DEBATE: Should straight actors play gay characters?

[SgtGirth]

Is what we are saying that there is no way the straight people can truly come to understand what it's like to be gay?

Is what we are saying that there is no way for the experience of a gay man to be understood in universal terms? That is to say, as an illustration of the human condition?

Is what we are saying that empathy and sympathy (lit. "feeling with") and compassion (lit. "suffering with") are nothing but myths?

Is what we are saying that the experience of another human being is fundamentally unknowable?

It strikes me that these are the implications of accepting the proposition that straight actors cannot effectively portray gay characters.

 

[michael_3165]

For me it's acting ability all day. If you are a brilliant actor then by all means get the part. If there are two equally talented actors, one gay, then yes ideally just because they don't get as many roles. But I don't buy into the narrative that they don't get being gay.

It's almost as if pretending to be someone you aren't is shocking in 2022. Guys, it's called acting.

 

[HeroSignalCosplay]

Whats worse is that once the role is finished the straight actor is free to continue on as if it was just another job to the next one but gay actors are all but blackballed. Its as if theyll only be casted as gay characters in shows or movies but any straight roles and they have to climb a damn mountain just to even audition let alone be considered. Like Matt Bomer and Zachary Quinto both of them are great actors but when they came out theyve had nothing but gay roles. I remember a rumor about how Matt auditioned to be superman for Man of Steel but they said it was cause he was gay. I dont know if that's true or not but it wouldnt surprise me if it was. Henry is a good superman dont get me wrong but you get my point.

 

[Capitolhillguy]

What bothers me more is the majority of gay ROLES are written for straight acting gays. Perhaps more of the younger gays have blended in more with straight culture, but most of the gays I used to know before they all died were not so macho and sports minded and were into Cher and Barbra and ice skating LOL.

 

[bigboaster]

Complete nonsense. "Gays can't play straight" It's called ACTING for crying out loud where the person acts like people who usually are nothing or the complete opposite of their real selves. Hell look at Luke Evans before anyone knew about him he nailed all of his straight roles, even after when he did that Mom movie I never would've guessed he was gay.

Another thing and I cant stretch the hypocrisy enough, Hollywood has problem casting Lgbtq+ actors as straight characters but none whatsoever casting straight people in gay roles. You can't be okay with one and not the other. Don't get me wrong there are some straight actors who have played the HELL out of gay roles. Alex Landi in Gray's anatomy. Alyson Hannigan in BTVS, Jason Lewis in Midnight Texas (I know 2 out of 3 of those are supernatural shows but Im a nerd thats my wheelhouse) But there have been gay actors who were just as good if not better in reverse roles. As you said it's Hollywood's crappy stardards that keeps actors who want to come out or at least try to step out in the closet out of fear of rejection or being Typecast. Im not gonna front when I first came out during high school, I use to share the same views only in my case I was against Straight actors playing gay roles because I thought they would be so uncomfortable they wouldnt do justice to the roles which in my defense was based off the movies and shows I did see back then when romance scenes were cut and/or edited for sake of the str8 actors starring in them. But that was wrong of me to think that way because it's suppose to be equal, if someone's uncomfortable with the scene they shouldnt have taken the part to begin with but then again not every movie is or has been a good one lol. Whether the person can be convincing has to do with their talent and skills NOT THEIR SEXUALITY!

Straight Facts!! (no pun intended I swear lol)

Also I applaud your introspection on your own past views and your growth.

I still think only really good straight actors should even attempt a gay role. At least be able to sell it well. right? Lol I've seen some really garbage portrayals over the years. Ijs

 

[bigboaster]

Whats worse is that once the role is finished the straight actor is free to continue on as if it was just another job to the next one but gay actors are all but blackballed. Its as if theyll only be casted as gay characters in shows or movies but any straight roles and they have to climb a damn mountain just to even audition let alone be considered. Like Matt Bomer and Zachary Quinto both of them are great actors but when they came out theyve had nothing but gay roles. I remember a rumor about how Matt auditioned to be superman for Man of Steel but they said it was cause he was gay. I dont know if that's true or not but it wouldnt surprise me if it was. Henry is a good superman dont get me wrong but you get my point.

