AIBU to think gay roles for gay actors

[SqueakyCarrots]

Is basically pushing people to out themselves?

In what other career would it be ok to question people’s sexuality? What if the actor isn’t out or doesn’t want to be? What if it’s a teenage role and a teen actor- how can it be ok to question a child’s sexuality? What if the person themselves doesn’t know yet? How would they be expected to prove it? And wouldn’t pretending to be lgb something some would fake to get a role?

Sure there’s a need to address those who feel discriminated against because of their sexuality within the film industry. Sure it would be great to look at how gay people are represented in films, narratives that aren’t stereotypical or insensitive. But the idea that gay roles should only ever go to gay actors seems to be on every social media feed and I don’t see any concerns about it in response.

I'm lesbian and don't care a whit if an actress playing a lesbian on-screen is actually lesbian. It's acting. Pretending.

I am baffled that this is even a thing.

That's what I thought acting was - pretending to be something different. How far is this going to go? Should actors do accents? Can a rich actor play a poor character? I don't get it personally.

I assume that gay actors wouldn't be able to play straight characters then?

Agree with PPs. When does it end? Only poor people can play poor people, only rich people rich people, only people from London can play people from London, if a film is set is a specific town then only locals from that town need apply for the acting job... There'd be no rich actors and actresses in Hollywood because as soon as they got rich and moved to Hollywood their careers woild be really limited as they could only play rich characters living in Hollywood and so they'd soon run out of roles and money

And yes, like a PP said - can gay people still portray straight characters?

The same discussion is happening in some writing circles - and yet the whole point of writing is imagining a different life...

It's tricky with writing, because obviously you want good representation, of a wide range of diverse people's experiences, and you want people who have been previously excluded from opportunities to have a chance to express those. Otherwise you could end up with tons of stories which regurgitate an unrealistic or damaging view of a diverse experience. (For decades, some professional writing advice books included gay relationships alongside adultery, and advised that the only suitable plot ended in tragedy.)

I do think that if a non-diverse person has an opportunity to publish a diverse book, or play a diverse character, then they have a responsibility to research and make it as realistic as possible (and that would include paying and acknowledging sensitivity readers, not expecting them to do it out of the goodness of their heart/good of the cause) , and a responsibility to use their exposure and influence for good when they can, either by raising awareness of associated issues, or providing diverse actors/writers with opportunities, to give them a leg up if they're in a group that has traditionally been excluded.

It's not pushing people to out themselves

If they're not out they would most likely just not apply for the role

Pretty simple

I genuinely neither know nor care about the sexuality of most actors so wouldn't know if a gay actor is playing a gay person or not. Surely it shouldn't matter and that's the whole point.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4137718-AIBU-to-be-completely-on-the-fence-Straight-men-playing-gay-roles

I don't think it's as simple as saying 'gay/bi people wouldn't apply for gay/bi roles/write gay/bi characters if they weren't ready to come out'.

Many writers write as a way of processing and coming to terms with things, and one of those things can be sexuality. They may not even know when they start writing a book, and then discover something about themselves whilst writing. And that book can be finished and ready for publishing before the writer is ready to come out. I know of a few gay and bisexual writers who have been in this difficult situation of feeling they need to claim their identity before they are ready, to avoid accusations of appropriation etc.

Anecdotally, there are gay and bisexual (especially bisexual) actors who are happy to play gay/bisexual characters, but not ready to come out, sometimes because they've not been ready, but especially in Hollywood, they may have (probably valid) fears that they may be seen as ineligible for the much more numerous hetero leading men roles in the future.

(And when an assumed straight actor plays a LGBTQ+ role, they're not usually assumed to be LGBTQ+ themselves (think Redmayne in The Danish Girl/Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game/Hugh Grant in Maurice/Heath Ledger in Brokeback) so playing a non-straight character doesn't risk being forced out of the closet. Therefore a LGBTQ+ actor who wasn't comfortable coming out could play an LGBTQ+ character without being at any risk of being forced out. So the only barrier comes if the actor is forced to come out in order to be eligible to play that role. Some closeted and even unaware LGBTQ+ actors have played diverse characters, before coming out later in life, like Clea duVall (But I'm a Cheerleader), they may be processing things themselves.)

