this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
197 points (96.7% liked)

Television & Movies

176 readers
7 users here now

A community for discussion of anything related to television, streaming, movies and cinema.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I didn't know Elliot Page was still working. I've only seen his work before the transition (and with the deadname) and he's a good actor. Gender assigned at birth is not a valid factor in criticising an actor. In Shakespearean times, men played women and vice versa. Acting has always been about stepping outside of how you were made and into a role that you convince the audience is real. Page does good work.

I had to look him up on IMDb. It's unfortunate they only list movies where he was cast as a girl as the notable roles. I mean, leave Juno and Hard Candy since those films established him, but put a couple roles up where he played a guy.

He is a pretty small dude, though I wouldn't say there weren't small Romans (or was it Greeks?).

In Shakespearean times, men played women and vice versa.

You're mistaken here. In Shakespeare's time, all actors were male. Female roles were played by pre-pubescent boys. A woman acting on stage was considered as shameful as being a prostitute.

Anyway, what really gets me on the size thing is that this could have been easily fixed! They routinely change the heights of both male and female actors in movies, making them shorter or taller as necessary by the script. It's trivial to do so using costuming and camera tricks. There is zero reason they couldn't have just made Elliot Page bigger. They do it for short cis male actors all the damn time.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

There were always small people but small people being in the army? I mean he was small when he was a female and I don't doesn't look like he got any bigger.