Today's topic of discussion.

[hackthis_archive]

In today's Variety there's an article on Brokeback Mountain, one of many that have come out over the last few months and which will doubtlessly be followed by many more. I mention this because in reading it this comment caught my eye,


I don't believe they would have ever allowed an openly queer director to make this movie, nor do I believe that actors of this calibre would have signed on. In a long line of ironic outcomes, it took these guys [Jake Gyllenhaal & Heath Ledger] with impeccable heterosexual credentials to make this kind of breakthrough.
-Critic and author B. Ruby Rich

Do you lot agree with that?

Discuss.

Comments

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

It is sadly correct. Which is surprising. See, I always thought Scott Thompson would have been far better to play the lawyer in Philadelphia, instead of Tom Hanks. That over ten years ago and yet Hollywood is still casting "impeccably het" guys to play gay main characters.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Wait, so let me get this straight. Gay actors should play gay characters and straight actors should play straight characters? Isn't the point of acting to, you know, act?

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

I think, in Hollywood's, well, not defense, but you know, in explanation of their general thought process -- damn that's a convoluted sentence. Right, okay, Hollywood is all about making the most money possible, so historically speaking, they've done that with their straight actors, because like it or not, the majority of the viewing audience is straight, so they can relate. By casting straight actors into gay roles Hollywood is attempting to draw their straight audiences away from their narrow viewpoints, by saying hey, he's straight, he's just *acting* gay. It's okay, don't be afraid, you won't catch the gay. I know, stupid, but well, no one ever said people are smart. A person is smart, people are just idiotic.

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

Why does this have to be an either/or, or "always" situation? Because I don't think you are saying gay characters should always be played by impeccably heterosexual actors, because then we know they are "acting." That would be silly. But don't you think that gay actors should play gay characters AT LEAST ONCE IN A WHILE in mainstream movies, which they never, ever do? Notice that the writer doesn't just say "heterosexual" actors, it's written as "impeccably heterosexual" for a reason. For instance, maybe it would have been nice if just ONE of the drag queens in To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, might have been gay, instead of two of them being action-movie he-man stars? That coulda been RuPaul's breakout role instead of a cameo!

And Scott Thompson would have been better in the Philadelphia role -- I think he'd have been amazing and pulled that movie up from being a sometimes tedious moral lesson into a classic movie about man engaged in a struggle to survive. I don't think he'd have had the preachy, "this is good for you, you're learning a lesson in how to be a better person!" tone of the well-meaning Mr. Hank's performance. It won an Oscar, but I don't think Philadelphia has aged well.

I saw a movie in which Alec Guiness played a Japanese businessman. He acted his talented ass off, and yet his performance doesn't ring true. Sometimes, someone who *is* whatever the character is, should play the role.