Your views on 'straight' actors & actresses playing GBLT c

[Former Member]

What's your opinion (if you have one) on the fact that the majority of gay/lesbian and bisexual tv and movie characters today are still being played by hetrosexual actors and actresses?

 

I think it would be a great thing if we, especially the younger generation, had more real life GLBT role models to look up to in the entertainment industry, especially non stereotypical gay actors and actresses, dispelling the myths that all gays, lesbians look or act a certain way, or the fact that our sexual orientation somehow defines who we are as a person, our interests and personalities and so on.

I think we have come a long way, especially within the last ten years, although we still have a long way to go. For instance there are literally hundreds of 'coming out' Vlogs on youtube, some being as young as thirteen, forteen or fifteen years old.

 

Something I wouldn't have imagined happening as little as ten years ago, even in the UK which is quite liberal in comparrison to the US on gay issues. I think media has played a significant role in this transformation.

On the flip side of the coin, it is a good thing to see movie roles involving GLBT's even if the roles are played by straight actors and actresses, as this too also helps out.

[TetRefine]

Our biggest help would be portraying gay people as normal people who are amongst us, not the effeminate, limp-wristed lisper that is way too common even still in media depictions.

[Former Member]

Our biggest help would be portraying gay people as normal people who are amongst us, not the effeminate, limp-wristed lisper that is way too common even still in media depictions.

 

I completely agree. It seems that most gay characters in movies have to stand out among the other characters in their mannerisms, interests and so on, not just in their sexual orientation.

[Y_B]

What you two said

 

But then...isn't acting the point of acting? If you look to actors/actresses as celebs who partly have responsibilities to the masses, then sure it would be nice to have a coupla real LGBT celebs to not frown upon, but in terms of their jobs, it's kinda the point of acting to play yourself as someone you're not.

[JamesSavik]

Why don't they just get some illegal aliens to play gay roles? They'll sure do it cheaper and you can bounce them to the other side of the border when you are done with them.

[Former Member]

What you two said

 

But then...isn't acting the point of acting? If you look to actors/actresses as celebs who partly have responsibilities to the masses, then sure it would be nice to have a coupla real LGBT celebs to not frown upon, but in terms of their jobs, it's kinda the point of acting to play yourself as someone you're not.

 

I agree when famous actors such as Will Smith, Leo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Jim Carey, Heath Ledger playing the role of a gay guy, Or actors such as Brad pitt and even Spielberg openly supporting gay marriage, it sends out a positive message

[Graeme]

All an actor/actress needs to play a role is the ability to play it convincingly. We don't insist that a character who is Italian be played by someone who is Italian. We don't insist that a character who is Roman Catholic is played by someone who is Roman Catholic. We don't insist that a character who has a particular illness is played by someone who has that illness.

 

Why should we insist that a character who is gay/lesbian be played by someone who is gay/lesbian?

 

Just my two cents worth I so agree with the above posters, though, that simply having big name actors/actresses playing gay characters in a positive way gives a positive message.

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

We've had a discussion on this a long time ago, and I remember Jamessavik wanting to give a "Most Convincing Straight Actor Playing a Gay Character" award to Gale Harold for his role as Brian Kinney in the American version of Queer as Folk. I just thought I'd mention that this has been going on for a long time.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Graeme

[Cyhort]

It doesn't bother me if it's just a gay character in an otherwise "straight" movie. When it's a gay movie with a focus on romance or sex between two guys it does though. I just get very uncomfortable watching guys who I know aren't gay making out and pretending that they're into it. I have no idea why, it just kinda weirds me out a bit and takes me out of the movie.

[PrivateTim]

Sexual orientation seems irrelevant to me when it comes to someone playing a role. Would you bounce Neil Patrick Harris from his Barney Stinson Lothario role because he isn't straight? How would you feel if he was removed from the role because he is gay? How would handle Sean Hayes, who played a gay man while insisting he was straight only to turn out to be gay? Should someone's sexuality even be known when they apply for a job? Doesn't that sword cut both ways?

[Former Member]

I think this thread may have been misinterpreted.

