the movie in a torn dress, the only thing i remember (it was last night at the opening) is the hero tries to show others that "she" is really the villain by removing "her" wig, SHE is a popular performer in the town, but is "just visiting" not there all the time, but at a yearly festival that has to do directly with the story. there is some innuendo at the end that the "mayor" "regretted so much" after he realizes (because no one listens to kids, one of the real lessons taught in the movie) that She is really a HE, most kids probably wont get it. He made a deal at the beginning of the movie, the whole plot revolves around this, and when he doesnt fulfil it to the LETTER, he is denied his prize (all of this while dressed as a male, not in a dress) and yes he does go psycho about it, but it is also because of a medical issue, an allergy that is very germane to the story as well. there is NOT sexual innuendo, other than some old men groping her rear, and while the performance that she gives DOES reinforce her "nefarious scheme" that is about all. she is invited to a party, where the groping happens, and the dewigging happens.
i have seen more offensive movies, and as this is based on a childrens book i really doubt it has some evil genius plan to make kids afraid of trans people, because if it did, it was an abysmal failure. sometimes online media is just an outlet for those with massive chips on their shoulder, or they were fed only select scenes (or how else did they see it? a leaked copy, it happens, i have a copy of Wall-E that has the time imprint on it used for editing, etc or was it a press preview, etc)
Teresa L.