Julia Sweeney's Discussion Forum

I'm shocked by how many people muddy the waters on this issue.

1. People CAN tell when men are gay (a majority of the time), and if you ask gay actors - instead of just spouting off an opinion without any knowledge of the matter - they'll tell you that they get passed up for jobs all the time specifically because of anti-gay discrimination. How do they know? The same way a Black man knows...oh, except that they're often TOLD by the casting director that, "It's because you're too gay for the part."

2. Of course it's ALL acting, but don't tell me there aren't any good gay actors out there. There are thousands of 'em. Are you folks really telling me that you believe straight men get this roles because they're better actors? If so, you'd better back that up with some serious evidence; I've been in theater departments, kids...there are LOTS of gay actors in the world...so SOME of 'em must be good, right?

3. If this were about racial discrimination, I doubt there'd be much dissention here.

It's a counterargument because what Jolson did is now considered tasteless, bordering on racism. No one would ever stand for that now (not without a LOT of explaining and some glowing, extremely obvious pandering to the Black Community). But when a straight guy pretends to be gay (and EVERY F*CKING GAY CHARACTER ON TV OR IN FILMS IS PLAYED BY A STRAIGHT ACTOR!), everyone makes excuses.

Honestly, this is like arguing with Christians!

Wow! What a glorious outburst.......
.
Sheldon, there is NO way to malign you... at least not without sounding anemic compared to the wonder of the prose AND the grace with which you malign yourself.

So, it seems a shame, a waste. rather cranky, and unduly picky to point out that what you insist is so, isn't really the case... and your choosing acting roles as a barricade on which to make your stand, brandishing your sword, just might, MIGHT be an error in, let us say, JUDGMENT.
Does that mean that life isn't harder on almost all fronts for gays than it is for straights?
No, it most certainly does not.
It just means - sticking to one subject, and one subject only- that, just for instance:

Harvey Feierstein (who is the author of the remark that a straight man playing a gay character is analogous to playing a role in blackface) is cast as a gay man in every film he has every been in, and if Harvey is straight then so is Lombard Street.
And Javier Bardem plays about every possible kind of role.
So does the exquisite Garcia Bernal who played Che Guevara in "The Motorcycle Diaries," and while the gossip jury is still out on Che, it certainly is not on Bernal.. who also played one of the more startling gay characters in ANY film, in Mala Educacion."
And his co-star, whose name escapes me at this moment, also gay, plays Bernal's lover.
Both starring roles of a gay couple in "The Wedding Banquet" were played by gay men.

And not to belabor your non-point with a long list let's just go back to Montgomery Clift, the gayest of gays who played the straightest of straights in "A Place in the Sun" and the gayest of gays in a stirring cameo in Judgment in Nuremberg."
Acting... its called ACTING...and is what actors do.
Divine always played Divine and divinely.
And John Waters, as far as I know always played gay characters when he earned his living by acting rather than producing and directing films.
On TV... "The Kids in the Hall" had at least two gay stars playing gay roles...again, sorry, their names momentarily elude me.
Although I'm sure since you have spoken to so many - I think you said "every" - gay actors about this very subject, your conversations included both of them..



Norma Manna Blum

I want to know, if people think they are so sure certain people are gay, does it not stand to reason that they would be able to tell who isn't?

Also, I had always assumed that the creatives in Hollywood were disproportionately gay, as opposed to the common man in the midwest, if the gay creators are calling the shots, who is there to complain to? I might be assuming a lot, but cmon.

I wonder if there could be an argument made that there could be more gay actors because it is somthing they develope when they are very young as a social survival skill. Acting straight to get along in a straight world?

I hope that didn't sound too bigoted.

CB.

Sheldon, your "Every gay character" comment is obviously wrong, so you'll have to back down on that one. And so far, you haven't given any evidence that the percentage of gay characters played by gay men is any more or less than the percentage of gay actors. If 10% of actors are gay, then it stands to reason, without any bias what so ever, only 10% of gay roles would be filled by gay actors. Just as 10% of all the rest of the roles would be played by gay actors.

I think what I and a few others seem to be saying is that the fact that the role is 'gay character' shouldn't have any effect on whether or not it is played by a gay actor or not. Gay actors should be no better at playing them than straight actors if they have any competence at acting at all.