I agree with the two posts further up. My point really being was that if there were more openly gay celebrities (which most young people take a big interest in) it would help combat certain negative stereotypes and also show that there are many gay people out there, especially those open enough to show that there's nothing to be ashamed of with their orientation.

 

Straight people playing gay roles, at least to me in some ways, can give some the impression that we are a extemely small minority, enough so that we have to rely on straight actors to play most gay roles, when in fact there are a lot more out there than it appears, and also helps the younger generation have big names to look up to as rolemodels as well as realise that there's nothing to be ashamed of regarding their sexuality,

I'm not saying that straight people shouldn't be cast for gay roles or even pushed to the back of the queue. What I was trying to say was that I think it would be a good thing if there were more positive gay rolemodels out there in the movie industry for kids to look up to, if that makes sense.

[Y_B]

I just get very uncomfortable watching guys who I know aren't gay making out and pretending that they're into it. I have no idea why, it just kinda weirds me out a bit and takes me out of the movie.

 

I'm just the opposite....2 straight guys who suck face on camera for the sake of the job is sooooo hooooootttttt

 

Also, what makes you think straight make outs in movies involve people who are "into it"?

[Cyhort]

 

I'm just the opposite....2 straight guys who suck face on camera for the sake of the job is sooooo hooooootttttt

 

Also, what makes you think straight make outs in movies involve people who are "into it"?

 

I'm not saying they're into it, it just doesn't weird me out the way two straight guys kissing does. I really have no idea why it bothers me. Even if I think both the guys are hot I still have the urge to look away when they start kissing. *shrugs*

[clumber]

It doesn't bother me if it's just a gay character in an otherwise "straight" movie. When it's a gay movie with a focus on romance or sex between two guys it does though. I just get very uncomfortable watching guys who I know aren't gay making out and pretending that they're into it. I have no idea why, it just kinda weirds me out a bit and takes me out of the movie.

 

I can understand the discomfort but if they were gay actors they are far from likely to be 'into it' anyway.

 

And in response to the main topic:

 

In my opinion though, I don't think its an issue. Whilst having more openly queer actors would be awesome expecting queer roles to be played by queer actors is more likely to be damaging. It suggests we are just so different that inly a fellow queer could possibly understand us. In all honesty, roles should be cast depending on who fits the role best, not what the actor is.

 

Martin

 

(Edited to clarify what was replying to who)

[Y_B]

I'm not saying they're into it, it just doesn't weird me out the way two straight guys kissing does. I really have no idea why it bothers me. Even if I think both the guys are hot I still have the urge to look away when they start kissing. *shrugs*

 

 

Have you ever watched those youtube videos of guys playing gay chicken or things like that? Once upon a time I loved those. (still kinda do)

[Former Member]

 

 

And in response to the main topic:

 

In my opinion though, I don't think its an issue. Whilst having more openly queer actors would be awesome expecting queer roles to be played by queer actors is more likely to be damaging. It suggests we are just so different that inly a fellow queer could possibly understand us. In all honesty, roles should be cast depending on who fits the role best, not what the actor is.

 

Martin

 

(Edited to clarify what was replying to who)

 

You make a good point, type casting is it called? Where actors only go for certain roles etc. There is a lot to consider. I still do think it would be great to see more openly gay, bisexual and lesbian celebrities though, even gays playing straight roles and vice versa.

[Cyhort]

 

 

Have you ever watched those youtube videos of guys playing gay chicken or things like that? Once upon a time I loved those. (still kinda do)

 

Lol, no, I don't really spend much time on YouTube. But that does sound hilarious.

[Sidd]

Well of course you're taking it on face value that these "straight" actors are really straight. Hollywood is notorious for being homophobic as far as actors being openly gay is concerned, the profusion of gay characters in film and TV notwithstanding. Haven't you noticed that majority of actors and actresses that are out of the closet are the ones that have been kicked out? And of course none are A-listed - those actors are well protected from outings by the publicity machine.

