Straight Actor + Gay Role = New Blackface?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:01pm

I think the cries of "blackface" are so overdone at this point (and such quick attention-getters!)the term has become meaningless, but I did find this an interesting read.
From Salon.com

[Kad]

Posted: 6/12/13 at 11:14pm

He sort of lost me when he criticized Behind the Candelabra for focusing on the gilded glitz of Liberace.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:30am

Yeah, he clearly feels differently about the movie (and ignores how something he thought was pure spectacle stereotype to many people, including myself, was shot and directed in such a matter of fact manner) than others did and the cherry-picked quotes he chose are implying about of writers/critics who have a strong track record for more inclusion of gay characters on television, such as Nussbaum.

Soderbergh's not raked over the coals because he could have at any damn time given up on ever doing the movie and spent years pitching the movie to several movie studios.

The article is pretty lazy and redundant in its points and actually seems to lack any real scope in the history of gay visibility in cinema and being in the closet in the entertainment industry. J. Hoberman and Richard Brody each wrote more credible articles within the context of Behind the Candelabra, that each really ought to be cited in any following article/essay on the movie- whether that next author liked the movie or not.

Updated On: 6/13/13 at 12:30 AM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:38am

After years of "There's nothing different between us and straight people" trying to embargo gay roles from straight actors just seems so damn regressive.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 1:25am

His point seems unclear regarding whether he's unhappy with how straight writers write scripts about Gay men, or if straight men playing Gay roles are the equivalent of blackface.

Beyond that, I think there's a Pandora's box on the horizon if he were to get his wish of having Gay roles go to Gay actors only. What would the process be for proof that an actor is Gay or straight? Criminee - the finger pointing and "Yes he is! Oh, no he's not!" does more damage than simply hiring the actor who portrays the role best.

I'm completely content to leave the responsibility for declaring Gay/straight completely out of the acting profession, and solely in the hands of the actor himself.

[jackieoh]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 1:47am

This reminds me of the conversations sparked by that little NEWSWEEK article that targeted Sean Hayes back in 2010.

It is not the new blackface. I'm a lesbian who has played straight roles in heteronormative productions. I don't think twice when a straight actor plays a 'gay role'. In fact, in movies like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and even MILK, I commend those actors for possessing the innate ability to empathize with different backgrounds and different stories. I understand the issue of the perpetuation of homosexual archetypes and how that is troubling to the LGBT population, but it's acting. My sexual orientation is not listed on my resume.

Race and sexual orientation, though we choose neither, are fundamentally different and hold different weights when it comes to acting on screen or stage.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 6:00am

Apples and oranges.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 6:09am

Can Jews only play Jewish people? Actors with cancer play cancer stricken patients?

Silly. As long as the actor is playing the role, with respect and dignity to the truth of the character/story, that's hog wash.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 6:40am

^ THIS

[Playbilly]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 9:47am

A pretty wrong-headed argument, to me. Are actors supposed to present a GAY card along with their SAG card for auditions?

[Addison D.]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 10:00am

per 'Blockhead' in the comments section of the article linked in the OP:

"What a pointless, self-contradictory article.

Proves the point that Salon is in need of an editor."

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:22am

Gayface!

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:24am

I get his point, I really do but I don't nessecarily agree. If gay actors were limited to only playing strictly gay roles, they would be starving. As wrong as this sounds, the sad truth is that the majority of our culture and entertainment focuses on straight people, in many cases completely ignoring the fact that gay people exists, (Disney Channel, anyone?) or even worst, presenting them only for comedic purposes.

In a society where a gay scene on the big screen still provokes laughter and disgust for many people, straight actors who choose to take on such controversial roles and portray them with truth and dignity should indeed be applauded.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 11:32am

Here's where the argument is not wrong. Gay and lesbian artists (actors, writers and directors) have an obligation to tell our stories. No one can tell our stories better than we can. And because gay history is something that is difficult to construct with certainty, due to the closet and the need to hide for so long, we must find a way to inform the world who we are, and fiction is, perhaps, the best way to do so.

But that's where it ends for me with this article. Oh wait...I agree that no straight actor should be lauded as 'brave' for taking on a gay role. Nothing an actor does is brave. I say this as an actor. I have never once felt brave for doing anything on a stage or in front of a camera. That word shouldn't be used in the same sentence when it comes to performing.

I can understand critiques of BEHIND THE CANDELABRA. I did feel a certain queasiness, but I also felt a thrill watching something so freak-show and in-your-face. But then to turn around and praise BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (the CHILDREN'S HOUR of its day) just seems bizarre. And the number of times the writer mentions how much self-hatred many of these characters must have felt just speaks to someone who thinks The Closet is the whole story, instead of just part of the story. The joy Christopher Plummer infused into his performance spoke profoundly to me...it reminded me of the joy I felt as a young man finally making his way honestly in the world. It's a quality that isn't often shown on screen, and it was a beautiful thing to watch.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:01pm

Gay and lesbian artists (actors, writers and directors) have an obligation to tell our stories. No one can tell our stories better than we can.

I have a different perspective. I do not see a biopic about Liberace as being "my" story. In reality, I think few movies that contain Gay characters can claim that they are telling a "Gay" story.

To my mind, the only thing that separates us from others is the gender of those we love. Personal affectations, speech, posture, gestures, etc. don't define or limit anyone to be defined as "Gay". The article references that by giving an example of other movies with similar older/younger relationships in movies.

In that sense many of "our" stories are the same as others' and don't always require our participation to be "truthful". Updated On: 6/13/13 at 12:01 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:06pm

The only part I really agree with is that it's time to stop saying how "brave" a straight actor is when takes on a gay role.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:10pm

'In that sense many of "our" stories are the same as others' and don't always require our participation to be "truthful".'

I don't disagree, in that I certainly wouldn't advocate not letting straight people tell stories that focus on gay characters. But I think we have a responsibility to add our voices to the conversation. I don't believe that gay artists must tell exclusively gay stories...but we do need to tell our stories. And they are unique. They are special. And we are the ones who have lived them. It's out job to be a part of the storytelling.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:21pm

In the history of Black-face, black performers would also don burnt cork to make themselves darker. Does this mean a gay performer portraying a stereotypical gay role would also be accused of doing black face?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:23pm

I think I *have* heard the phrase Auntie Tom, but then again, it was usually coming out of the mouths of self-loathing fem-phobes.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 12:33pm

I am another one who agrees that it's time to stop saying its brave for a straight actor to play gay. My lead actor playing Neil in Mystetious Skin is 21 and straight and finds it Hillarious when anyone says its brave for him to take on a gay role, he doesn't understand what's so brave about it, I like that, he just sees a person not a sexuality ( to be fair hes living with me and my partner now as his life spun out of control about a year ago so we stepped in to help him, so he's surrounded by gays now lol)

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 1:57pm

It's like, someone plays a rapist, or a murderer or a pedophile or whatever and it's run of the mill, but play a gay and it's so brave and people might think he really is gay when they'd never think an actor was a rapist because they played one.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 2:14pm

Because people are obsessed with the buttsex.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 2:28pm

When straight actors play gay characters = brave
When beautiful actresses play ugly characters = brave
When actors play dictators, murderers, sociopaths, addicts, rapists, general monsters = meh
When actors play historical figures = awardz

Posted: 6/13/13 at 2:33pm

Drag IS the new black-face.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 6/13/13 at 2:50pm

"Gay" used to mean such a happy kind of word once.