Ahhh, ok...so, they're not blackballed...but you can't think of one...but you not being able to think of one has nothing to do with the fact that queer actors aren't even good enough to play queer characters. Because of COURSE straights can play queers better.


Am I Understanding You Correctly?,
Dylan

Who said anything about being bored?

My question was entirely legitimate. I wanted to know what made this a compelling topic. Nothing was revealed.

The end.

Media representations of Lesbians and Gays are of great interest to Lesbians and Gays. So much so that many of us even fund a lobbying group to combat defamatory portrayals of Lesbians and Gays. (GLAAD- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Historically, media representations of Lesbians and Gays have had a huge impact on the opinions of the majority culture. As minorities, our depiction in mainstream media is of great interest and concern to us. Hence the interest in discussing the upcoming airing of a Lesbian theme on a popular mainstream TV show. Lesbians are also interested in celebrities and public figures who come out of the closet, such as Ms. Baxter-Birney.
I highly recommend you look into why Lesbian and Gay people are so keenly interested in media depictions of us. It's quite interesting, actually.
The GLAAD website would be a good place to start.
:LGBTQFlag:

oh whatever, whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV... yes, so oppressive... like the rednecks on South Park clammering.. "they took our jobs!"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls"]YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!![/ame]

Sometimes some of us really just wanna see two hot chicks make out on tv regardless of whether they're out in RT or not.

but I suppose I'm having a very non-feminist moment for saying that. :P

Well here ya go enjoy
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tHppucxMrM"]YouTube- Lady Kisses: That's Gay[/ame]

No, just a rude one. Is this the red zone?

Cool thread. [insert IMHO here]

Tom Hanks was amazing in Philadelphia. I haven't seen Milk, so no rating Sean Penn's performance. What they both have in common though for studio producers is bankable star quality. Studios want to put names that can sell a movie, into their productions. They like to break even and make a few bucks (bucks - translated to mean millions and millions).

An actor's "bankable" name depends on you and I, as consumers. But we are a small drop in the bucket when it comes down to getting people to shell out money at the box office. Demographics come into play. Studios also often screen a movie with several test audiences to see if it has that right combination of actors/storyline. If it doesn't they take it back to the drawing board and tweak it.

All of those creative juices are also watched by groups like GLAAD and other groups. Lots of tweaking goes on, more than likely.

That reminds me, there were a number of various groups that came out against Avatar. It was an equal opportunity offending film, apparently. But in spite of that, it had bankable people involved with the production.

There is more to it than blatantly discriminating. Studios will continue to make movies, that make them money. [/imho]

This just in.
 

[insert IMHO here]

We are fortunate though, that movies today are made without the guidance of the "Motion Picture Production Code" that used to regulate the industry from 1930 to 1968. The code came about in response to the horrific scandals of that time period. It was decided that Hollywood aka "Sin City" needed cleaning up. Lawd sakes, the field day evengelicals would have if they got their hands onto Hollywood today!

Mr. Will H. Hays, a prominent Republican was at the helm of setting the law in that day. And given how diligent he and other Republicans of that era were diligent in their duties, I still am at a loss to understand why there are gay Republicans. But that's another discussion thread.[/end IMHO]

I think a lot of television and movies desensitize people to rape and violence against women myself, and it bothers me too. I rarely watch tv and don't watch a lot of violent movies either so my opinion is taken from that perspective.

It doesn't bother me if straight actors play queer parts if the part itself and story line is a good one. If the role/story line is perpetuating stereotypes then having a queer actor really isn't going to do much good.

That's weird- a conversation on media representation and cultural perception of lesbians is exactly what I've seen taking place in this thread. So yes, you are mistaken. I'm not going to "direct you" because I'm not going to waste my time breaking it down for someone whose apparent agenda is instructing lesbians and women on how they should frame conversations on their issues to more properly engage his interest.
If the subject is not interesting to you then don't read it. Insulting the intelligence of everyone who posted in the thread may not be the best tactic for getting what it is that you seek.

My own two cents...

Doesn't bother me at all when a straight actor plays a homosexual. Doesn't bother me when a homosexual actor plays a straight role. It's called ACTING. Whoever does it best gets the part. Yay for them.

Did this show air yet?

I'll engage you because I have a few minutes to waste.

So, let's take 'Milk' as an example. How much money did that movie make? A ton, right? And how much money did, let's say, Sean Penn make from that movie? A ton, right (comparatively speaking)? And how much of that money was made OFF of the queer community/queer history/etc? All of it, right? That was a movie about queer rights, based on queer history, etc. And how much of that money went back into to the queer community? To my knowledge NONE of it went back into the queer community.

So here's where (part of) the privilege comes into effect. Straight people USE the queer community to make a shit ton of money while giving NONE of it back to the queer community. That's exploitation, for one. But it's also the way dominant culture works to oppress the oppressed group and keep them down. TAKE from the oppressed group, without utilizing the oppressed group's skills/without giving back to the oppressed group/etc.

Now, by using straight actors to 'play gay', what does that say to mainstream (homophobic) America? If I go to my neighbor (who's straight), and I say 'act gay'. What's the first thing my straight neighbor is probably going to do? He's probably going to lisp, show me the limp wrist, flutter around, etc. He's going to 'act' based on stereotypes...which perpetuates stereotypes.