 

I think the well worn notion that who plays a gay role, straight or gay, doesn't matter as long as the part is played well, is really besides the point. Someone said a Roman Catholic character doesn't need to be played by a Roman Catholic, but I think a more apt example would be an African American character being played by an African American. Imagine the outrage if you had a white actor in black face playing an African. Given the social climate, you can argue the same about gay roles. It's not a question about how well the role is played, it's a question of representation and what kind of image gays are being given in the media.

 

What bugs me most is the fact that whenever you have a hot, non-stereotypical gay role, usually in the lead, then you'll hear a lot of noise about how the actor is straight in real life, whereas if the role is that of the stereotypical, effeminate gay man (or butch lesbian) in a secondary role, then it's okay to say that the actor is openly gay in real life.

[Canuk]

I just want good actors to do well at their given role. If a str8 actor plays "gay" well (vis-a-vis Graeme's comment about Gale Harold) I'm all for it. But str8 OR gay actor playing unintentionally/inappropariately stupid & campy, then he/she is not doing his her job and they can approapriately bugger off.

 

I saw on some E!-type website that Ann Hathaway is to play Kurt's lesbian aunt in some future episodes of Glee. while I have no information on Ms Hathaway's sexuality I am sure as an actress she'll do ok, and as far as I am concerned that's all there is to it.....

[Graeme]

Well of course you're taking it on face value that these "straight" actors are really straight. Hollywood is notorious for being homophobic as far as actors being openly gay is concerned, the profusion of gay characters in film and TV notwithstanding. Haven't you noticed that majority of actors and actresses that are out of the closet are the ones that have been kicked out? And of course none are A-listed - those actors are well protected from outings by the publicity machine.

 

A fair comment. Equally, of course, people can be accused of being gay and no matter what level of denial is presented, there are those who won't believe those statements. An Australian example is our former Olympic champion, Ian Thorpe. There are those that believe he's gay, despite constant denials. He's gay friendly, has some effeminate characteristics, and that appears enough for some people to believe he's gay. He says he's not and I'm happy to take him at his word unless I hear evidence (not innuendo) otherwise.

 

I think the well worn notion that who plays a gay role, straight or gay, doesn't matter as long as the part is played well, is really besides the point. Someone said a Roman Catholic character doesn't need to be played by a Roman Catholic, but I think a more apt example would be an African American character being played by an African American. Imagine the outrage if you had a white actor in black face playing an African. Given the social climate, you can argue the same about gay roles. It's not a question about how well the role is played, it's a question of representation and what kind of image gays are being given in the media.

 

I was the one who gave that example, so I thought I should respond. What we're talking about is believability. Because there's no visible sign of being gay, anyone should be able to act as a gay character. That's not true for skin colour, and that's why I deliberately didn't use that as an example. However, English vs American vs German vs French vs Russian is another story - they're all Caucasian and a good Caucasian actor should be able to play any of those nationalities.

 

Your last point is valid, but that's been mentioned before - and I don't see that who plays the character has a large impact on the image that the character presents. A character who is loveable is loveable for who they are, not for who plays them. A character who is hated is hated for who they are, not who plays them.

What bugs me most is the fact that whenever you have a hot, non-stereotypical gay role, usually in the lead, then you'll hear a lot of noise about how the actor is straight in real life, whereas if the role is that of the stereotypical, effeminate gay man (or butch lesbian) in a secondary role, then it's okay to say that the actor is openly gay in real life.

 

I can accept that. Life isn't fair and we don't have equality in our societies. We're getting there and by having gay characters appear in mainstream TV shows and movies, that's helping progress society towards equality. Who plays those characters isn't as important as what the characters are in the first place. For a long time they've been almost entirely stereotypical effeminate gay men... but there have been enough examples where that's not true over recent times that I think attitudes are changing in that respect.

 

There's an earlier thread on the subject of LGBT community in the Media, which talked about how most gay characters were flamboyant white middle class/upper class males, in which I made a post that gave several counter examples. It's easy to remember the flamboyant white male characters because, I concede, there are a significant number of them, but please don't forget that that's not all there are. If the others tend to blend into the background, I suspect that's because they're not remarkable - they're normal and that's why they don't stand out.

[Y_B]

Haven't you noticed that majority of actors and actresses that are out of the closet are the ones that have been kicked out? And of course none are A-listed - those actors are well protected from outings by the publicity machine.

