straight actors / gay roles

[Sparkle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...nstream-movies

Straight actors steal lesbian sex scenes as Hollywood embraces gay romance

With Black Swan and The Kids Are All Right vying for Oscars, it seems Hollywood is growing up ... but the best roles still go to straight women

from the article:

snip/
The two favourites for the 83rd Oscar for best actress are Natalie Portman and Annette Bening and, if either of them wins, the ceremony will also mark a momentous night for many more women: it will be the night when lesbian sex scenes became part of the cultural mainstream.

snip/
The casting of Portman, Moore and Bening, all straight actresses, in the roles of women who are bisexual or lesbian has provoked acrimony in Hollywood's gay community. Some argued that only well-known heterosexual stars were happy to take gay parts because they could be confident their career would not suffer. This view was dryly echoed by gay British novelist Stella Duffy this weekend. "It seems it is always fine for straight women to play lesbians – in fact, they quite often get Oscars for it," she said.

Casting gay women in straight female roles is more of a problem. Several well-known Hollywood leading ladies are thought to be lesbian, but have decided to keep it quiet. Just as gay actor Rupert Everett recently admitted to the Observer that he "would not advise any actor necessarily, if he was really thinking of his career, to come out", so female starlets who want a shot at the A-list must still lead a double life.

snip/
Historically, lesbian characters in film are often portrayed as threatening. Just as homosexual or effeminate men are viewed with suspicion in many screenplays, so gay women are associated with predatory obsession.

From the Beryl Reid character in The Killing of Sister George, to the malevolent and deluded teacher who is played by Judi Dench in Richard Eyre's film of Notes on a Scandal, cinema's crop-haired lesbians are clearly to be avoided. Beautiful young ballet dancers, however, can at least expect to be granted a sex scene.

This sort of unbalanced representation of gay women in mainstream show business is inevitable, Stella Duffy is convinced, as long as Hollywood is controlled by male bosses.

"The reason we see a lot of gay female sex on screen now is because straight men tend to get off on seeing gay women on screen and they don't get off on seeing gay men. And men are in charge. It is as simple as that," she said.

__________________

I thought this article was interesting.

Do you think Gay/Bi/Trans actors should have first dibs on playing gay/bi/trans female roles?

What is your opinion on the culture of homophobia among Hollywood film makers? The encouraging of young actors to remain closeted for the sake of their careers?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Do you think Gay/Bi/Trans actors should have first dibs on playing gay/bi/trans female roles?

What is your opinion on the culture of homophobia among Hollywood film makers? The encouraging of young actors to remain closeted for the sake of their careers?

I hesistate to say that I think LGBT actors should have first dibs on gay/trans roles. I think that actors should be given roles according to their ability, rather than their sexual orientation or gender identity. That said, I do think that certain roles would be better played by LGBT actors, especially in films that attempt to portray a specific experience or perspective. A straight or cisgender actor could only ever really "act" the role, while I think an LGBT actor might lend something of their own experience to the role.

To give an example, I think that the transgender roles in films like Soldier's Girl, Transamerica and Boys Don't Cry could have either benefited by bringing in a trans actor, or in the cases of true stories like BDC and SG would have been both symbolic of respect and groundbreaking (as far as starring trans actors, which is pretty rare). I do think the actor who played Calpernia did a great job, but I think a film retelling a tragedy like this is in a position to do even more than tell the story of Calpernia and Barry, but giving exposure to trans actors as well. I also think in the instance of Boys Don't Cry it may have helped in avoiding portraying Brandon as a lesbian (particularly in the end), which he was not. I know none of these are Hollywood films, but if this is still a problem in independant films then it's no wonder Hollywood continues to be much worse.

Anyways, I hope that Hollywood (and all filmmakers for that matter) change their views toward starring LGBT actors. But obviously the film industry is still very geared toward heterosexual cisgender people. People are still very narrow minded when it comes to portraying these roles in film, but hopefully the film industry will start to take on a bit more of an avantgarde approach (which I think would go a long way).

[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.

[little man]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Do you think Gay/Bi/Trans actors should have first dibs on playing gay/bi/trans female roles?

no. unless we require that all parts are played by someone with specific experience. we should only have murderers play murderers, politicians playing politicians (although some are damned fine actors), the clergy should only play clerics? one of the basic premises of movies is the suspension of disbelief. in my mind, it is up to the screenwriter to bring his/her own life experiences to play in any work that is produced. by having that specific experience themselves, they can bring a reality and depth of understanding to the characters. i'd much prefer to see a good actor in a role, based on their skill than a poorly skilled actor giving a painful rendition one aspect of themselves.

What is your opinion on the culture of homophobia among Hollywood film makers?

i think it's a perfect mirror of society in general. the folks running hollywood are just in a position to control what we see as "entertainment". face it, these guys are out to make money. unless the higher percentage of the moviegoing public is LGBT, they are going to pander to the audience. again, social norms are going to drive the industry. if most straight folks in the world were inclined to see queer characters, you can bet there'd be a ton of queer characters on the screen.

until society in at large is more accepting of queers in general, i don't see things changing a great deal.

The encouraging of young actors to remain closeted for the sake of their careers?

i think most folks are encouraged to stay in the closet, whether they work as actors or not. sure, it'd be nice to have queerness normalized in the world at large. i don't think it's incumbent upon anyone who goes into acting as a profession to come out for the benefit of the community. why should anyone be asked to risk the ability to do work they love?

i think, to some degree, we (the moviegoing public) have a tendency to conflate the actors with the roles they play. i know i've had a crush or two...based on an actor's portrayal of a character, rather than who that actor is as a person. their job is to make us believe in the characters they portray. i don't believe that tom hanks is a gay man who succumbed to aids. i do believe he did a magnificent job of portraying a character who did.

in short, i don't really care about the sexual proclivities of people in hollywood. i care about the proclivities of who i'm sleeping with...and that's not up for public consumption. i really don't think anyone "owes" it to us to announce their sexuality. i don't see that it's anyone's business but their own.

[Kobi]

I'm not quite as concerned about who plays the lesbian/gay/transgender roles
as I am in the storyline reflecting the reality of our lives.

The Children Are Okay was not my favorite portrayal of lesbians -
lesbians using gay male porn as a sexual stimulant? A lesbian having hot
repetitive sex with a male? Seems to be reflecting more of male fantasies then it is of
lesbian lives, or lesbian motherhood.

While it might be sad for actors/actresses to have to hide their
sexuality for their careers, I think it is the illusion/perception/persona
that plays a big part in their success.

What this translates to in reality is perceived differently i.e.
I have no problem seeing Rupert Everett playing a straight guy,
but I have trouble taking Neil Patrick Harris serious as one.
Queen Latifah, in a straight or not role will always be hot
and credible to me.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I'm not quite as concerned about who plays the lesbian/gay/transgender roles
as I am in the storyline reflecting the reality of our lives.

The Children Are Okay was not my favorite portrayal of lesbians -
lesbians using gay male porn as a sexual stimulant? A lesbian having hot
repetitive sex with a male? Seems to be reflecting more of male fantasies then it is of
lesbian lives, or lesbian motherhood.

I really loved 'The Kids Are Alright'. I thought the writing and acting were both exceptional.

I thought Cholodenko (perhaps the first *Out* Oscar-nominated lesbian director?) did a truly wonderful job of dealing with the extremely painful and damaging issue of adultery; particularly the impact on the family.

And in my experience, lesbians do watch gay male porn and have been known to sleep with men. Those things did not feel disingenuous or discordant to me. I found the film a touching portrayal of a lesbian-parented family.

[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/