This is a fascinating debate to see, as it raises a distinction that is not often seen: queer is not a synonym for gay. Queer is an umbrella term embracing the "sexual subaltern" in all of its varieties and iterations. Like Ed Wood, Drew Carey's brother on his sitcom, or David Duchovny on Twin Peaks, just because a character may dress in drag, that doesn't mean you get to discount that character's heterosexuality... although the straight dragger is a distinct minority.
I think this is actually a pretty interesting argument. I haven't seen the show yet, but it would definitely make things interesting if he was straight. Then again, Billy Porter is a very intelligent actor and has problem thought about it and feels that it is only honest for him if he doesn't play it as such.
Most of the off-Broadway's don't pay that great. And even a lot of the non-profit Broadway companies. With company dues, agent dues, etc. It doesn't leave you with a ton.
I think he's used the word wrong, or at least it comes across wrong in context. The film's character is portrayed asexually, not AS an asexual person. There is a difference between a period of asexual behavior and actual "asexuality as species of queerness."
What's stranger than the two disagreeing is Harvey's disagreeing with himself. First he says he's heterosexual. Then in the next breath he says he's asexual.
Well... Musto also has The Nance wrong, since that character is seemingly straight, too.
From the LCT website: "A headliner called "the nance" was a stereotypically camp homosexual and master of comic double entendre - usually played by a straight man."
Call it my English graduate-school training, but I didn't read the nance as a gay "burlesque performer," but as a "gay burlesque" performer. For instance, the difference between "gay porn" star and gay "porn star."
That was my understanding of The Nance was that as well; that the character is gay - though perhaps not openly - but that he plays the Nance role, which was typically/presumptively played, Minstrel fashion, by straight actors.
That was my understand of The Nance as well....and that the drama comes from Lane's character trying to reconcile his onstage life making fun of gay men, with his offstage life of being one.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
While I respect both men for having their convictions about the character, I think it would be beneficial if they discussed this, came to a mutual decision, and let the outcome flesh out the character more (both in the writing and performance). Not that I necessarily think that the sexuality of Lola informs much in the musical itself, but things like Lola possibly being a virgin or “not having sexuality” are absolutely things that could play into the creation of this character (and, may have a significant effect on either the written character or portrayal). I did not see much depth in Lola (even in the moments we were supposed to), so, perhaps, this would be a good place for them to start and be able to show a few more sides of Lola (or, even, just for themselves to keep in the back of their minds; have a better idea of who Lola is, what has happened to her in the past, etc.).
So I finally saw Kinky Boots last week, and I was confised in the second act and instantly thought of this thread. Lola in the second act comes out...as straight, saying women prefer a more feminine man, and I was honestly a bit confused. Did Harvey add these lines to force Porter into agreeing with his ideas about Lola? Also is Lola now more a femenine man alla Prince?
Those lines were already in there in the Chicago production, so I'm not sure Harvey put them in there specifically to make Porter agree with his take on Lola's sexuality (or, if he did, it obviously didn't work). It’s these lines that make me wish Porter and Fierstein had sat down and fully discussed it, decided on something (even if that be that Lola is still exploring that question), and then fleshed out the character more based on their decision. If they are going to add any lines inferring anything about Lola’s sexuality, then I think it is worth fleshing out more, even if it’s just for Porter to be able to have in his mind while performing (or, as is discussed in the article, possible past events that influenced how he feels about sex or sexuality). Like I said in my previous post, I think it could be a good place to start to show more sides and depth to Lola (which is something I found missing in the character).
Maybe the key is it doesn't matter if he is straight or gay. He still didn't fit in as a kid or get respect from his father. Who he chooses to sleep with as an adult does not change much of anything in terms of what the script is trying to say.
But I agree, as an actor, you have to make a choice to perform well...so this should have been a discussion earlier.
To me, the role purposely leaves open to some interpretation by actor and audience whether Lola's cross-gender expression is motivated by erotic cross dressing, by being transgender (a matter of basic identity), by drag (a humorous burlesque of social convention), or some combination of these. This is alluded to briefly in the film; in the musical, this idea gets fleshed out and played with in the number, "What a Woman Wants." As a result, Lola's gender identity is intriguingly ambiguous, consistent with the defiant personality of someone who refuses to be categorized (there's a line to the effect of "I should warn you I have the habit of doing exactly the opposite of what people want"). Many transgender folk increasingly refuse to be pigeonholed as completely male or female. I think both the role written by Fierstein and Billy Porter's performance manage to capture and convey all of these possibilities, and it makes complete sense that different people can see different possibilities in the character.
So of course it is impossible to say for sure whether Lola is gay or straight - that depends not only on the gender of the person to whom one is attracted, but the gender as which one identifies, after all.