 

It's funny to point out that there are quite a few a-list actresses who have no problem admitting to being bisexual or at least sexually liberated and it hasn't affected their careers. But this goes on into another topic of double standards with sexuality between men/women.

 

 

I think the well worn notion that who plays a gay role, straight or gay, doesn't matter as long as the part is played well, is really besides the point. Someone said a Roman Catholic character doesn't need to be played by a Roman Catholic, but I think a more apt example would be an African American character being played by an African American. Imagine the outrage if you had a white actor in black face playing an African. Given the social climate, you can argue the same about gay roles. It's not a question about how well the role is played, it's a question of representation and what kind of image gays are being given in the media.

 

The way I see the film industry is that it utilizes resources the best way it can for a given purpose when making movies just like businesses and people do in everyday life. What I mean is that since filing a role requires finding a person who can best represent that character, you need to find an actor/actress who,all things considered, can play that part best. When a movie calls for a black character, you'd first look at black actors/actresses who can play the part and since there aren't a short supply of them nowadays, there is no need to impersonate a non-black to play the role of a black character. Should there be an extreme shortage of black actors/actresses (or blacks interested in taking the part) then it could be considerable to choose a non-black to play the part. Of course, you'd have to compare how worthwhile is it to use a high-credibility non-black actor to play a black man vs. say a black man who has no acting skills playing a black man solely because of his ethnicity.

 

In 1700s China, women were prohibited from acting making all female roles being played out by men in costume and this carried on for quite a while. Theater continued. It didn't disappear or collapse, and people still watched because as is the focus of the whole point, people take what's best, all things considered, and if that's not available, they go with 2nd best and so on. With CGI these days, I see no problem in turning anybody into anybody/anything. We already turn human being into creatures of all sorts, what would be the difference of turning a Caucasian into a African American for the sake of a movie (should there be no black actors) where actors/actresses are suppose to shed all traces of real life representation of themselves anyways?

 

As far a gay/straight actors/roles goes. The same applies. You've already pointed out the obvious that there are little to no high-credibility gay actors in the film industry. When you are making a movie that need the support of high profiled actors but have gay roles, you either impersonate straight actors to play them or use openly gay b-list actors who would have a far lower chance of stirring interest in the movie. Do you wonder how Brokeback Mountain would have done if instead of Heath Ledger and Jake G, they used openly gay/bisexual actors who were not as famous? And even for a regular movie, there aren't many gay actors out there to choose from.....butttt yea like it's already been said...we need more gay actors and not the stereotypical ones.

 

 

What bugs me most is the fact that whenever you have a hot, non-stereotypical gay role, usually in the lead, then you'll hear a lot of noise about how the actor is straight in real life, whereas if the role is that of the stereotypical, effeminate gay man (or butch lesbian) in a secondary role, then it's okay to say that the actor is openly gay in real life.

 

I think to Glee with Kurt and Blaine. Blaine is the relatively normal acting, masculine chill guy who happens to be gay where as Kurt is the annoying flaming bitch. And as expected, the guy playing Blaine is straight in real life and guy playing Kurt is gay. It's kinda funny.

[Sidd]

I appreciate those who have responded to my comments. I'm new to the site, so it's gratifying to know that I'm not being ignored. I won't argue with your responses, but i would just like to point out how this media representation of gays effects me personally. A lot of people have pointed out that I'm being over sensitive to this issue, and I can concede that to a point. I do believe that this over sensitivity has an understandable cause, and also that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

Basically, under the current status quo in Hollywood, we are to believe that if you are talented, charismatic, beautiful and uber-famous then by default that makes you heterosexual. This is pushed on us in many different ways, but lately it especially applies to actors playing gay roles. Hollywood likes to think of itself as liberal by giving us more gay characters in television and film. Perhaps it is on the creative level. However on the political and marketing level it's as conservative as any fundamentalist

Christian church. And so we have the all these glamorous beautiful gay characters being played "straight" actors, and you can be sure that they're not going to stop reminding us that they are straight.