I rmr hearing that rumor about Matt as well and I do believe it honestly lol idec. That kind of thing would never be truly confirmed since there would be an uproar about it. Rightfully so. I think he could have been a wonderful Superman or Bond even. Imho. But that ship has sailed lol

 

[bigboaster]

What bothers me more is the majority of gay ROLES are written for straight acting gays. Perhaps more of the younger gays have blended in more with straight culture, but most of the gays I used to know before they all died were not so macho and sports minded and were into Cher and Barbra and ice skating LOL.

Lol I kind of see what you mean but I think that itself has been another ongoing debate in the community. Should more gay roles be "stereotypical" or "sanitized". I've seen people on both sides make somewhat compelling arguments.

I guess I'm in the middle (typical fence sitter lol) I think there is room for both. I think the diversity of gay men should be portrayed screen? Idk.

 

[Brodie888]

I understand that gay history is important and teen suicide and HIV needs a light shone upon them.

But I do get sick and tired of the vast majority of gay themed movies that are about gay men living tortured miserable lives that often ends with them coming to terms with dying in hospital from AIDS or some other bitter sweet conclusion.

We do need balance. How can young gay men and their family feel good about accepting their orientation if all we show is doom and gloom?

 

[Capitolhillguy]

Lol I kind of see what you mean but I think that itself has been another ongoing debate in the community. Should more gay roles be "stereotypical" or "sanitized". I've seen people on both sides make somewhat compelling arguments.

I guess I'm in the middle (typical fence sitter lol) I think there is room for both. I think the diversity of gay men should be portrayed screen? Idk.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[briacon429]

I understand that gay history is important and teen suicide and HIV needs a light shone upon them.

But I do get sick and tired of the vast majority of gay themed movies that are about gay men living tortured miserable lives that often ends with them coming to terms with dying in hospital from AIDS or some other bitter sweet conclusion.

We do need balance. How can young gay men and their family feel good about accepting their orientation if all we show is doom and gloom?

I agree completely— and it reinforces what I said earlier, that there should be more parts out there. You’re absolutely right that a lot of gay movies are all about doom and gloom (though some of them are very good, like “A Single Man” or “The Normal Heart”). There’s also a second category of gay movies about coming out (like “Love Simon”). But in mainstream film or TV, that’s basically it.

There are SO MANY more stories to tell about the gay experience!

 

[Christopher Chamberlain]

Lol I kind of see what you mean but I think that itself has been another ongoing debate in the community. Should more gay roles be "stereotypical" or "sanitized". I've seen people on both sides make somewhat compelling arguments.

I guess I'm in the middle (typical fence sitter lol) I think there is room for both. I think the diversity of gay men should be portrayed screen? Idk.

Agreed. Sometimes it infuriates me how the queer community switches lanes so often. They get upset when queers are depicted as flamboyant and say that Hollywood is stereotyping. Then they get upset when queers are depicted as masculine and say that Hollywood is glorifying/normalizing the "straight-acting" queers. Lol. The very term "straight-acting" is an oxymoron if you think that flamboyance is a stereotype. You can't have it both ways. Either flamboyance is the norm for queers, or it's a stereotype. Which is it? Lol. But I digress. As for straight actors playing queer roles, it's a mixed bag for me. Largely, because of the hypocrisy on Hollywood's part. There are some roles that Hollywood insists can ONLY be played by straight actors (i.e. Superman). Way back in 2011 - 2012, it made headlines that Matt Bomer was denied from simply auditioning for the role of Clark Kent (aka Superman) in the upcoming Man of Steel movie because he was openly queer. Even though he had been playing a straight character on White Collar for years, Warner Bros. still felt that having a queer actor play such an iconic character would hurt ticket sales. So they called his agent and said not to even waste his time rehearsing the lines because even if he was perfect for the part, WB believed that straight men, who make up for most of the fanbase, would be upset and refuse to watch one of the greatest American superheroes by depicted by a gay man, and also believed that straight women would have trouble swooning over the hunky Kryptonian if they knew the actor playing him was strictly-dickly. It's so fucked up, but this is how Hollywood continues to think to this day.

