DEBATE: Should straight actors play gay characters?

[bigboaster]

In recent years some portion of audiences have brought into question "straight actors taking gay roles" awya from gay actors and has sometimes become a sensationalist media story. Example Jack Whitehall

Jack Whitehall Is Reportedly Playing Disney's First Openly Gay Character And Film Fans Are Disappointed

People on both sides have made their voices heard.

You also have some actors like Darren Criss deciding to stop playing gay characters (after playing several):
Darren Criss Won't Play Gay Characters Any Longer For A Truly Great Reason

"There are certain [queer] roles that I'll see that are just wonderful,"

"But I want to make sure I won't be another straight boy taking a gay man’s role."

Another popular example that stirred up some Debate was CMBYN
"Call Me By Your Name" Is the Latest Gay-for-Pay Oscar Bait

'Call Me by Your Name's Straight Casting Stirs Controversy

What are your thoughts?

 

[bigboaster]

Actor Colin Firth on the issue:
“If you're known as a straight guy, playing a gay role, you get rewarded for that,” he said. “If you're a gay man and you want to play a straight role, you don't get cast — and if a gay man wants to play a gay role now, you don't get cast.”

Producer Tobin Low:
“I think most people are arguing that queer actors haven’t been given, and still don't get, the same opportunities as straight actors to tell their own stories, when they could really enrich these LGB roles,” he says. “That’s not to say straight actor couldn’t also enrich the roles in certain ways, but there’s definitely an argument for someone who can understand the background and where that character is coming from, which is especially important when they haven’t historically been given the opportunity or visibility.”

 

[bigboaster]

CMBYN director Luca Guadagnino, on why he did not choose out actors for his lead roles:

This film is about the blossoming of love and desire, no matter where it comes from and toward what. So I couldn’t have ever thought of casting with any sort of gender agenda. I think people are so beautiful and complex as creatures that as much as I am fascinated with gender theory — I’ve studied [American gender theorist] Judith Butler for so long — I prefer much more never to investigate or label my performers in any way. I only cast the actors and actresses I fall in love with — truly having an emotion for them, an anticipation and enthusiasm when seeing them — and I believe that my emotional confidence in them blends into chemistry. It’s always been like that, and I hope I won’t be wrong in the future.

 

[deleted1074483]

i have very mixed views/opinions on this. For example, the latest series 'its a sin' cast all gay people into the gay roles - the actors were all brilliant by the way so no problem with that - but the reason given by the writer/director was that as the series related to the issue of HIV/AIDs epidemic in the 70s/80s it was necessary to put gay men in those roles as they had the gay 'experience' that they could bring to those roles. The problem being that all the actors are in their 20s so gay or straight actually have NO direct experience of gay life in the 70s/80s or what it was like then to go through that epidemic emergence.

I do also believe that we should never tokenistically give some a role/job/position just because they are gay or whatever, it should go to the best person available who will bring life to that role/job/position irrespective.

That said, if the actor is openly gay and has been cast in a range of roles (so not just gay roles) and you can see they are a great actor irrespective of being gay I do think is very powerful, they are good role models and young/new/coming up or out people can see that they too can 'make it'.

My hope is that over time this becomes just another non-issue altogether, but so long as there is no discrimination against anyone and that the best actor for the role is chosen, then i have no issue with gay playing straight, or straight playing gay.

 

[bigboaster]

i have very mixed views/opinions on this. For example, the latest series 'its a sin' cast all gay people into the gay roles - the actors were all brilliant by the way so no problem with that - but the reason given by the writer/director was that as the series related to the issue of HIV/AIDs epidemic in the 70s/80s it was necessary to put gay men in those roles as they had the gay 'experience' that they could bring to those roles. The problem being that all the actors are in their 20s so gay or straight actually have NO direct experience of gay life in the 70s/80s or what it was like then to go through that epidemic emergence.

I do also believe that we should never tokenistically give some a role/job/position just because they are gay or whatever, it should go to the best person available who will bring life to that role/job/position irrespective.

That said, if the actor is openly gay and has been cast in a range of roles (so not just gay roles) and you can see they are a great actor irrespective of being gay I do think is very powerful, they are good role models and young/new/coming up or out people can see that they too can 'make it'.

My hope is that over time this becomes just another non-issue altogether, but so long as there is no discrimination against anyone and that the best actor for the role is chosen, then i have no issue with gay playing straight, or straight playing gay.