I do understand the argument to a certain extent, in that if you’re a gay jobbing actor and are being told you’re ‘too gay’ for certain roles, it must be a slap in the face to see people like Jack Whitehall getting the roles you could be suitable for. However, in that particular case, I imagine he got the role in Jungle Cruise because he’s Jack Whitehall - i.e. a known name. If they were going to cast a gay actor instead, they would probably have cast Luke Evans or Zachary Quinto instead of Steve the unknown gay actor.

I think we should enforce it strictly until everyone sees that it's a stupid idea.

No more Christmas films unless you can get real elves and Scrooge must be played by 2 actors unless you can rely on the first one changing his views part way through.

Utterly ludicrous. The whole point is these people can act (hopefully). Pretending to be an entirely different person is kind of the point.

I've always found this ridiculous. Actors should be able to suspend reality through performance or frankly they aren't up to the job in the first place. Straight/gay/bi doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

Reasonably certain that James McAvoy doesn't have a substantial personality disorder but he was magnificent in Split (easily the best acting range I've ever seen in one performance).

As an aside I think Luke Evans is a perfect example of an actor playing parts outside their own experience. I don't really pay much attention to the sexuality of actors as a rule, it's irrelevant...I only know about Luke because he was drinking buddies possibly more with my colleague back before he got famous.

@LastTrainEast

I think we should enforce it strictly until everyone sees that it's a stupid idea.

No more Christmas films unless you can get real elves and Scrooge must be played by 2 actors unless you can rely on the first one changing his views part way through.

And what about Pantos where a leading woman is often played by a man?

There's a reason it's calked ACTING 🙄🙄🙄

I think it's ridiculous. The whole point of the acting profession is that you are pretending to be another person and it shouldn't matter if you have the same sexuality as that person.

You raise a good point though that it shouldn't be necessary for all actors to declare their sexuality for the purpose of finding suitable roles

I think it's absolutely right.

And I also think only superheroes should play superheroes, and only edwardians should play edwardians, and only country singers should play country singers and only royalty should play royalty.

But I think it might be tricky...

It’s madness - and so restrictive. Plus it seems like a really dangerous precedent to set because how many roles can there be for gay people, and yet if those are the only ones they can play, then does that mean that everyone ends up totally typecast?
Does it mean that only actors can play exactly what they’re already like?
So why even bother having actors, just have normal people.

So if some plays a serial killer they're outing themselves as a,serial killer.. The point of acting is basically being something you're not. People don't play themselves.

I think the focus should be more on the normalization of homosexuality in movies and tv, and producing more tv series/movies that depict homosexuality.

Basically the focus should be on the scriptwriters/directors who want to make "homosexual stories" not on the actors they choose to play the characters, because previously these films and stories were always quite niche, so it would be great to see them more mainstream.

YANBU. You don't have to be a paedophile to play one, else Kevin Bacon is in a lot of trouble (Sleepers and The Woodsman). The point of acting is that you are being something you are not. It's nonsense to say only homosexuals can play homosexual characters, just as Tom Hanks wasn't really on the Apollo 13 mission and it's never been confirmed that Leonardo DiCaprio has owned slaves.

It then follows that only straight actors can play straight roles. The whole point of acting and fiction has been screwed by this sort of "put everyone in their box" mentality

I found out recently that there are qualified consultants who take actors through their sex scenes, so there can be no accusations of abuse or exploitation, but also how they can add significance to the film.

Rightly so. I’d far rather have input from them than just the director on a closed set. Some of the scenes in Eyes Wide Shut are excruciating! Plus, a single sexy scene can make or break an actor’s career. I’m thinking of Richard Gere (American Gigolo, good), Sharon Stone (Basic Instinct, good), Jamie Dorman and Dakota Johnson (bad bad bad).

So, I’m sure intimacy coaches are also available for straight actors in gay roles. Like Taron Everton and Richard Madden said about Rocketman “We’re actors, it’s what we do.”

*Autocorrected “Egerton”

There is a gay actor on Twitter at the moment who is currently highlighting a role he applied for where the casting breakdown asked for a gay actor.

His Spotlight profile does not mention his sexuality so he was sent a reply basically saying that he was not eligible to apply. He replied saying he didn't realise that there was "a way of being gay"