but see the OTHER thing being missed here is this notion that all gay actors are raging girly boys and that all straight actors are butch.
This is not the case.
It all boils down to being a good actor--CAN you play the character and not just be yourself?
The director or casting director, or hell, stage manager once the show has been running a while, is the one who is casting these actors. If they truly feel that these actors cannot "put it away" while they're onstage, they should not cast them. bottom line. HOWEVER...what I find offensive about this post is exactly what jrb pointed out. The term you are looking for is effeminate or feminine, not gay. Gay means that I love the same sex-which has absolutely NOTHING to do with how I walk, talk or perform on a stage.
A little boy dancing like Madonna is not acting "gay," he's acting like Madonna. Changing terminology can change more than you think. PLEASE have a little more respect.
I agree... but read my post through next time and you'll see I never refer to any type of behavior as gay... "forward and flamboyant" and "dance and twirl", and so forth... but never as "acting gay." I do refer to gay actors, and for gay actors I'll change it to make it inclusive and say actors who choose to act like girls... aka... effeminate.
Making sure an actor does their job every night, and does it right, is a lot harder then you think (be it Madonna poses or Farting.)
VAGUE GV SPOILER WARNING
Did anyone notice how careful they were in GV with the gay couple? Once 'you know who' professes his love to 'you know who', they touch like once in rest of the show. Even when everyone is onstage at the end singing God Only Knows and they're all coupled up, the gay couple never gets within 3 feet of each other. They only even looked at each other once. I felt like they were directed that way, to not offend anyone with some scary male hugging onstafe. It was a big load of BS.
There are many gay actors who can play straight with no problem (Sieber, NPH, Burtka, to name a few) it's an acting problem not an innate one. It does bother me sometimes 'cause you just don't but the relationships. Those two or three guys who keep hitting on what's her name in Mamma Mia! during their big dance number couldn't have been more gay when I saw it. Though Mamma Mia isn't the straightest arrow in the box anyways...
To his credit I liked Eddie's understudy, he had one of the only three or four redeemable numbers in the whole show. The show was so bad I didn't care that he was kind of a gay chris rock. He sang the crap out of that music though, and stayed on pitch, which was rare that night. I would like to see Tituss...
For those not familiar with bronx, he/she will say just about anything to stir up trouble and get heated reactions from people just for fun. That is why I posed the question, but did not delve any further into the subject. I knew something like this would eventually pop up.
Bronxboundexpress, your comments are truly disturbing, whether said in jest or in absolute seriousness. What you wrote is much too close to what was being said in Nazi Germany about the Jews. "Too many of them." Educate yourself about the dangers of bigotry. Think just a bit about what you said, and about the consequences of these types of remarks. The many gay people on this board, including myself, deserve an apology from you.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/20/04
When Charles Nelson Reilly played Bud Frump in "How to Succeed..", he played him as a nerdy, obnoxious jerk. When Jeff Blumencrantz played him in the revival, he made him a flaming queen. This goes completely against the script, which has Bud ogling secretaries all the time.
Blumencrantz also played Maximillian in the recent CANDIDE concert as a flaming sissy. of course, Maximillian is also supposed to be a gorgeous hunk, and Blumencrantz is a bald geek.
Is this trend some way of saying, "Back in the 50's and early 60's, we couldn't have obviously gay characters, but now it's OK!"?
Saw Good Vibrations last night and have only one thing to say:
UNBEARABLE.
Paid $3 for the ticket which was about $2.50 too much.
I think that part of why they don't have the gay couple touching at the end (and maybe it's just my optimistic view point) is that they are still new in their relationship and maybe aren't comfortable touching each other in public yet...
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/7/03
Except that's it is supposed to be five years into the future. I wish they'd be a little closer, especially since the girls hang off their guys.
Didn't you feel like it way directed that way?
I mean they could have been holding hands or something at least...It looked so horrible with everyone else ontage (who are strangers for all we know) are cuddling.
Yes, Matt is correct and i WAS in fact joking. That is my whole purpose on this board tragically though I am trying to cut back. Don't worry you all. I am not a bigot. The joke was that "being gay should a privilage for a few of us and there is an abundance." lol Anyway, I think this topic I started about seeing gay people on stage rather than the characters is an important one so keep it going if you want.
And I think using words like GAYNESS and GAYISM is funny because I'm basically making fun of the people who really are stupid uneducated bigots and the whole "marriage is a man a woman thing." Sorry if I scared anyone. I was also surpised by the who gay thing in GV and the joke about not knowing what year it was.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
Bronx, I don't know if you've noticed this, but your sense of humor absolutely doesn't work in print. Maybe it's funny when you say these things out loud to your friends; I don't know, but I haven't seen anyone "misinterpreted" as often as you on this board.
aww bronxboundexpress and his "little routine"....
it's boring me to tears.
it's the one where he starts a topic by insulting someone or in this case a whole group of people then sits back and sees everyone get pissed only to come back and post that he was "only joking".
seen it time and time again....
nice work bronxboundexpress you have your work cut out for you, hope this made your day go faster...
Updated On: 2/10/05 at 01:41 PM
I have to admit, I've sometimes equated acting "too gay" with bad acting, because bad acting is occasionally expressed as being too gay.
I saw Godspell at a community theater production and the actor playing Jesus was noticeably effeminate from the moment he came out on stage. This could have been overlooked, but when it got to the point that he was (literally) grabbing other guys' asses and winking at them, it was no longer considered "acting too gay" with actually BEING gay- no acting involved and just happening to be onstage at the time.
This happened when I was 12; I never returned to that theater and I never saw Godspell again. Something about making a religious figure flamboyantly gay really bothered me. So when an actor in another show I'm seeing happens to be slightly effeminate, I regress and worry that- oh god, it's happening again and another show is ruined for me. While I've never encountered another case of bad acting quite like this since, it does make me a bit more sensitive.
The problem isn't gay actors, it's bad actors that cannot effectively portray the character, for whatever reason. If too much of your own personality comes out, it's not considered acting anymore.
Bad acting is bad acting, doesn't matter what the person does in bed.
Rock Hudson comported himself fine in his film roles, never once did a wrist go limp, what's worse to me is a STUPID actor, one who has no connection to the dramatic arc of a scene they are in, watch any daytime soap and you'll see what I mean.
Leading Actor Joined: 12/31/69
Wait...Jesus was grabbing other guys' asses on stage? THAT is my kind of deity!
FInally a concept for Godspell that makes sense!
Marquise, you know me too well!
Also, did anyone else swear that was Judi Dench conducting the band? Look at the monitors in front of the mezzanine.
The band?
Yes, the band of GOOD VIBRATIONS. Judi Dench is the conductor.
And then, doctor, I fell out of bed and the whole thread had been a dream!
Videos