Thanks for the very nuanced reply bud. Hope to get some more like that. While I have my own view on the issue I will try to play devil's advocate for both sides as much as possible lol.

So I mostly agree with everything you said but I want to only push back on one thing slightly.
"it should go to the best person available who will bring life to that role/job/position irrespective"

While this is a admirable goal, very meritocratic. I don't believe this is typically the case to begin with. Actors get roles for superficial reasons all the time. The way they look, nepotism, the casting couch, reputation/clout etc. I don't think casting is ever just based on "who is best for the role" i think a lot of other factors come into play But outside of this point. I think you were entirely reasonable.

 

[deleted1074483]

hey bud, thanks for liking my nuanced post - more than happy for you to 'push back' on what i've said ;-)

just in regard to what you picked up;

So I mostly agree with everything you said but I want to only push back on one thing slightly.
"it should go to the best person available who will bring life to that role/job/position irrespective"

I do agree with your challenge, and this is why i do have mixed views on the subject, for all the reasons you quote, life is not 'fair' and not all actors (not just gay) get the right access or fair access to roles.

if you look across all sectors of life, but especially 'public' life (acting, music, politics, even football etc) you see that those coming through are from backgrounds already in the field with all the connections - take Will Smith, his children's breaks came because they were in movies with their dad - so many examples of this.

makes it hard for anyone to break through, add in being 'different' as well and well, i guess its tough!!

 

[blondconnection]

The criteria should be a good actor is cast to play the part. Straight or gay, there's series of screen test and auditions to pick the right actor.
Several straight actors (I believe them to be) did a fantastic job in movies such as Milk, Brokeback Mountain, Carol. It did not matter who they were in real. only the movie mattered.

 

[englad]

My viewpoint is that a gay actor can bring greater authenticity to a gay role, based on lived experience. So I think it is better when a gay actor is cast to play a gay role, and for far too long, Hollywood has been all too eager to embrace LGBTs as long as they stay in the closet. There still aren't that many openly gay actors, and gay actors often end up having a greater risk of being typecast once they come out.

Now, having said that, I think that a straight man who researches homophobia, and the experiences of dealing with it and goes out of his way to find out about our lives, can give a excellent portrayal of a gay character, and there have been many examples. So I don't see it as a dealbreaker or hard rule, but I do think it's better to have a gay actor playing a gay role. Fundamentally, I'm much more concerned about the straightwashing of gay characters or downplaying of their sexualities.

19 Queer Characters Straightwashed for TV and Film

 

[bigboaster]

My viewpoint is that a gay actor can bring greater authenticity to a gay role, based on lived experience. So I think it is better when a gay actor is cast to play a gay role, and for far too long, Hollywood has been all too eager to embrace LGBTs as long as they stay in the closet. There still aren't that many openly gay actors, and gay actors often end up having a greater risk of being typecast once they come out.

Now, having said that, I think that a straight man who researches homophobia, and the experiences of dealing with it and goes out of his way to find out about our lives, can give a excellent portrayal of a gay character, and there have been many examples. So I don't see it as a dealbreaker or hard rule, but I do think it's better to have a gay actor playing a gay role. Fundamentally, I'm much more concerned about the straightwashing of gay characters or downplaying of their sexualities.

19 Queer Characters Straightwashed for TV and Film

Very interesting and revealing article. Thanks for sharing my friend. Wish I could say I was surprised but I'm honestly not. Predictably disappointing from Hollywood. There is a faux air of pro lgbt on the surface but so many subtly anti lgbt decisions made behind the scenes far too often.

 

[bigboaster]

The criteria should be a good actor is cast to play the part. Straight or gay, there's series of screen test and auditions to pick the right actor.
Several straight actors (I believe them to be) did a fantastic job in movies such as Milk, Brokeback Mountain, Carol. It did not matter who they were in real. only the movie mattered.

I agree. I don't think I would recast any of those films. They were great and the actors in gay roles were pretty convincing. I don't think they deserve any particular praise for 'bravery' personally or whatever that narrative is for str8s playing gay. But their acting was solid.

 

[bigboaster]

hey bud, thanks for liking my nuanced post - more than happy for you to 'push back' on what i've said ;-)

just in regard to what you picked up;

So I mostly agree with everything you said but I want to only push back on one thing slightly.
"it should go to the best person available who will bring life to that role/job/position irrespective"

I do agree with your challenge, and this is why i do have mixed views on the subject, for all the reasons you quote, life is not 'fair' and not all actors (not just gay) get the right access or fair access to roles.

if you look across all sectors of life, but especially 'public' life (acting, music, politics, even football etc) you see that those coming through are from backgrounds already in the field with all the connections - take Will Smith, his children's breaks came because they were in movies with their dad - so many examples of this.

makes it hard for anyone to break through, add in being 'different' as well and well, i guess its tough!!

Well said. It's a dog eat dog world and those with connections often get a significant advantage (especially in Hollywood)

 

[SilentButDeadly]

If you can play the part, play it.

 

[3403861]

It’s a slippery slope when the Gold Star Gays with blue check Twitter accounts start making demands based on identity. It shouldn’t matter what orientation the actor is and it’s dumb to insist that it does. By that standard let‘s deny roles to meat eaters who audition to play a character who happens to be vegan. Or how about excluding Christians from playing a role written about an Atheist.

 

[CallMeAlex]

My answer is yes. I think the story being told matters far more than the actors telling the story. If they are able to do a good job, why not?

 

[AfterHours69]

19 Queer Characters Straightwashed for TV and Film

They eventually covered Constantine’s bisexuality in Legends of Tomorrow, and in Interview With a Vampire, it was not explicit, but pretty clear. I guess that they were pushing the envelope for the time. It’s sad, really.

 

[Brodie888]

I tend to despise most of the woke crap of recent years.

If the best actor for a gay role is gay but they give it to a straight actor, that's wrong.

If the best actor is straight but they give it to a gay actor, that is also wrong.

Also, I think it's better for the world to be exposed to gay themes using the star power of straight actors such as Tom Hanks, Timothée Chalamet, Colin Firth, Hilary Swank, Heath Ledger, Sean Penn etc than an all gay cast indie film that only makes the festival circuit.

 

[ichbins]

i think that, for a certain time, only gay actor should play gay roles simply because the ratio of gay characters to out gay men in the business is extremely disproportionate. Only giving gay roles to gay actors gives openly gay actors a lot more chances to shine and make a name for themselves in the industry, which could really serve as an equalizer and even work against the age-old hollywood tradition of forcing queer men to stay in the closet.

 

[tito21]

They’re actors, who cares which ever gender role they want to play, i’m more impress if Rock Johnson takes up the role of a proper English Lady - being engaged to a young handsome guy and was forced to enlist to fight a war, a WW2 biopic! Now that’s some Oscar acting worthy shit.

 

[briacon429]

Imho the whole question kinda misses the point. I completely agree that representation is important, but I don’t think the solution is to avoid having straight actors play gay parts. The solution is in some ways the opposite: they need to open up more opportunities for gay actors— and queer actors in general— including straight parts.

After all, the real issue is that there are so many great queer actors out there and they don’t get cast enough. So the solution is to offer them more parts! There also need to be more queer people behind the camera, including writers, directors, and crew. (The same principles also apply to women, especially over a certain age, not to mention minorities.) That’s how you ultimately get more queer representation onscreen, and tell stories that more people can relate to.

 

[bigboaster]

Imho the whole question kinda misses the point. I completely agree that representation is important, but I don’t think the solution is to avoid having straight actors play gay parts. The solution is in some ways the opposite: they need to open up more opportunities for gay actors— and queer actors in general— including straight parts.

After all, the real issue is that there are so many great queer actors out there and they don’t get cast enough. So the solution is to offer them more parts! There also need to be more queer people behind the camera, including writers, directors, and crew. (The same principles also apply to women, especially over a certain age, not to mention minorities.) That’s how you ultimately get more queer representation onscreen, and tell stories that more people can relate to.

I actually agree. I think online publications and twitterites framing the issue around "gay roles" was a bit odd. I assumed that was the issue they seemed to care about most but I do think that more casting for out gay actors (in any role gay or straight) is a more meaningful discussion and would lead to better outcomes overall.

Particularly for the "gays can't play straight" trope since that is often the more pervasive stereotype that gets gay actors typecast to begin with and keeps so many actors in the closet. The myth that out gay actors can no longer play convincing straight roles once they come out. Which is just nonsense.