Eddie was really the person I wanted to make the film with, and I was very passionate about that. I think also there’s a certain gender fluidity that I sensed in him, that I found intriguing and it led me to think he might be a really interesting person to cast in this role. I felt that there was something in him that was drawn to the feminine. That was something that I felt he might be interested to explore further. I think there’s a tremendous pool of talented trans actors out there, and I think there’s probably a journey to go on to make sure that talented trans actors have the same access to opportunities both in front of and behind the character as cisgendered actors. I hope we’re at the beginning of a revolution that will improve access for trans actors and trans filmmakers — but there’s a long way to go.”
— Academy Award-winning director Tom Hooper speaking with Screen Daily about his decision to cast Eddie Redmayne as in the upcoming real life-inspired drama The Danish Girl
Alexander Steven
“I hope weâ??re at the beginning of a revolution that will improve access for trans actors and trans filmmakers â?? but thereâ??s a long way to go.â? -and I’m not going to be the one to start it because I’m worried the film won’t be as widely distributed or accepted by the academy.
Sandy McLendon
Hooper’s comments are public-relations B.S.. Redmayne was cast in ‘The Danish Girl’ instead of a trans actor because he’s bankable, meaning you can borrow the money to make a movie on the strength of his name. At the present time – and most regrettably – no trans actor enjoys that status where “A” feature films are concerned. It’s the MONEY, honey, and it’s a shame Hooper can’t just own up to that fact.
Octavio Roca
Because he’s one of the finest actors before the public today? Just a thought.
Ladbrook
I don’t see why it should matter. He’s clearly very gifted, and from the trailer, it seems like he nailed it.
That being said, I’m fairly certain that a group of perpetually aggrieved busybodies are going to make protesting the film into the next thing.
Jennifer Mercury
I think Eddie would be awesome as Nelson Mandela if they did another movie about him. They could just put blackface on him. No problem!
Racheal McGonigal
They felt he was the best for the job and that’s the right reason. From the trailer, it looks like they choose right. No problem.
Milton Appleby
The trailer looks amazing.
MarionPaige
Eddie Redmayne’s performance in Jupiter Ascending rivals the laugh out loud camp turn of Faye Dunaway in Mommy Dearest. If Redmayne is such a great actor, how could he have been so laughably bad in a movie?
Clark35
*yawn* Another movie about trans people. It’s been far too long that lesbians, bisexuals of both genders, and gay men have had to put up with nutty trans activists who are homophobic and biphobic. It’s time to drop the T.
barkomatic
No studio is going to touch any movie with a gay, bisexual, transgendered or questioning person in the near future due to the fact that angry mobs rip these films apart without even seeing it in most cases. Based on the commentary I’ve read/heard the only acceptable movie would:
1. Include only actors whose sexual orientation or gender identity matches that of the character
2. Portray said characters in only a positive light
3. Asks/begs the community activists for permission to make such a film
4. Allows community activists to change the story to align with current social justice themes regardless of the setting or time period
ingyaom
Good actors make bad movies all the time (not just Faye Dunanway). Just look at Bobby De Niro.
RiBrad
The bankability thing is the true answer. But aside from that, why does it even need a justification? The story is about a man who first tries female clothes and then realises he is trans. Physically it makes more sense for the actor to have been living as a man for his whole life before making this discovery. So Eddie Redmayne physically suits the role. No, he is not trans. But Matt Bomer is not straight, should we say that he can’t play straight roles?
Peter McKinney
Because he’s an actor, not an activist.
By their nutty logic, the trans community are limiting their own people by insisting that trans actors can only play trans characters.
Uppity
I can’t think of a single trans actor who is of the calibre to carry a major motion picture.
Nat Jones
This is a no-win situation for the film makers. Whatever they say some cynical people will always look for an alterior motive behind their decisions. The reality is that Eddy has the 2 most vital elements required for this… Hes a great actor who could portray all the elements of this character well… And hes bankable, so people will see the film. Whether we like it or not, people are not going to queue up to see a trans film, especially if an unheard of actor took the lead role. This way people will seek out the film and its likely to do very well, so whilst its not the gigantic leap forward that some people are bemoaning, its a great step forwrd in brining the trans message to a wider mainstream audience
Nat Jones
FYI was reallynpissed off that the trailer had so many damn spoilers in it. I wasnt aware of the ‘true story’ and so had no idea what journey the film was going to take, but the trailer lays all of that out in front of you. Such a shame they cant make trailers that dont give away the whole plot of a film
Kenny Jones
I don’t remember all of this beating of breast (implants), and gnashing of (whitened) teeth, when Cillian Murphy played a ‘trans’ woman in Breakfast On Pluto (2005). 😛