straight actors / gay roles

[UofMfan]

I am a little torn when it comes to this.

First I think what makes an actor great is to be able to step out of their comfort zone and portray roles that are nowhere near their actual persona. This would include straight actors playing gay roles and vice versa.

A similar argument has been raised about those with disabilities portraying disabled people and so on.

If we go with this line of thinking this would mean that gay actors would only play gay roles. Is this what an actor wants?

I do believe that Hollywood is run by powerful men and thus the increase in gay female scenes and also because I believe that society accepts a relationship between two women easier than it does one between two men. It is also why women of a certain age, gay or straight, have such a hard time finding quality roles. It is also why average to ugly looking men, such as Adam Sandler, cast themselves or get cast opposite women who are much more attractive-younger than they are and would have zero chance of dating them in the real world.

I think that if a gay or TG actor is a good, has an equal or better audition, than a straight actor that they should be the obvious choice, but to choose them simply based on their sexuality, gender identity, may open up a Pandora's box.

As far as actors outing themselves. I am also split on that one. I know the great service that it does to our community, especially our youth, when someone with such public exposure comes out as gay. But I also agree with Rupert Everett.

Tough subject, interesting questions to ponder.

[Sparkle]

Thanks for the replies

I thought it was a very interesting article.

I don't, however, believe gay/trans/bi actors should have "first dibs" on gay/trans/bi roles. I do believe the best actor for the role should be given it. But, of course, we know that is not necessarily how the decisions are made.

I agree, Ender, that bringing in an LGBT actor for specific roles (like Boys Don't Cry or Transamerica) could have incredibly beneficial to the integrity of the film. Equally I understand the power of having a "name" (Hilary Swank, Felicity Huffman) to sell a film; and both actors were wonderful - yet there is no small amount of spectacle involved in Felicity Huffman playing a transwoman, and it bothers me that film tickets sell for that reason.

I also think it would be impossible to have any sort of 'equal opportunity' roles for LGBT actors, while so many of them remain in the closet.

I, do however, detest the fact that Hollywood (and other major film industry hubs and even their peers) encourage actors to remain in the closet. The idea that the general public can't identify with an actor playing a role if s/he is out - is utterly ridiculous to me.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I agree, Ender, that bringing in an LGBT actor for specific roles (like Boys Don't Cry or Transamerica) could have incredibly beneficial to the integrity of the film. Equally I understand the power of having a "name" (Hilary Swank, Felicity Huffman) to sell a film; and both actors were wonderful - yet there is no small amount of spectacle involved in Felicity Huffman playing a transwoman, and it bothers me that film tickets sell for that reason.

I agree that attaching a relatively well known name can do wonders for a film, especially if you want to use the film to gain more exposure for certain issues. There's definitely a good argument to be made for both sides.

I, too, wonder how accurate the claim that the general public can't relate to a character if the actor playing the character is out.

Thinking about popular tv figures like Ellen DeGeneres, I think the only ones who might find it hard to relate are those who tend toward a more extreme rightwing perspective. But, then again, you could argue that Ellen DeGeneres, like other openly lesbian, gay or bi stars, is probably easier for the general public to accept than if she were extremely masculine in appearance or trans. She fits the androgynous look that is more acceptable in the mainstream these days. It's better than the way things were in the past, but still represents a lack of visibility for those who don't fit mainstream acceptability. I think that does result in either the idea or reality (or mix of both) that the general public won't allow themselves to relate/identify with an actor who openly does not fit the gender norm.

I think that it is true that the general public might not immediately take to a butch who was very masculine beyond modern androgynous acceptability, a transwoman or transman. The public does tend to dehumanise such individuals to varying degrees, but more likely because there is a lack of exposure and opportunity to sympathise or familiarise themselves with such individuals. More often than not, those who deviate from the norm are pretty concretely "othered" by mainstream media. I can defiinitely see a media shitstorm rising up over a very masculine butch or MTF snagging a huge role in a movie, though it'd eventually die down as it became more common.

I wonder if consciously placing these actors in LGBT themed films would help increase the visibility that would lead to more acceptance (both on and off the screen) by the general public, inserting a socio-political statement into the film. Is this maybe a step that needs to be taken at first in order to promote real equal opportunity in film?

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I also think it would be impossible to have any sort of 'equal opportunity' roles for LGBT actors, while so many of them remain in the closet.

I agree. If no one takes that first step, then there won't be enough visibility to really achieve equal opportunity in the film industry. It's something actors will have to stick their neck out for.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I, do however, detest the fact that Hollywood (and other major film industry hubs and even their peers) encourage actors to remain in the closet. The idea that the general public can't identify with an actor playing a role if s/he is out - is utterly ridiculous to me.

It is ridiculous, but may have some base in reality. It's arguably necessary to invade people's comfort zones a little bit if any change is to be made.

[little man]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Thanks for the replies

I thought it was a very interesting article.

I don't, however, believe gay/trans/bi actors should have "first dibs" on gay/trans/bi roles. I do believe the best actor for the role should be given it. But, of course, we know that is not necessarily how the decisions are made.

I agree, Ender, that bringing in an LGBT actor for specific roles (like Boys Don't Cry or Transamerica) could have incredibly beneficial to the integrity of the film. Equally I understand the power of having a "name" (Hilary Swank, Felicity Huffman) to sell a film; and both actors were wonderful - yet there is no small amount of spectacle involved in Felicity Huffman playing a transwoman, and it bothers me that film tickets sell for that reason.

I also think it would be impossible to have any sort of 'equal opportunity' roles for LGBT actors, while so many of them remain in the closet.

I, do however, detest the fact that Hollywood (and other major film industry hubs and even their peers) encourage actors to remain in the closet. The idea that the general public can't identify with an actor playing a role if s/he is out - is utterly ridiculous to me.

the part in red...i wanted to mention that hilary swank's career was "made" when she got the oscar for boys don't cry. the only film i recall her starring in before that was one of the karate kid movies. as an additional side note to boys don't cry...in reading interviews done with kimberly peirce, she said the movie nearly didn't get made because she had such difficulty in casting the role of brandon teena. she auditioned butches, transmen, anyone who was willing to read for the part and that it wasn't until swank walked in to audition that she had any hope of casting the part.

granted, this is only one instance and one film...but opportunities do exist for "other" folks to get these roles. if they don't fit, their sexuality shouldn't be the reason anyone gets a part.

[nicetgurl_30]

Ummm I don't think queen laifah is gay dude!

But I agree, these are ppl that recite words on paper. They don't anything that changes the world, they simply keep us company on fri or sat nights when we go to movies.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by nicetgurl_30

But I agree, these are ppl that recite words on paper. They don't anything that changes the world, they simply keep us company on fri or sat nights when we go to movies.

I don't know that I agree with that...

I think art (in this case film-art) has real and significant power; power to inspire us, to educate us, to open our eyes/ears/minds and hearts to a different way of being; the power to illuminate our collective experiences - to diminish isolation ...

I think film is a very powerful medium, particularly because it is accessible to a large portion of the population.

Some movies may be to keep us company or to lift our spirits; and other movies have very different intentions and/or impacts.

And there *are* many actors who are activists and philanthropists; some have gone on to be politicians (godhelpus) and ambassadors for change in the world.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by nicetgurl_30

Ummm I don't think queen laifah is gay dude!

But I agree, these are ppl that recite words on paper. They don't anything that changes the world, they simply keep us company on fri or sat nights when we go to movies.

There are some people that would disagree with you on that whole Queen not being gay thing. Her supposed girlfriend may be one of them.

http://www.hollywoodbackwash.com/que...ut-on-a-yacht/