 

Again, in regards to talent and suitability for a role, people must know that they are not the only factors that go into casting a role. From what I know of the business (and it must be stressed that the movie industry is more of a business than an art) politics, marketing and publicity weigh in just as much, if not more heavily, in casting decisions than talent and suitability. And so it could very well be that a gay actor who loses out on a role because (s)he's not as famous, or more pertinently, is openly gay, would be far more artistically accomplished in the role than the big star who got casted instead.

 

If we were just considering the the films and TV shows by themselves, then yes, I would agree with my responders, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of the actor is. But realistically, you must know that we live in a celebrity obsessed culture, and it's never enough just to watch a movie or TV show, we're going to hear about the actors playing the role whether we want to or not. That being the case, it's really painful to me that I'm constantly being reminded that real gay people are basically second class citizens as far as image goes. It's not like I'm asking to know what the sexual orientation of these actors are, so I'm tired of having that information rammed down my throat by the industry.

 

Also I would concede that there are exceptions in the movie industry. Unfortunately they still seem to prove the rule. A good example would be a moderately successful movie called "Save Me" about the "ex-gay" movement that came out a few years ago. The film stars two openly gay actors, Chad Allen and Robert Gant as the romantic leads, but more importantly neither one fits the stereotype of the gay man common in Hollywood, and both are very attractive as well. Besides being an intelligent and balanced film, I would recommend this to people simply because this is an example of what needs to become more common in the film industry.

[Graeme]

I appreciate those who have responded to my comments. I'm new to the site, so it's gratifying to know that I'm not being ignored. I won't argue with your responses, but i would just like to point out how this media representation of gays effects me personally. A lot of people have pointed out that I'm being over sensitive to this issue, and I can concede that to a point. I do believe that this over sensitivity has an understandable cause, and also that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

When you make good points, it's hard to ignore you And you made (and continue to make) good points. However, a lot of this is subjective, not objective, so naturally there will be different interpretations.

 

Basically, under the current status quo in Hollywood, we are to believe that if you are talented, charismatic, beautiful and uber-famous then by default that makes you heterosexual. This is pushed on us in many different ways, but lately it especially applies to actors playing gay roles. Hollywood likes to think of itself as liberal by giving us more gay characters in television and film. Perhaps it is on the creative level. However on the political and marketing level it's as conservative as any fundamentalist Christian church. And so we have the all these glamorous beautiful gay characters being played "straight" actors, and you can be sure that they're not going to stop reminding us that they are straight.

 

A valid interpretation, but not necessarily the only one. My personal view is that it's going through a transition period... and doing it earlier than many other parts of society. Consider business and sports - the number of out male homosexuals in those fields at the top are even less than in entertainment.

 

Marketing is, by its very nature, conservative, because the idea is to sell... and change is really, really hard to sell. "More of the same" is much easier. But the first steps have been taken - there are now gay characters appearing in mainstream shows, something that just wasn't happening 30 years ago.

 

Yes, the next step is to A-list gay actors... but that's going to take time. We're making progress, even if it's not as fast as you'd like.

 

Just my opinion, of course. I don't live in Hollywood (or, indeed, the USA)

 

Again, in regards to talent and suitability for a role, people must know that they are not the only factors that go into casting a role. From what I know of the business (and it must be stressed that the movie industry is more of a business than an art) politics, marketing and publicity weigh in just as much, if not more heavily, in casting decisions than talent and suitability. And so it could very well be that a gay actor who loses out on a role because (s)he's not as famous, or more pertinently, is openly gay, would be far more artistically accomplished in the role than the big star who got casted instead.

 

I agree with you on this for the reasons I mentioned above - marketting is generally conservative in nature. Making movies is a business and the perception is that they'll make more money with white male straight actors than anything else.

 

That perception is changing and has been changing over the last few decades. Look at how many more non-white actors there are, some making it to the A-list. It's only a matter of time before the same happens for a gay actor. We already have A-list gay celebrities in the music industry - the movie/TV industry will follow sooner or later.

 

 

Just to repeat, you've made good points and I don't see anything wrong in what you've said. I have a different interpretation/perspective on some of the points, but I'm not disagreeing with your points