If A Transwoman Can Play A Transwoman In Indian Movies, How About In Hollywood?

by Guest Contributor Monica Roberts, originally posted at TransGriot.

karpaga

I found it interesting last year that a young Indian transwoman has gone somewhere that transpeople in the States haven’t. But what else is new for us here?

Last year Karpaga made history in India as she became the first transwoman to be cast in a lead role in a commercial film. She was cast as the lead in a Tamil language film called Paal, which means gender in the Tamil language.

While Indian transpeople are justifiably proud of this cultural step up since they have been dissed for far too long in movies like their American cousins, at least they actually have transwomen playing transwomen in their films.

And based on the plot synopsis for this one, Paal looks pretty interesting. She’s playing an intellectual filmmaker who falls in love and faces the ‘do I tell’ dilemma.

What we’ve gotten here in the States, be it the silver screen or television is cisgender actresses scooping up those role. The recent announcement that Nicole Kidman is set to play pioneer transwoman Lili Elbe in the indie film The Danish Girl only heightens our annoyance about this.

candiscayne1

It’s not like we don’t have transgender actresses in Hollywood. Candis Cayne, Calpernia Addams, Aleshia Brevard, Jazzmun and Alexandra Billings are some of the ones that come to mind. Candis recently had her groundbreaking role in the now cancelled Dirty Sexy Money that ended predictably in her death, but that’s another post.

It would be nice if Hollywood would actually put a transwoman in a transgender role, but they still can’t get it right with cisgender women of color either.

What’s going to have to happen is that transwomen are going to have to write, produce and direct their own stories, and one of those indie films is going to have to make enough money and garner enough awards to get the peeps in Hollywood’s attention.

As for Paal, here’s hoping it’s an artistic and commercial success in India and beyond, and it leads to a nice career for Karpaga and other Indian transwomen who follow in her pumps.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

What she fucking said… « random babble… on 18 Mar 2009 at 12:04 pm

[...] guest post at Racialicious by Monica Roberts of TransGriot: If A Transwoman Can Play A Transwoman In Indian Movies, How About In Hollywood? It would be nice if Hollywood would actually put a transwoman in a transgender role, but they still [...]

Comments

Ugly Deaf Muslim Punk Gurl! wrote:

Transpeople (Eunuchs or known as “Hijras”) have always been a HUGE part of Indian culture. They are more accepted amongst Indians than amongst Americans, so you shouldn’t have found this surprising.

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 9:41 am ¶
Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

There are different cultural factors at work in portrayals of trans folks on screen in the U.S. and India — definitely the presence of the hijra identity and hijra communities in India play a role.

But I think it’s more complicated than to say just because the identity exists, it’s more accepted — hijras have a role to play in certain cultural spheres, but I don’t know if they are more accepted. As in the U.S., many hijras and trans women are forced into sex work because of how society sees them. They still have to deal with major family issues, work discrimination, police harassment, etc.

I’m interested to know if the film makes a distinction between the Indian identity of hijra (a specific cultural category that overlaps with class and religious identities) and the more Western identity of trans woman.

And also — Nicole Kidman as a trans woman? Dreading it. WTF, Hollywood?

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 10:19 am ¶
Purni Siddarth wrote:

Ippadikku Rose is a talk-show in a television channel in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. Rose is fantastic. Her honest approach to sensitive issues is wonderful and interesting to watch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/080227_outlook_transgender.shtml

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 11:04 am ¶
Kia wrote:

I stopped watching DSM after the first season but enjoyed the role played by Candis Cayne. I shouldn’t be surprised she was killed off.

I think Lizzie makes a good point that higher visibility doesn’t automatically make life any easier for trans folks.

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 12:49 pm ¶
Free wrote:

You are teaching me something new. I was never very aware of this issue. Interesting. (I’m hitting up Google right now.)

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
V wrote:

Why “in her pumps”? It seems like that comment reinforces the stereotype that transwomen “must* by into stereotypical portrayals of femininity.

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 6:35 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:

Yeah, if we want to consume stories about transgender women then we should be comfortable enough to have actual transgender women play the parts. It reminds me of taping eyes (or tanning) to make an otherwise white actor Asian or getting out the good ol’ shoe polish for that matter.

