An actor playing a gay character can be done in a heightened, vaudeville type style which it might be argued is an analog of blackface.
But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sexuality of the actor in question. There was a time when black actors played in blackface (see Minstrel Man). There was also a time when gay actors played gay men as a comic comment on us v. them (or a closeted "us" v. them) (see The Nance).
A portrayal of a gay man can ring false, overplayed for comic impact, a play on stereotypes, and, as a general proposition, it has nothing to do with the performer being straight or gay. As it happens, although I had issues with Behind the Candelabra, I would not describe Douglas's or Damon's performances in this way. I thought they both did a credible job and played it straight (i.e., legitimately). And I certainly don't care at all about their sexuality in judging their work here.
Drag is the new blackface? I'd agree to a point. First of all, drag is not not new; it's much older than blackface.
But, more to the point, there is a difference between the typical broad (pun intended) style of drag (not that there's anything wrong with drag) and performances which realistically and sensitively cross gender, performances which are not intended to lampoon or playfully comment on the very nature of the opposite gender but, rather, in which the actor is merely playing a role of the opposite sex (e.g. Bedford's Lady Bracknell, Hunt's Billy Kwan, Anderson's and Veno+
ra's Hamlet).
Updated On: 6/17/13 at 01:04 PM