So, by sending this message that queer actors pose a danger to the company's profit revenue, obviously, that only leaves roles that are based around queer characters for queer actors to play without the threat of hurting sales at the box office. However, as it turns out, Hollywood doesn't fear profit loss when casting straight actors to play queer roles like they do queer actors to play straight roles because hetero-phobia doesn't affect ticket sales like homophobia does. So, that literally leaves all of these queer actors struggling even moreso than their straight counterparts to have a successful career in the Entertainment Industry. This might also explain why so many queer celebrities are either closeted or they're often pigeonholed in the same "sassy, gay friend" role that they've been playing forever because that's the only part that these producers feel are a good fit for them. If these individuals ever want a chance to win an Oscar or mold their footprints at the Grauman's Chinese Theater, they have to remain closeted. In other words, they have to "fake it to make it". They have to continue acting out this charade even after the director calls "cut".

 

[HeroSignalCosplay]

Straight Facts!! (no pun intended I swear lol)

Also I applaud your introspection on your own past views and your growth.

I still think only really good straight actors should even attempt a gay role. At least be able to sell it well. right? Lol I've seen some really garbage portrayals over the years. Ijs

Lmao! Even if it wasnt intended that pun made me fall the hell out! Love it. And thank you, I like think Ive come a long way in regards to my views and personality since coming out. And I agree with you I've seen crappy portrayals which brought on that way of thinking in the first place back then. And not only really good actors but also ones that would be open to kissing and sex scenes without looking so uncomfortable seen way to many of the garbage ones just the same.

 

[HeroSignalCosplay]

I rmr hearing that rumor about Matt as well and I do believe it honestly lol idec. That kind of thing would never be truly confirmed since there would be an uproar about it. Rightfully so. I think he could have been a wonderful Superman or Bond even. Imho. But that ship has sailed lol

I agree cause his White Collar character and Bond wouldnt be that different and he was great in that show. I also think he would have killed the Superman role he does give off Clark Kent vibes, I mean black hair blue eyes, put him in a pair of glasses and he IS clark lol. It sucks if that was the reason cause no way anyone would truly know cause like you said Hollywood would deny it up and down for that very reason. Theyre not strangers to shady ass behavior

 

[chrisrobin]

An actor is a person pretending to be someone they are not, it's all about suspending belief.
Theatre, film and television drama are make-believe even if based on true events, it's all pretend.
If you follow through with the premise that only a person who is the same as the character being portrayed should play the part then who would play kings and queens and saints?
You cant have it both ways, it's one - pretend and get the best possible person to play the role or you can go for an actor who has limited experience and talent just because they are the same genetic make-up
We have already seen too many film and television companies abiding by the "woke" ideals and giving us inferior drama but - it ticks boxes.
So people, get real, make-believe and true-life ain't the same. I want to be entertained.

 

[bigboaster]

Agreed. Sometimes it infuriates me how the queer community switches lanes so often. They get upset when queers are depicted as flamboyant and say that Hollywood is stereotyping. Then they get upset when queers are depicted as masculine and say that Hollywood is glorifying/normalizing the "straight-acting" queers. Lol. The very term "straight-acting" is an oxymoron if you think that flamboyance is a stereotype. You can't have it both ways. Either flamboyance is the norm for queers, or it's a stereotype. Which is it? Lol. But I digress.

I agree fully. Lol it's a mess.

As for straight actors playing queer roles, it's a mixed bag for me. Largely, because of the hypocrisy on Hollywood's part. There are some roles that Hollywood insists can ONLY be played by straight actors (i.e. Superman). Way back in 2011 - 2012, it made headlines that Matt Bomer was denied from simply auditioning for the role of Clark Kent (aka Superman) in the upcoming Man of Steel movie because he was openly queer. Even though he had been playing a straight character on White Collar for years, Warner Bros. still felt that having a queer actor play such an iconic character would hurt ticket sales. So they called his agent and said not to even waste his time rehearsing the lines because even if he was perfect for the part, WB believed that straight men, who make up for most of the fanbase, would be upset and refuse to watch one of the greatest American superheroes by depicted by a gay man, and also believed that straight women would have trouble swooning over the hunky Kryptonian if they knew the actor playing him was strictly-dickly. It's so fucked up, but this is how Hollywood continues to think to this day.

Oh wow. I had no idea all that drama went down re: Bomer and Superman. I thought it was all just a rumor. Damn!

So, by sending this message that queer actors pose a danger to the company's profit revenue, obviously, that only leaves roles that are based around queer characters for queer actors to play without the threat of hurting sales at the box office. However, as it turns out, Hollywood doesn't fear profit loss when casting straight actors to play queer roles like they do queer actors to play straight roles because hetero-phobia doesn't affect ticket sales like homophobia does. So, that literally leaves all of these queer actors struggling even moreso than their straight counterparts to have a successful career in the Entertainment Industry.

