Law and Order: SVU with Special Guest Kathy Griffin as lesbian

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Write14u

I don't think it's the way it used to be where actors were blackballed for being queer. I'm not saying a queer actor of Penn's caliber doesn't exist. Just that I'm not able to think of one.

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

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Write14u

Nahh, the cops are the subject we're discussing. You know, the one that bores you but makes you want to comment on it anyway. Thanks for your two cents. It added much.

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.

[Write14u]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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

Never said that.
But it seems to me that most actors like to expand their horizons a bit. Why would queer actors ALWAYS want queer roles?
As for who can play what better ... I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a better actor than Penn or Hanks regardless of whether they're in a straight or queer role. Has nothing to do with being queer.

ETA: I think no actor wants to get stereotyped into one type of role. I like Leisha Hailey. She was one of the few queers on the L Word, which I liked. However, I could see why she wouldn't always want queer roles and be limited to just that. I think that goes across the board for any actor. I mean, hell, even The Rock didn't want to be cast into the same action roles every time (see: Tooth Fairy)

[Write14u]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

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.

Well, I'm not sure what would make it compelling for you.
However, as someone who has watched SVU quite a bit, it is. For me, it's compelling to see whether they bring the character out of the closet or even if she gets beyond what comes across as homophobia at the end of that clip. Having watched the show, I'd say that's not how her character has come across in the past, so it was surprising.
That makes it compelling for me, at least.
As for you, well, that's up to you.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

I read this whole thread hoping to find out what might be at all compelling in this as a topic.

Maybe we could just talk some more about Meredith Baxter Birney.

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

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.

[PapaC]

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

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by PapaC

oh whatever, whining

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.
:P

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

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

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.

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by PapaC

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

YouTube- south park-they took our jobs!!!

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

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

[Sybelle]

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]

[Queerasfck]

Various gossip websites online and Griffin herself tweeted that the her scene with Hargitay has been cut from the episode.........

[Sybelle]

[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]

[SassyLeo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Do you think that you not being able to name a dynamic queer actor on the level of Sean Penn has to do with the fact that A) a queer actor like that doesn't exist or B) queer actors aren't getting hired to play major roles, because they're gay?


I'm Going With B,
Dylan

I think:

1. There are Queer actors who are not getting parts because they are Queer, sure. Even if their *bio* doesn't say they are Queer, maybe they are perceived as Queer, have some kind of stereotypical Queer presence (re: super flamey gay boy and the part is a for a straight dad to 3 kids and he cannot act his way into a straight part). And there are not a ton of Queer parts out there, comparative to how many Queer actors there are.

2. Maybe the Queer actors who auditioned for the part were crappy actors. Not ALL of them, but what I am sort of saying is, should a movie simply hire someone Queer to play a Queer character because they are Queer? I think the right and best actor should get the part, regardless of Queerness.

3. Maybe there are some *almost* great Queer actors out there, who, because of the above, don't get enough acting time to become better actors to possibly get the big parts.

All that being said, I certainly would love to see more Queer actors out there.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Dylan

I'm a huge Law & Order fan, but I think L&OSVU perpetuates violence against women by desensitizing people to rape and violence against women. It's quite bothersome to me.


Dylan

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.

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

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.

[NJFemmie]

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?

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Mister Bent

Well, sure, that would be a great argument if that were actually the conversation being had here, but it's not. Actually, this post - in response to mine - is the first that has directly addressed the issue of media representation and cultural perception. Perhaps I missed a post along the way that also does so, please direct me to it if I'm mistaken.

Conversation about "what team" an actor is playing for, or, as Papa Chris said, "whining about straight portraying queering situations on TV" lacks as informed dialogue on media representation of lgbt "minority" culture. If we're worried about how the mainstream views lgbt individuals, then what is the relevance of the actor's sexuality? It's acting. The concern would be for plot line and script writing.

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'.

[NJFemmie]

I loved this

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

[Softly]

Originally Posted by Rufusboi

So what happens when queers play straights? David Hyde Pierce played a straight guy for years. Should he give up that part to a straight guy? Portia de Rossi plays straight parts? Should she refuse these? Jodie Foster? Vin Diesel? Neil Patrick Harris? Should they all refuse straight parts because they are gay?

Since when is Vin Diesel gay?

really?

[Softly]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Well here ya go enjoy
YouTube- Lady Kisses: That's Gay

Thanks I watched this.
at WORK.

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

Did this show air yet?

wednesday night it comes on