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.

@Dazzledrop

The point of this is that straight actors aren’t discriminated against in the industry on account of their sexuality and are offered parts playing both gay and straight characters, whereas LGBT actors often get turned down for straight roles because of stereotyping around their sexuality. Suggesting that jobs playing gay characters should go to gay actors where possible means that they aren’t being pushed out of the industry even further e.g by having a straight actor like James Cordon who could get work anywhere playing a role that a gay actor could have taken up.

This.

Its about representation.

@Bilingualspingual

I think that is an important distinction. There's lots of absolutely fabulous grassroots stuff, and historically the community as a whole has a different reputation than that of the main productions, and the elite.

Its interesting that television in my opinion is currently doing a lot of the pushing of boundaries at the moment which is exciting. It feels like its coming into its own and getting budgets based on that while big films still seem to be ruled by concerns about financial success and being more Conservative

Who are the LGBT actors who are getting turned down for being gay? I mean, do you have actual names? Do you have friends that are told they didn’t get a part because they’re gay? This is not my experience in the industry so I would be shocked to hear if this was true and who the casting directors and producers were who told them this.

But SimonJT, Russell T Davies didn't say it was about representation (which I agree needs broadening), he said it was about authenticity.

Thanks @Fallox. It sometimes feels that we’re all waitresses or Julia Roberts.

Most recent sexy heterosexual role played by gay man: Jonathan Bailey as Antony Bridgerton. He convinced me.

*I do think that if a non-diverse person has an opportunity to publish a diverse book, or play a diverse character

--> How on earth can an individual person or character be diverse or non-diverse? Diversity is a property of groups not of individuals.*

Sorry, thought it was clear that diverse / non-diverse is a commonly used shorthand for 'member of the LGBTQ+ community / neurodivergent / disabled / BAME' (or not a member of aforementioned groups), as it's a bit long and confusing to type out every time.

We also can’t spell ‘privileged'
Who can?!

I meant who can (I assumed I'd spelt it wrong

@stayathomer

@WeirdlyOdd

*I do think that if a non-diverse person has an opportunity to publish a diverse book, or play a diverse character

--> How on earth can an individual person or character be diverse or non-diverse? Diversity is a property of groups not of individuals.*

Sorry, thought it was clear that diverse / non-diverse is a commonly used shorthand for 'member of the LGBTQ+ community / neurodivergent / disabled / BAME' (or not a member of aforementioned groups), as it's a bit long and confusing to type out every time.

No, it just seems like bad grammar. I also think it lumps people into a giant "other" box and basically reinforces the idea of "normal" (which anyone not deemed to be "diverse" according to today's favoured characteristics is then boxed into).

...which is then, in a way, the opposite of diversity. A neurotypical, able-bodied Asian man is put in the same shorthand as a white lesbian, as a severely autistic teenager, as a wheelchair-using elderly Jewish man, as.... Etc.

The fact that it is long and confusing to type out all the acronyms each time suggests to me that they do not always belong together.

I get that there are many ways that different people and groups might face challenges and be excluded from things, so I agree with trying to think across the board about who that could be and when... I suppose I would argue that most of us fit into a "divergent" category in one way or another, in different situations. It's not that Sally Is Privileged but Laura Is Diverse.

Well as someone who ticks numerous boxes on the diversity forms, it works for me.

@WeirdlyOdd

Well as someone who ticks numerous boxes on the diversity forms, it works for me.

Are all of your boxes relevant in all situations?

No, its acting. Does it mean only convicted murderers could play murderers or? It's called acting for a reason and a good actor would research their part thoroughly beforehand.

Look at the context it was being used in. I was referring to writing and films and in writing circles in particular, 'own voices' is an ongoing discussion but that might not make sense to members of the general public who might not know this term. If I had each time typed out every single group multiple times in that passage, the general message would have been lost in acronyms.

Of course I'm aware of intersectionality as well as the differences between different aspects of diversity. It's part of my job.

I may not reply to any further discussion it is not that I am ignoring but because typing is frequently painful for me and I find speech-text software difficult.

A quick Google says that in the top ten films of 2019 (as 2020 was an odd year for film). In the avengers film, lion King, frozen 2, spider man, captain marvel,joker, star wars, toy story, aladin and jumunji. Out of the top ten roles listed for each, of the 100 roles 97% were hetro actors.

Isn’t that about right? Last I checked the homosexual population of the UK was around 4%. What should we be aiming for? Roles are going to be pretty bizarre if every production needs 50% women, 50% LGBT, 50% BAME, 50% ‘authentically’ disabled actors etc.

I can’t really speak for it myself but I know my DB and his husband are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the ‘representation’ narrative.

They had to stop going to pride with their dc when it became apparent that instead of the previous message of ‘we are just like you and want to live, marry and get on with our lives in peace’ the March had turned in to an adult fetish ‘look at how different I am, accept my leather BDSM gear/ fetish without question or you are a phobe’ walk.