Right. As much as I am fine with hets getting gay roles and all that. I wish it was more balanced.

This might also explain why so many queer celebrities are either closeted or they're often pigeonholed in the same "sassy, gay friend" role that they've been playing forever because that's the only part that these producers feel are a good fit for them. If these individuals ever want a chance to win an Oscar or mold their footprints at the Grauman's Chinese Theater, they have to remain closeted. In other words, they have to "fake it to make it". They have to continue acting out this charade even after the director calls "cut".

And that's why the Hollywood closet is gonna keep going for long time still. Until this underlying homophobia is called out in explicit terms, things won't change much.

 

[colorfulkent]

It's not AllActorsMatter, it's about gay actors. There are enough roles for straight actors, they get all the good parts. It's time gays get some parts, and frankly they aren't getting the straight ones. I think it's cultural appropriaton, like when straight guys fake gay sex in porn. Their no arena that straight men can't own, not even our own porn. Gay sex by gay men is more honest and authentic and I can tell the difference. The Inheritance was a play all about the gay experience, winning awards, telling our story, except it wasn't. All of the lead actors were straight. WTF do they know about our experience!

 

[Carolina HM]

As long as the screenplay writer or/and the director are gay, I accept straights doing gay roles.
Ex: Paul Mescal is playing a gay man in the next Moffie director movie. The director (which is also the writer) is gay.

 

[tiger61]

Isn't acting just playing "make believe" anyway. So I don't see the big deal

 

[deleted1074483]

WTF do they know about our experience!

whilst i don't overall disagree with your comments, as i put in my original response i'm kind of split on this, especially where we quote 'experience'. Yes there need to be more roles for LGBTQ+, yes we need equal access to all roles queer or straight etc in front and behind the scenes. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

But, is there one 'gay' experience? As a 50+ coming from a time when we did have to march for our rights, when there was no representation etc and from the UK, that is going to be a massively different experience to a millennial or someone from Nigeria, or the US, or China - even my experience of a 50+ in the UK will differ from another 50+ UK gay guys.

Also, in terms of acting, if experience is the deciding factor how does an actor justify acting as a killer, or abused person, or abuser, or or or?

An actor needs empathy with the role they're playing, to have done research, talk with those who do have experience etc to gain an understanding of their character, surely that is what defines a 'great' actor from a mediocre actor?

And when playing across time periods, as i put in my original response, in the UK we recently had the very brilliant mini series 'its a sin' based around the HIV epidemic in the early 80s - brilliantly acted by gay actors all of whom were early 20s so had no direct experience of that time and how it was, and it was very different to now - the writer did and wrote the parts from that perspective - so how does their experience as a 20something gay man equate to those who'd now be late 50s/60s/70s having lived through that. It was the writer's experience that they were acting to/through not their own surely?

Just a different perspective!

 

[bigboaster]

whilst i don't overall disagree with your comments, as i put in my original response i'm kind of split on this, especially where we quote 'experience'. Yes there need to be more roles for LGBTQ+, yes we need equal access to all roles queer or straight etc in front and behind the scenes. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

But, is there one 'gay' experience? As a 50+ coming from a time when we did have to march for our rights, when there was no representation etc and from the UK, that is going to be a massively different experience to a millennial or someone from Nigeria, or the US, or China - even my experience of a 50+ in the UK will differ from another 50+ UK gay guys.

Also, in terms of acting, if experience is the deciding factor how does an actor justify acting as a killer, or abused person, or abuser, or or or?

An actor needs empathy with the role they're playing, to have done research, talk with those who do have experience etc to gain an understanding of their character, surely that is what defines a 'great' actor from a mediocre actor?

And when playing across time periods, as i put in my original response, in the UK we recently had the very brilliant mini series 'its a sin' based around the HIV epidemic in the early 80s - brilliantly acted by gay actors all of whom were early 20s so had no direct experience of that time and how it was, and it was very different to now - the writer did and wrote the parts from that perspective - so how does their experience as a 20something gay man equate to those who'd now be late 50s/60s/70s having lived through that. It was the writer's experience that they were acting to/through not their own surely?

Just a different perspective!

Very well argued reply my friend.