straight actors / gay roles

[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.