They are just like every other family on the street, jobs, kids, just want a quiet life. They definitely find all the ‘look at me! I need special treatment because of my (insert victim criteria here) and if I fail it is not a fault of my talent/effort’ cringeworthy by association.

DB in particular says he thinks the 00s/90s had it about right. Instead of being forced, gay representation just was. Probably showing his age but some of the first characters my brother remembers fondly from his teens were Tom from Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie and Will/Jack in Will & Grace which was on in the mornings before college.

Well I think only people who can fly a plane should get any job acting as a pilot, only soldiers should get jobs in war films etc. Or it’s utterly ridiculous-the best person to ACT the role should get it. Why should someone get a job simply due to their sexuality

@MegtheShark

A quick Google says that in the top ten films of 2019 (as 2020 was an odd year for film). In the avengers film, lion King, frozen 2, spider man, captain marvel,joker, star wars, toy story, aladin and jumunji. Out of the top ten roles listed for each, of the 100 roles 97% were hetro actors.

Isn’t that about right? Last I checked the homosexual population of the UK was around 4%. What should we be aiming for? Roles are going to be pretty bizarre if every production needs 50% women, 50% LGBT, 50% BAME, 50% ‘authentically’ disabled actors etc.

I can’t really speak for it myself but I know my DB and his husband are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the ‘representation’ narrative.

They had to stop going to pride with their dc when it became apparent that instead of the previous message of ‘we are just like you and want to live, marry and get on with our lives in peace’ the March had turned in to an adult fetish ‘look at how different I am, accept my leather BDSM gear/ fetish without question or you are a phobe’ walk.

They are just like every other family on the street, jobs, kids, just want a quiet life. They definitely find all the ‘look at me! I need special treatment because of my (insert victim criteria here) and if I fail it is not a fault of my talent/effort’ cringeworthy by association.

DB in particular says he thinks the 00s/90s had it about right. Instead of being forced, gay representation just was. Probably showing his age but some of the first characters my brother remembers fondly from his teens were Tom from Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie and Will/Jack in Will & Grace which was on in the mornings before college.

I agree that there's a danger of over representation at times. However of the 100 roles there wasn't a single gay woman (although evan Rachel Wood is bi) . 2 of them are animated, and the other is one of the princes that is rejected in aladdin with tiny amounts of screen time. I'm sure it would be similar for past years. Also that there's never been an out bafta, or Oscar winner

I think it does show that being gay appears to limit the chances of getting an interesting lead role, rather than being pigeonholed as a gay character

Apologies that was meant to read evan rachel wood is bi, but wasn't listed in the top 10 of that film. Not that I decided she didn't count

It seems as though it could be very restrictive for gay and other minority actors. Afterall if only gay actors can play gay characters it won't be long before there is a vocal movement in favour of only straight actors playing straight characters.

Should the BBC sack the wonderful Ryan Kelly? I mean as a blind man how can he authentically portray a sighted character?

Utter bollocks. He's a wonderfully talented actor who does a fantastic job, why should he be further restricted by his disability? He succeeded in an open audition against sighted actors.

Further where does it leave us with ambiguous characters or characters where there is no reference to their sexuality or disability? Or a character who needs to be portrayed as both able bodied and disabled due to an accident or progressive condition? You couldn't have cast an actor with MND instead of Redmayne as Hawking as the character was shown prior to diagnosis. Plus in many cases it would be impractical, or impossible, how many middle aged black quadraplegic actors are there? Do you accept Denzel Washington playing disabled in the bone collector or not make the film which makes films less diverse?

I don't think it's a good idea, following on from that logic straight roles should only be for straight people.

“ The Equality Act 2010 says you mustn’t be discriminated against because you’re gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual. This is called discrimination because of sexual orientation.”

Therefore, a gay person can’t be discriminated for paying a straight part, and vice versa. A person should get the part on merit and suitability for the part etc, and not excluded purely in their sexuality.

@Standrewsschool

“ The Equality Act 2010 says you mustn’t be discriminated against because you’re gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual. This is called discrimination because of sexual orientation.”

Therefore, a gay person can’t be discriminated for paying a straight part, and vice versa. A person should get the part on merit and suitability for the part etc, and not excluded purely in their sexuality.

Wikipedia will tell you acting is exempt. Obviously the equality act hasn't ended discrimination elsewhere though. Just probably makes it less overt

I don't think its much of a benchmark is "you can be classed as a romantic lead as long as your never seen with a gay partner, mention being gay, and arent known to be gay to the public"

Different era different rules, but its beside the point, which was someone said "no gay actors are every cast as romantic leads" which is completely untrue and always has been.

The idea that acting, of all things, is closed off to gay people is laughable. Go to any Hollywood party of the last 100 years and more and throw a stone, you'll hit someone who was gay or bi.