Posted 16 Mar 2009 at 8:19 pm ¶
Roni wrote:

I suspect the quality of roles for people who are transgendered have a lot to do with that.

Most mainstream Hollywood trans roles fall into three categories 1) prostitute, 2)cautionary tale, 3) about transitioning.

For the first two, I imagine few trans actors want to add to bad press. For the third, from what I understand, transitioning is an often difficult, confusing and amazing time in someone’s life. I doubt many people want to reenact such an intensely personal experience, much like second adolescence, on screen. I sure wouldn’t want to live out my teenage years for an audience.

I hope we’ll see more trans actors in trans roles when the roles don’t revolve around being trans.

Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 5:26 am ¶
Roni wrote:

Sorry, I commented at 4 in the morning and after the fact I realized that might have sounded a little weird. I’m sure Monica is familiar with why trans roles in Hollywood are problematic. I wanted to draw attention to how the type of roles available contributes to not having trans actors in trans roles. By addressing it to the community at large, but wording it to acknowledge I am not trans myself, I realized it might sound like I was explaining “what trans people experience” to Monica. I wanted to clear that up.

Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 6:30 am ¶
Renee wrote:

I really do think the issue comes down to once again Hollywood feels no issue with replacing one body with another. How many times have we seen a Latin@ play an Aboriginal North American. Bodies should not be able to “substitute” for another. I think this diminishes the experiences of everyone involved with the project. Transwomen should play trans women period.

Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 8:42 am ¶
JC wrote:

Not just in India. In Taiwan, a famous post-op transvestite is the one of the biggest show host and has numerous TV commercials featuring her toting female shampoos. She’s considered to be woman by the general public despite her somehow husky voice.

Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶
Jha wrote:

Is there a trailer online somewhere? How can one get this movie?

Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 9:58 pm ¶
Bijlijaan wrote:

As a transgendered girl of Indian origin living in the US, I have to say though that there is still more acceptance in the US. Thats partially because everyone is more aloof in the US and mind their own business.

For example, as a Hijra, I would have had to face stares and jeers if I went shopping alone for dresses or grocery.

Here even when people do find out that I am a transgirl, atleast they treat me with respect and attention for the most part.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 2:29 pm ¶
Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

Bijlijaan, thank you for sharing your perspective.

I think that many trans actors would be willing to go to hard emotional places for a project — just like cisgendered actors are. I think the fact they’re not cast absolutely has to do with transphobia — Felicity Huffman may have been awesome in Transamerica, but her casting allows the audience to comfort themselves that behind all the make-up and lights, she’s a “real” woman. It’s bullshit.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
Monica Roberts wrote:

Why “in her pumps”? It seems like that comment reinforces the stereotype that transwomen “must* by into stereotypical portrayals of femininity.

Because I liked the way it ended the post V, not for any ‘reinforcing of stereotypes’ as you put it. Chill.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶
Mykell wrote:

In addition, why are transmen always played by ciswomen? In many cases, they’re not even played by butch ciswomen.

Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 9:38 am ¶
Kiran wrote:

I think it’s important to take note of the way we’ve maintained constructions of nation. ‘Here’ vs. ‘there’ doesn’t solve anything and the whole, ‘look! India’s way ahead of us on this one!’ argument just maintains those dichotomies. What’s more, this isn’t going to be some huge Bollywood blockbuster. Most Tamil films aren’t consumed by the audiences of mainstream North Indian-centric Bollywood.

As well, there’s a huge discussion to be had around how ‘hijra’ is now equated with ‘transperson.’ Just ain’t the same thing.

Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 3:50 am ¶
Hm wrote:

Well , There are culture that had roles to take care of everyone in there society . or Find a place for them ,but this was more of a family structure ,not a abstract secular structure of a state . Very different from the secular individual model , where you project a role and consider the performance of the individual in that some form of function or competition.
So this idea of the individual is Western in origin actually conflict with the idea of representation of culture and culture roles. The other thing is India is a Radically different society with a Radically different social history . There no such thing as a society that has all equal roles (in a sense that there biological differences are completely ignored in the construction of a role , That just doesn’t exist) for , it in social-constructionist belief to build that kind of society and I don’t’ believe it exist (Because equal meaning differences Social-biology equal inequality in a society and recognition of differences can be wiped out for an Enlighten model of social construction )
Though there exist society that are “ Elegalitarian”, and this is pretty simple meaning they took care of all individual in there society regardless of biological differences. So they had Straight Roles in there society and minority roles to take care of , transsexual , Homosexual and so forth and they took care of all people as a Family with a hierarchy but everyone is included with a role . But the roles are not interchangeable, like any family they are organized by a sacred history and the only concern really is if everyone is taken care of maintaining social lineages and what not (For the culture that weren’t male dominated tribes ,but there far more gradients and complexity to it multi-lineages culture , degrees of how power is handle in a lineage ) .Sacred history ,biological roles etc . .(They don’t really have question of Performance of the Function of their roles in this context of performance in society achieving some manner of status through some theoretical form of equal competition .It had more to do more with sacred history or sacred mythology they used to organize their culture or tribe .) So you can’t compare India culture where the state for the most part is a product of European intervention and barely recognized by the people like a lot of places in the world, and has nothing to do with there historical Community culture or whatever history they have . Opposite where the state and the individual and ideas surrounding it are central to US Culture and European cultural beliefs . Individual not necessarily a basic unit of ever culture though, There is an individual but are beliefs about the individual are definitely collective based no based on some social-biological criteria of how human being construct culture . There is a need for ever society to deal with individuals or take care of them , and different approaches to doing it . When they fail then it oppressive. It not because India doesn’t look like America or America doesn’t look like India it like comparing apples and oranges really .

Most people from India are poor so the present of Prostitution has probably has more to do with poverty if their own culture has tolerance of Transsexual woman. (Even then depend on the nature of the positron, not ever culture morally criminalized the act of trading sex and money in the same Way Western culture due or can it be imagined in our own social context ) It assuming that poverty (Put in place by Western Forces and Western Government along with the internal problem created by it is equal to their social value in the society ). That a bad analogy to make and an ahistorical one . There a tendency to assumption if (X country, has this group X country must be oppressive backward what not) that standard dialogue from the west.

Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 7:07 am ¶
One example wrote:

So yeah Kiran is right , can’t just project categories from Western secular culture with deep history in Western culture On another society . For example the Japanese never really had a Gay movement , But historically Japanese culture had no real problem with homosexual , There no historical sodomy the category doesn’t have a lot of meaning to the Japanese context or to a Japanese homosexual ,but being a homosexual not going to provoke any sort of hate or being murder in Japanese culture , they just don’t they lack the whole (Mass murder of gays from the Christian church in their history the west has and the whole “your going to hell because your gay”) doubt there any real discussion or anything we call a dialogue in the West

At the same time it not a culture that celebrate any kind of individuality and harmony must be kept in public to maintain traditions and in private you can do whatever you want for the most part) (Even there system of marriage is just an agreement there no love required , can cheat and do what you want ,in-fact from what I’ve been told by my friend from Japan traditional Japanese culture marriage had no love , love break harmony )

. So a Western Individual center social activist approach would fail when it comes to Japan and has repeatedly (well also the fact that individualism we prize here is a sign of disrespect in public culture in japan or egotisim , you can say I disagree with there point of view personally but then again you don’t live in that culture .so it meaningless .It one thing if there committing human right crime to complain like murdering a group or depriving them of food or social support, it another to complain about abstraction of identity and interpretation and expect it to transcend culture .).The Social structure completely different (They do deal with the individual , just completely in private , that their culture ,market diverse to fit ever niche of groups ), Can’t just export social categories to other cultures without understanding the history associated with those categories in your own culture , why you consider what is a stereotype and another not offensive .It subjective and based on your own history and Western social beliefs .

Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 7:23 am ¶
DCN wrote:

Why should transwomen only be played by transwomen? It seems like that would only further the idea that they are not “really” women, and the essence of acting is… but you know that. Am I missing something? Of course, the lack of opportunity for transpeople in Hollywood is another issue and is an unfortunate symptom of transphobia.

Posted 23 Mar 2009 at 2:20 am ¶
T Imna Ao wrote:

i am very happy after see this page. Thank to transwomen..

Posted 01 Jul 2009 at 8:34 pm ¶