That too, Airor.
Of course.
is there anything worse than watching an actor who is simply lousy at the job go down in the flames of being unable to grasp a role?
But that wasn't the point I was making.
I am a very simple person and was simply suggesting to Sheldon that he is dead wrong about his "statistics" (his tantrum over the rejection of them being HIS problem), and if he wishes to find examples of terrible affronts, as well as physical danger to gays in our society.. the world of theater in general and acting in the specific, is not where any of those lie.
Quite the opposite.
Now if he wants to argue that it took a long time, much too long, for the subject of homosexuality and how gay men and women live their lives to appear on our screens and stages, and thereby to enter our societal consciousness, then he might have a leg to stand on.
Although why anyone told up front that they have the mentality of Christians (whatever that means) would want to engage seriously in a discussion WITH him, on the subject, is beyond even unreasonable expectation.

Norma Manna Blum

Showbiz is about as far from my area of expertise as it gets, but I think I've read things about actors not wanting to get typecast. Like, if you play two gay roles, especially near the beginning of your career, then you get seen as "the actor who plays gay guys," and then you only get hired to play gay guys. (Likewise you can get stuck only playing macho action heroes or whatever.) Since there aren't that many gay characters out there, this seriously limits your career. I suspect that if an actor actually is gay (and out), then the danger of being corralled into that one type of role is even worse, because people would assume that the actor couldn't act straight (whatever the hell that means). It wouldn't surprise me if actors' agents specifically advised their gay clients to avoid taking gay roles because it could end up limiting their careers, way more than it would for a straight actor.

All just speculation, of course.

I think you might be assuming QUITE a lot. But that would certainly be justification of discrimination, if each of those points were true. Maybe this is about living in California versus not living here. If you spend any time in Los Angeles, especially in Hollywood, you soon make friends who clue you in to just how much of a "good ol' boys" town it truly is. Women, ethnic minorities, and the GLBT community don't stand a chance against that.

It doesn't seem more likely to me that gay actors aren't getting roles because they CHOOSE not to take them, than that they're being discriminated against. It's a bit like saying that Hispanics just CHOOSE to do field work or take dangerous, demeaning jobs. It makes us all feel a bit better about the world, but it ain't true.

You need to learn to recognize when people are generalizing for effect. Did you really think I was talking about EVERY gay character? I don't think you thought that.

Since NONE of you seem to be able to understand or accept this, I'm just going to end my participation in it and hope that you'll come to accept discimination against those in the GLBT community the way you all do regarding racial or ethnic discrimination. If I were a Black man and came here to lament the hiring discimination on Hollywood, I doubt ANY of the arugments you're all using would be uttered. I mean, who would ever say, "Maybe there aren't that many Black people in Hollywood," or "You need to back down on that ALL comment," or some such ridiculous staw man argument when it comes to race? It just goes to show you how far we still need to go to raise the public consciousness regarding GLBT issues. If even the Atheist/Liberal/Progressive contingent can't "get it," what chance do we stand when McCain gets into office?

Oh Jeez... do you mean that when people disagree with you about the practices of central casting they are now responsible for the probable election of McCain to the Presidency?
Or worse?
What DO you mean?
What other dire effect will finding you less than entirely cogent have on the Republic?
LOL......
Sheldon, if you actually fulfilled your threat to remove yourself from any discussions in which your opinions have been challenged, you would soon forget how to type AND/OR speak.
So please, please limit your threats because I for one would miss your particular brand of unreason.
That, and the way you can push yourself center stage by taking a vitally serious subject ... discrimination in the market place against homosexuals, as well as the physical danger to gays in our violent society... and turn it from a mountain into a mole hill.

Now it's one thing to harangue the world from a mountain top... so Mosaic, so Sermon on the Mount-ish, ... and quite another to brandish one's righteous sword from a mole hill.
As a matter of fact it reminds one (me) of a comedy skit involving an ANT named Sisyphus pushing that rock UP the mountain...... with his nose.

Norma Manna Blum

I haven't read anyone saying that they disagree that there is discrimination against gays and lesbians in the movie industry. I accept that as a fact. What I am complaining about is the way you're presenting it. Blowing things out of proportion just trivializes the problem because people can see right through your exaggerations.

Yes, there's discrimination. Yes there's racism. But we need to pick our fights. I don't see any reason to be all that concerned about this particular sub-sub-category instead of more blatant (and litigatable) cases.

Its as if someone wrote a post about how horrible it was that blonde girls living in Iowa with last names beginning with 'K' were being discriminated against. Well, yeah, but that's not the problem is it?