And now a question for you. If you see nothing wrong with straights playing gay (while gays are kept out of the career field), can you please break down the difference between white actors doing blackface or men playing drag roles, because women weren't allowed to be actors? Can you tell me the difference?


Thanks,
Dylan...keeping it brief, because there's a helluva lot more to break down in straights 'playing gay'.

I loved this http://www.virginmedia.com/images/ph...ongfoo-350.jpg

I don't think it could have been done any better, by anyone else.

Since when is Vin Diesel gay?

really?

:hippie:

Thanks :D I watched this.
at WORK. :innocent:

wednesday night it comes on :)

Thank you! Our TV died (yes, it was sad) ... so I need to make sure we're upstairs for this one. I am curious to see how it plays out.

NBC, Wed, Mar 3 9:00 PM

Your points are valid

Soooo, Sean Penn donated a suit he didn't even pay for? Wow! That must have been tough for him to part with, eh? While a majority of the money he made (and academy award that should have gone into the queer community) gets spent in straightdom. While, had a queer actor had this role, it would have A) made queer actors more visible, B) would have mainstreamed queerdom even a little more, C) would have put more queer money into the queer economy, D) would have opened more doors between queers and straightdom.

Why is it no one can name a queer actor who's won an academy award? Why is it that when an actor comes out as queer, he/she no longer really has a career? Do you think if, say, George Clooney came out, his career would pretty much be over? Why is it they've glammed up and feminized Queen Latifah (who's a big ol' butch in real time)? Do you think Queen Latifah would be making money the way she is if she were to come out? What happened to Wanda Sykes career after she came out? She certainly doesn't have her own sitcom anymore. Ellen's show went pretty much down the tubes after she came out. Do you think 'Milk' would have made the same amount of money without a completely straight cast? How many straight people benefitted and made gads of money in Milk? How many queers? How many queers suffered to make the story of Milk? How many queers died to make that story? Now, how many straight people made gads of money off of that suffering while not one queer played a queer, because 'real' queers aren't palatable or profitable enough for mainstream America? How about that movie NJFemmie posted a pic from? How many trans folks and gender variant people suffer everyday, so straight/cis actors can make a killing off of making gender variance 'humorous' and palatable for mainstream America? And how about RuPaul? Wouldn't that have been a prime opportunity to cast a gender variant person? Oh, but wait, it wouldn't have been a) funny or b) profitable. Oh, and how about The Birdcage and Robin Williams and that other guy who's name I can't remember. Oh, or Brokeback Mountain.

Here's the thing, had queer played themselves, more of that millions of dollars paid to those actors would be back INSIDE the queer community, making the queer community stronger. Generally speaking, do you think queers would have given more money to fighting Prop 8 or do you think queers would have given token donations to a school? Do you think queer academy award winners would be speaking out against Prop 8 and using whatever big name leverage they have against Prop 8 or giving a suit to a non-profit? When queers make money, the queer community (generally) makes money...money that is used to fight hate crimes bills, Mormons, support queers with jobs, etc. When that money is given to straights, more of that money stays in the straight community...at the expense of queers. AND stereotypes are perpetuated.

And again, can you explain to me how straights playing queers is different from blackface and/or men playing women (as in Shakespeare days when women weren't allowed to act), etc from a dynamic of power/oppression? I mean, even now, women only make up 29% of speaking roles in major movies, and only 3 of 100 films are directed by women. Is that sexism or just 'directing'. I have a really hard time believing ANYONE here would be in agreement with men playing all the roles of women in major movies and would just call it 'acting'.


Dylan

Sassy,

Why on Earth would anyone go without coffee for ten days?


Dylan

By David Pesner--published in The Huffington Post
 

----------------------------

It'll be very interesting to see if someone does it. It occurs to me that many of the rumored A-list closet cases have gone to such great lengths to establish a straight facade by the time they reach superstardom, that were they to come out belatedly they might be regarded as enormous liars in addition to being gay men. Not sure how that would work out for someone like John Travolta or Tom Cruise at this stage in their career.
As the boomer generation of A-listers retires and dies some interesting revelations will probably "come out".

I have a “personal issue”? Yes, I do. My “personal issue” is that most LGBTQQI people find the topic of whether or not a public figure is “one of us” quite interesting. Meredith Baxter, Markista Hargitray, Vin Deisel, Chaz Bono, Jodi Foster or Caster Semenya, all interesting to LGBTQQI peeps and our allies. We also find the “coming out” of celebrities quite interesting. Media representations of LGBTQQI people: also intrinsically interesting. We don’t need to frame our comments by outlining the social history of LGBTQQI people because most of us have been soaking in it for years. Therefore we often speak in a shorthand on such topics among ourselves.

You’ve stated repeatedly that the topic of whether famous actors are lesbian or not is of no interest to you, and instructed posters repeatedly to frame our conversation on lesbian visibility in a way that is more interesting to you. My “personal” response is to ask you to desist insulting lesbian members and our allies that do find this conversation interesting. It’s unfortunate that I am not able to effectively communicate something to you that seems so obvious and fundamental. Perhaps that is my failing, or perhaps simply a sign of your personal issues. I am not interested in PMing a stranger who insults me and everyone in the thread. If you continue to make dismissive comments I will continue to address them.