-
Film Transameric – Interview with Felicity Huffman
Source: http://www.alternet.org/movies/29592/
Before Felicity Huffman won her Emmy — and prime-time stardom — with “Desperate Housewives,” she filmed Duncan Tucker’s smart debut filmTransamerica.
She plays Bree, a pre-op transsexual who discovers that her estranged son suddenly needs her. Against all formulas, they embark on an often-comic road trip.
Huffman shakes off the weight of playing one of relatively mainstream cinema’s first transsexuals by delivering a performance that is deeply idiosyncratic, even
strange at times; ultimately you’re so taken by Bree’s born-again piety that you forget all about her gender reassignment.In fact, her performance — as a male in the middle of a transformation to womanhood — is so complicated, that I forgot to ask her the hot-button question everyone
else pops: “Wasn’t it weird to land this part, as a woman?”Honestly, it hardly seems to matter.
I loved this film, but I’ve got to admit, going in, I had all kinds of fears about what it might be.
You did?
I was convinced it was going to be another one of those Isn’t-This-Person-Just-Like-You movies. You know, like those kids’ books: My Two Daddies.
Oh, so you were surprised it wasn’t just like, “Transgendered people are people too! They go to the grocery store just like you!”
Exactly.Well, a lot of that was Duncan (Tucker, the director). In the script, Bree was prissy, uptight, well-educated. Like that stuffy old aunt that drops French phrases.
And you certainly don’t play her like the girl next door either.He gave me a lot of freedom. When he gave me the part, I asked, “What am I going to look like?” He said, “Don’t change your voice, Don’t change your look.” He was concerned with the internal part, the
truth of the heart, so I just did a lot of research, and met with a broad spectrum of transgendered women.But you did change your look and your voice. [She dropped five octaves.]
The first time Duncan saw it all was on the first day of the shoot. He said, “Oh!” Then he jumped into it with me, and said, “Great.” He became my champion from that moment on. And he was my watchdog
too. If anything fell a certain way, or if I didn’t walk correctly for her, if my voice went up, or I dropped my hands, he’d stop the shot. And we’d start over. In indieland, that’s hari-kari.I’d imagine any director might give you that kind of freedom now that you’ve got your Emmy. But back then, before “Desperate Housewives,” you didn’t have that kind of star power.
Why’d he trust you?I didn’t have anything back then. That’s what’s so amazing. Duncan is just really brave. He’d only seen me in a couple of off-Broadway plays with maybe a hundred people in the audience, and he just kept
saying, “I want her.”Of course, David Mamet [a longtime collaborator of Huffman’s husband, William H. Macy] gave you your stage-acting break, so I’ve been wondering ever since I saw the film about how
Mamet must be teasing you.Well, he hasn’t seen it yet. But I hope that when he does, we talk about it. That will be fascinating. Of course, no one teases you as much as Mamet — or is as loving. I’m sure his zingers will be fantastic.
Did you read Jeffrey Eugenides’ Middlesex?
Oh, of course. I read anything transgender-interested. And while I was shooting, I read a book about MTS, male-to-female transgender surgery. I had to just surround myself with it all the time. I needed to
go to sleep with it, to read it before I went to sleep, and then again and again.How’d you decide what to read?
I just read everything. Biographies, autobiographies, articles. And I met two women from the production company Deep Stealth, Andrea James and Calpernia Adams. They didn’t know me from Adam. I
just said, “Hi, I’m Felicity and I’m doing this movie.” They said, “Sure, come on over.”We started by working on the script and they went through it, page by page, to make sure everything was authentic, and then they shared their own life stories. I spoke to a lot of transgendered women
about all kinds of questions: what was it like when you first met a woman? When you told your parents? And Andrea helps men to find their female voice, so I tried working with her. But she couldn’t help
me do it in reverse! It was completely different.What books made the greatest impression, specifically?
Well, in Jan Morris’s book Conundrum, she had a sexual reassignment done and she had complications, she had to go back in several times, and she was married when she did it. It caused great
consternation in her family, and she said in the end, something like, “But I don’t care. If I had to cut it off, to hack it off, to claw it off, I would’ve, because it was not who I was.”That always stayed with me. The transgendered community is quite strong, and very clear that the transformation takes place in your head long before you wonder about what’s under your skirt. And I
learned a lot from those moments when people realized, “That is not who I was.”Jan Morris talks about her mother, ironing her father’s shirt when she is about two or three and sitting under the ironing board. Her mother picks up a shirt and says, “One day you’ll wear one of these.” And
she says, “I’m not going to wear that shirt. I’m a girl.”
Any other books?She’s Not Here, by Jennifer Boyle, is really eloquent about the transformation, about what happens when you go from male to female. Emotionally, she talks about what it’s like when you’re a guy — this big
aircraft carrier going through the ocean, and the waves affect you. You’re just moving toward your destination. But when she takes the hormones, she felt like a rowboat, going up and down the wave. She
talks about just being buffeted by life much more just through the hormones, and she’s really eloquent . . .How much of those in-person interviews actually made their way into the performance? Sometimes actors do research and interviews, and throw it all out. Other times they pick one or
two people to mimic.Actually, it was amazingly productive. I needed to meet the women who were not yet at home in themselves, to see their experiences, to meet women who were newly comfortable with themselves. I
needed to see people’s walks, their makeup, their hair. I needed to cast a wide net, as they say, and it was incredibly informative and inspiring.Was there anyone in particular?
Well, some women were so uncomfortable that taking a cab to the hotel where convention is, just walking the 200 feet to the front desk and finding what banquet room. For them, that walk is excruciating,
they feel like they’re a target and they’re very uncomfortable.Bree seems terribly uncomfortable.
She carries around so much pain, so much self-loathing, just this deep reservoir of agony . . . I found the whole thing difficult. It felt like walking across the country with full glass of water, riding a unicycle,
juggling with the other hand, and if you spill a drop it’s life or death, because that’s what it’s like for Bree: life or death.But it’s such a fun movie. I mean, I heard Harvey Weinstein describe it yesterday as a “transsexual road movie.” Which it is.
Well, great comedy comes out of great pain. And her comedy, her sense of humor, and her irony definitely come from her pain. I mean, it’s not a transsexual road movie, really: it’s just a wacky funny road
movie, transgender or not.I have to finish with a question about Andy [the name she gave her prosthetic rubber penis] and your full-frontal scene. One of the strangest things about it to me is that it didn’t really
derail the story at all.I’m so glad. Because it is so shocking. What I loved about that moment in the movie, was that on one hand, it’s this Brechtian moment, just like how he would pop the audience out of a story. You see the
penis and pop out of the story.But I think when you do that here, you pop into Bree’s experience: You’re just as shocked and horrified by that picture as Bree is . . . It’s a brilliant piece of psychological filmmaking. I got so upset when
Duncan told me that he wanted to show Andy. I burst into tears. I thought, “I can’t do it.” I felt exposed and it felt like betrayal and somewhat of a travesty. I was so embarrassed, and I kept telling myself,
“It’s just a piece of rubber — it’s pathetic.” But I’d lived inside of Bree for so long, I think that’s how she would react. -
5 Replies
-
A reply posted on alterNet to the original interview:
Mainstreaming of the Transgender Icon
Posted by: Naomi on Dec 17, 2005 6:38 AM [Report this comment]I’m sure there will be thousands of giggling male to female transsxuals and crossdressers rushing to the theatres to see the latest attempt in making transgenderism potable for mass consumption.
And really, let’s be clear: this is really what’s its all about- consumption. Our protagonist is a white, affluent transsexual woman with a classically medical approach to gender, play acted by a genetic woman
no less. How much more “cute” can it get. This is the HRC-ing of gender and frankly, the transgender community should be demanding better for themselves.Transgender people are more than just another segment of society who deserves (by god!) to be accepted so we can move from one restrictive gender box to another and still have enough money to try to
live out the American lie and buy lots of stuff made in China. There are healthier models of living than that but they will never be shown on the big screen.And to use a genetic woman when there are talented and real transgender people who could play that part is degrading and perpetuates the stereotype that TGs aren’t together enough to portray themselves.
Bull.All transgender people aren’t white, and all transgender people are not transsexuals. Transsexualism is a medical model and many transgender people refuse to buy into the idea that you have to move from
one gender box to be imprisoned in the other. There are alot of other transgender people besides affluent white gentic males becoming transgender white females.But since its really about consumption – the edgier reality won’t play in the theatres over Christmas. HRC, and the public in general, wouldn’t stand for it.
Naomi Archer
Asheville, NC -
I watched a preview of this movie on the weekend and found ity in the same strain as the movie, Normal.
Both presented some basis of transgender issues, mildly entertaining, a fraction over the top and not exactly ‘friendly ‘ to transgender education, sorry to say
-
Not yet having seen the movie (YET) but reading all the posts and replys on the site. I agree with most of the posters ( is that the right word as we are talking about a movie) It may not be P.C. to have a GG playing the part but at least the subject is out there and it is getting awards which means that many of the G.P who would not normaly watch a transgender movie will watch it, to see why it got the award ( and hopefuly its not the only one). This can do nothing but help the transgender comunity as a whole to see an award winning portrail of this subject. Who cares about who plays what role as long as the portrail is relativley accurate.
-
Thanks Amanda for posting the review but I wonder just what issues this Naomi Archer has with the world?
Quote:I’m sure there will be thousands of giggling male to female transsxualshmmmm giggling huh, are there any more stereo types you want to throw around Naomi?
Quote:Our protagonist is a white, affluent transsexual woman with a classically medical approach to gender, play acted by a genetic woman
no less. How much more “cute” can it get.Wow affluent, big word, shame she has no idea of the meaning of it, or is it that she failed to watch the movie and notice that Bree works as a kitchen hand in a small resturaunt… Or do kitchen hands earn a hell of a lot more in the states than they do here?
Quote:Transsexualism is a medical model and many transgender people refuse to buy into the idea that you have to move from
one gender box to be imprisoned in the otherYes many transgendered people don’t feel the need to change sex, but the film wasn’t about transgendered people, it was about one specific transgendered person that happened to be transexual. Quite frankly I object to having my beliefs, and convictions termed a ‘medical model’.
I get the distinct feeling that this Naomi Archer didn’t watch the movie at all but shot from the hip with a bunch of bullsh*t that she will spout for ANY occassion.
Having ACTUALLY seen the movie several times, with both CD’s TS’s and vanilla folk, what I can tell you is that the movie, whilst sometimes a little inacurate and having some factual errors, is an entertaining and at times painfully close to the truth piece of cinema.
People aren’t going to walk away from the cinema having there notions of transexuality irrevokably changed forever, but they will hopefully forget through the movie that Bree is transexual and just take her for what she is, a woman. This movie isn’t about educating people about being transgendered, but it does go a long way to making people more familiar with the concept that people like myself are out there trying to just lead an ordinary life whilst dealing with extrordinary circumstance.
I highly recommend going to see it, giggling or not…..
Cathii
-
Good grief.
I think Naomi has a few more pressing issues herself which are a little closer to home for the poor dear – like attaining a sense of humour for one. What would she have preferred? A black/chinese/mexican overweight dyslexic financially embarrassed transgenered person of non-specific sexual orientation who’s primary purpose on earth is to alter the mindset of the billions of sadly ill-informed persons across the globe who currently choose not to embrace our lifestyle? Perhaps an Eskimo transgendered person who after 2/3rds of the film whining about how life’s ‘done ’em wrong’ whilst floating majestically along on an ice flow with several crossdressing seals rises like the mythical phoenix to become President of The United States and makes transgenderism compulsory for all those over 16 years of age?. Maybe a transgendered Han Solo who, after battling the forces of The Empire, pauses briefly to apply more lippy and to ‘ slip into something more comfortable’ ?
Let’s get this thing in perspective. It is a movie…a movie with a quirky lead character, a character that just happens to interest our community. A quirky character that continues the fine Hollywood traditions of Bare-knuckle boxers & Orangutangs, male models with ‘Blue Steel’ looks, retarded golf course greenskeepers, and the like. I wonder how many jumped up and down about the portrayal of lebanese people on Fat Pizza, or african-americans on Good Times when they first were released (or escaped) onto the airwaves? Probably a few other thin-skinned types like poor old Naomi with chips on their shoulders that you could rest a book on.
Lets face it: until this movie, and the also about to be released ‘Kinky Boots’, our sum total of on-screen portrayals have been restricted to ‘Tootsie’ (hardly counts), ‘Bosom Buddies’ (see Tootsie), and a seemingly unending calvalcade of english comedians frocking-up for a few cheap laughs (“Oooooh you are awful! But I like you”) – Eddie Izzard and Lily Savage notwithstanding.
I’ll wait till they come out on DVD. Not because I dont want to see them but because if I’m shelling out $20 for a movie I want to see realistic stuff…like giant killer apes destroying Manhattan. People crossdressing, women or men, I can see anytime but I really don’t think my delicate sensibilities will be rocked to the foundations by a working actor who is playing a part that does not specifically relate to me.
