What’s wrong with Nicolas Winding Refn. Why choose that film that shows a ridiculously Freudian view of trans psychology? https://www.bynwr.com/articles/she-man-a-story-of-fixation

I get that it was made in the 1950s and it’s obviously just a psychanalytic take on trans issues, because all psychology was psychanalysis back then.

But it’s presented by Refn as a "a decidedly sympathetic viewpoint towards trans men and women"

To make it short, the film shows a trans woman who blackmail people to be her crossdresser slaves, who in turn blackmail her to free themselves. The only transgender in the film is literally a criminal and the openly gay character has daddy issues (obviously).

The only reason the consulting doctor offers to not jail "transvestites" (i.e. crossdressers in the film) for their "deviancy" is that jails would be overflowing.

Well, that’s so fucking sympathetic, Refn.

I really don’t get the idea that because it was made in the 1950s and that it’s self-describes itself as a compassionate movie, it is useful to show it now. Showing that kind of film now requires more than a 2-line summary and also more honesty.

There is nothing compassionate in this film, it shows to depict an (allegedly) true story, which means they curated stories of trans people and decided to show one where the only trans person is a criminal.

As an addendum to this thread, they do imply that her dominating behaviour is related to a military trauma, and not to being trans, but you really have to be attentive to get it, and it’s really easy to miss it. And in the end, well, she’s a criminal..

Oh, and she’s also presented as a Korea war deserter. I don’t even need to tell which side 1950s Americans would have sided after such an revelation.