If you
have read my column for the last couple of years you know that I am vehemently
opposed to the idea of gender-neutral awards for acting. I believe my reasons
are valid – that if we combine all acting categories without gender, it will exclude
more performers than it will include, that it is a cosmetic change that does
not address the problem of non-binary roles in Hollywood, and it doesn’t make
any changes to the wide-scale problems non-binary people feel throughout the
world.
It doesn’t
look like any of these arguments seem to be making much of a difference: the
Independent Spirit Awards has eliminated gender from its acting categories as have
some major film critics’ awards though there are no signs that none of the
other major awards shows in film or television have relented yet. But I have no
come up with a reason that at the very least should cause some to give pause as
to why, in our rush towards inclusion, we’re not bothering to ask what should
be the most obvious question of all. Let
me give some background.
Leading
up to last year Liv Hewson, the non-binary performer who plays the teenage Van
on the brilliant series Yellowjackets, said that they were withdrawing
their name from Emmy consideration because: “there’s no place for me there.” I now
know how I can phrase what I wanted to say to Hewson all those months ago.
You are
an actor who has chosen to work in an industry that is fiercely competitive and
does not have a large array of roles that recognize people like you. The role
of Van is that of a female, she is identified as such in the series and is
played by Lauren Ambrose as an adult. You made the choice to audition for a female
character, even though you don’t identify as one. You accepted the role, and
the series became a success. You were willing to be praised for your work as
Van even though she does not have the same gender identify you do. You were
willing to be paid to play a character who does not have your gender identity
as you. But to be nominated for an Emmy as an actress, that’s the line
in the sand you have chosen to draw. It’s fine to betray your identity for
money, but not an award? How is that not hypocrisy?
Indeed I
could make this argument for almost all of the successful non-binary performers
who have come to recognition and critical acclaim in TV over the past six
years. Emma Corrin had no qualms about being cast as Princess Diana in Season
Four of The Crown or playing Lady Chatterley in the Netflix adaptations
even though both these characters are clearly women but they are non-binary.
Bella Ramsey had no problem playing Lyanna on Game of Thrones, Angelica
on His Dark Materials or Ellie Willaims on The Last of Us. Hell they
were fine playing a young Jane Grey on Becoming Elizabeth. Milly Alcock
had no problem playing Rhaenyra on House of the Dragon. All of you are
fine betraying who you are fame and fortune, but the awards that’s a
bridge too far. Alcock has been cast as the next Supergirl. The girl is
in the name of the character. But being nominated for Best Actress makes you uncomfortable.
The one
exception to this rule is Asia Kate Dillon. Dillon’s character on Billions was
non-binary and the series never made them have to compromise their identity. Dillon.
Dillon is entitled to some accounting because they had spend their early career
playing women. Ever since Dillon has stayed on the lines on non-binary. Dillon
has the right to make these arguments – but the argument should have been why
did it take so long for television to have a non-binary character in the first
place? That’s a legitimate cause and I will fight for that one.
Honestly
if Alcock, Corrin and all the rest of these performers were so committed to
being non-binary then they would only play non-binary roles from this point
on. But Corrin has given no sign of changing. After publicly announced that
they identified as non-binary (after, to be clear, they had already won the Golden
Globe and Critics Choice for Best Actress in The Crown) Corrin could
have committed to only playing non-binary characters in the future. It would
have been a noble stand and I would have supported them. But that has not
happened. If anything after leaving The Crown Corrin has continued to
play characters who identify as female, not only in Lady Chatterley’s Lover
but in My Policeman and the limited series A Murder at the end of the
World. Corrin was nominated in the Best Performer by the Independent Spirit
Awards even though Darby Hart is clearly a woman in the show. Isn’t that some
kind of betrayal of the non-binary community? Or is it only a principled stand
if you’re doing it to the ‘institution’ of awards but not the characters you
play to win them?
Or is
this just a larger part of disruption for disruption’s sake that seems to
occupy every part of today’s institution? As I have said over and over again,
getting rid of gender categories in awards show won’t do a thing to help the
millions of young Americans who identify as non-binary. I guarantee you whether
or not Emma Corrin or Bella Ramsey feel comfortable being nominated as an actress
is in the top 100 of the priorities they are facing in the world today. If
performers like Ramsey and the rest would use their position to argue for
inclusion in Hollywood (which they may do, I’m not sure of how they do in their
public persona) or argue for more roles for non-binary or even a category for
non-binary performers I’d be fully supportive of that. I’ve actually argued
that there should be separate categories breaking down the acting by the characters
the actors play rather than the performer so that there could be room for non-binary
performers to get recognition that way. Considering the immense popularity of House
of the Dragon and Last of Us, I’m actually stunned that neither
Alcock nor Ramsey did just that during the last two award cycles.
But the
fact that none of these performers – not even Dillon – is willing to advocate
for these even as an idea is very telling. This isn’t about the problems that
people like them who aren’t famous face or inclusion or representation. It’s
about them, and I don’t mean that in the pronoun sense. These stands are a
classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. They wanted to be
recognized as so gifted that they can play characters whose genders they don’t
identify as but they don’t want to have accept an award for playing that
character because they don’t identify as it.
This is a kind of hypocrisy I find extremely offensive because the
people like them – who aren’t famous and don’t have the advantages they do –
don’t have the benefit of being able to pick and choose these kinds of battles.
They often have to act to hide who they are, but they don’t get applauded for
being good at it – something you’d think these people all knew.
None of
this, I should mention, particularly shocks me as it is just another
exaggerated example of how so much of identity politics work. Whatever minority
whether the division be based on race or
religion or in this case gender identity, they want to be treated with equality
but also be recognized on a special level for part of the identity. This is a
circle that is impossible to square but nevertheless the world is constantly
being asked to change because of it. Gender neutral awards are one of the most
ridiculous examples of it, a cosmetic change where the only people it truly
helps is a fraction of a fraction of the working professionals in Hollywood,
but it gives the appearance of systematic change without actually making
improvements. You would think that people like Corrin and Ramsey, who’ve had to
labor in this system for years, would be aware that these changes don’t really benefit
anyone. But as long as they get recognized, they don’t care about how. They can
use their platform to claim this is triumph for people like them when its
triumph only for them, period. But it makes a lot of rich liberals think that
they’re making a difference. Who cares if it doesn’t change a thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment