ACTOR in DR.SEX puts his foot in his mouth...

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/22/05 at 10:07pm

From the NY Daily News: If I were the producers of DR.SEX, I'd tell this kid to put a lid on it.

"Have faith in 'Sex'


Let's hear it for nontraditional casting. Making his Off-Broadway debut this week will be Christopher Corts, who has interrupted his studies at an evangelical seminary to play a bisexual boy toy in "Dr. Sex," a musical comedy about Alfred Kinsey.


He plays Wally, a (fictional) lover of both the late sex researcher and his wife.


Corts, who plans to become ordained, comes from a family of preachers, including his father, who is traveling from Phoenix to see the show. But is he worried about playing gay when the family business is evangelism?


"Can I ever play a liar? Can I do 'Other People's Money' or do a role about a Wall Street cheat?" he said, adding that he wouldn't shy away from roles that "might possibly be controversial or lead to any kind of excess or moral decay."


That last remark is gonna cost you a GLAAD Media Award, buddy. ("Dr. Sex" starts previews next Friday at the Signature Theater.)"


Updated On: 8/22/05 at 10:07 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 12:46am

Paging "art2"! Where are you?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 12:57am

I know this is just one person's opinion and his remarks are not facts but... I have got to tell you gents and ladies, it gets tiring to hear myself compared to cheaters and liars and the morally decayed.

It can wear a guy down.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 1:10am

frankly, the moral decay is more likely to come from all the ways I twist the headline "Actor is Dr. Sex puts his foot in his mouth..."

[wildcat]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 1:20am

Well, it makes a refreshing change from "I don't have to be an axe murderer to play one".

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 7:45am

ok, am I the only one who fails to see the problem? I know it wasn't worded so great, but he is hardly saying what you are all trying to make him say. He acknowledges that with what he is studying to do his current role seems controversial, which is true, and bully for him for taking such a role. And bully for him for not letting the controversey involved stop him from taking future, possibly controversial roles. Sometimes you guys (no, not "you gays") make such a fuss over the littlest thing. geez, just look how long that thread about the "homophobic" rent went on with this nonsense.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 8:52am

My beef is with the "moral decay" line. I also think its interesting that Mr. Corts needs to publically defend his assumed heterosexuality ("I'm going to be a priest!!")in such a way as to give his show negative press...

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 8:55am

so he's willing to play a politician, a drug dealer, a drug addict, a sexual abuser and the list goes on. You read what you wanted to read because of the current climate of things related to gays and religion. You gave yourself a cause.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 8:59am

Zone -- It's not a cause. It's called being smart. This is the same arguement that came up when Chenoweth appeared on the 700 Club. If you are going to star in an Off Broadway musical, which attracts a largely gay audience, its usually a good idea to be wise how your phrase things. I'd be willing to bet the Producers of DR.SEX are for one, not happy with the negative press.

I get what Mr. Corts is saying. But a simple. "No, I'm not gay, but I don't have any problem playing a gay role" would have sufficed.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:15am

Do you realize the position playing this role has probably put him in? Honestly? You don't tink he is taking crap from all sides for doing it? Someone studying to be a man of the cloth playiong a decidely non-heterosexual role? People he knows who are already or who are also studying the same thing he is certainly can't be pleased, his family full of ministers and what not probably are less than thrilled and then there is the gay community that can't be happy with a man that involved with organized religion playing such a role given the reputation organized religion has when it comes to gays. I applaud the man for being able to play such a role and not turn it into a soapbox for himself. It can't be easy for him, and yet, his comments show he is doing it, and wants to contnue to do it and won't shy away from controversy. Get over your inane sensitivities. What he is tantamount (sp) to someone obviously and openly gay playing a member of clergy. Something that probably isn't easy no doubt controversial.

Now as for where I am coming from with all this. I am not a religious person, in fact, I'm an atheist, and also, I'm far from a poster boy for Straight Boy Monthly (of course if there actually was a Straight Boy Monthly, and they did have Poster Boys, it probably would be obscenely unstraight, but that is beside the point) so don't think I'm some sort of bigot or hate mongerer. I'm not. I just understand what the man is saying.

[ianacts]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:26am

Here is the point: The attitudes he displayed in the interview are exactly the kinds of attitudes Dr. Alfred Kinsey was opposed to- the way I see it is as an actor it can be very dangerous to stand in “Moral Judgment" of the character you are playing. Your job is to understand where the character is coming from, so you can make his intentions understood to the audience. Furthermore don’t tell me not to be offended when someone makes comments like that. He is an adult. He made the comments. He can deal with the “Fall Out" whatever it may or may not be. and also, When are we gonna stop "congragulating" and "honoring" straight actors for having the " Courage" to play gay roles. actors are actors and should be able to play many kinds of roles. its not brave as much as its what we do.
Updated On: 8/23/05 at 09:26 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:29am

"adding that he wouldn't shy away from roles that "might possibly be controversial or lead to any kind of excess or moral decay." "

Where are you all getting that he is referring to this particular role? Read it again. Carefully.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:31am

exactly, you are making an assumption that you can't possibly know is true. Known of us actually know what he meant, we are all assuming, you are all just assuming the worst because that's what you've been programmed (no, not brainwashed) to do.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:33am

I agree with everyone who opposes this kid's lame statements.

However, having been in his position before (a seminary student playing a gay guy on stage), I must say he is in an odd position. While I think what he said was stupid, I know form first hand experience that we need to take baby steps towards change. If his first step is saying it's ok to explore this part of himself, then good for him. However, he does need someone to let him know that equating homosexuality (God's gift to 10% of the population) is not the same as murder, stealing, or abuse (man's gift to her fellow man).

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:37am

Whether its what he meant to say or not is almost besides the point now, because the writer of the story clearly believed the "moral decay" line was referring to this role and thus wrote a negative piece of press on it. The GLAAD comment is his, not mine...

Zone, truly, I don't care about what Mr. Corts believes or the politics of what he says -- I am more fascinated by how what you say (perhaps quite innocently)to a reporter can open a can of worms.

My bottom line is simply -- careful what you say in interviews.
Updated On: 8/23/05 at 09:37 AM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 9:39am

touchme, you don't know that he equates the two things, all we know is the writer of the article thought so and wanted us to think so. You can't always believe what you read.


Why do I seem to be the only one who wants to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT ofcourse as i make that post someone else points out that we can't necesarily trust the author.

Updated On: 8/23/05 at 09:39 AM

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 4:38pm

Am I correct in assuming that this is the same "Dr. Sex" which was produced in Chicago two years ago at the Bailiwick?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 4:48pm

No one told him to take the role. If he feels it necessary to affirm his displeasure towards homosexuality, then perhaps he shouldn't have taken the part. I don't recall "Off-Broadway Actor" being a pre-requisite for priesthood.

[freeadmission]

Posted: 8/23/05 at 5:28pm

As an actress coming from a religious background I have thought about playing religiously-taboo characters a lot. I came to the conclusion that it's not a matter of the character being a deviant or not, but how that deviance is PORTRAYED. In this situation (coming from the general religious perspective) the fact that his character is gay wouldn't matter. What WOULD matter would be how that character is written in the context of the entire play. Is the character's homosexuality portrayed as a good thing or a bad thing? Is the character sympathetic? How? etc. etc.

To be more specific: if a person is convicted that homosexuality is wrong (however correct or incorrect that conviction is, it is STILL a conviction) he shouldn't play a homosexual who is held up as the hero becuase he triumphs in the face of intolerance or whatever. But he could, with good conscience, play a homosexual who is necessary to the story, but not the hero. Do you understand what I mean?

I guess my point is, this isn't so cut and dry as it's being made out to be. It's not a matter of "Should clergy play homosexuals?" as much as it is a matter of "Should I, with my convictions, play this character?"