ChatterBank4 mins ago
Should Straight Actors Play Gay People?
https:/
So Gay people shouldn't play straight people the, I'm guessing there won't be many roles for them.
\\"You wouldn't cast someone able-bodied and put them in a wheelchair, you wouldn't black someone up," Russell T Davies has said.//
Lots of actors have played disabled people.
So Gay people shouldn't play straight people the, I'm guessing there won't be many roles for them.
\\"You wouldn't cast someone able-bodied and put them in a wheelchair, you wouldn't black someone up," Russell T Davies has said.//
Lots of actors have played disabled people.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you were the casting director looking for someone to play a part in a play or film etc, surely there must be enough actors to choose from so that if you wanted 2 men or women to play a gay part, you could choose the actors that are gay in real life? Knowing as we sometimes do, that an actor is gay, and they are given a straight part, it just isn't believable to me. Watching all the Rock Hudson and Doris Day films, I liked to believe they actually fancied each other, so when it tuned out RH was gay, it just shattered all my beliefs.
sexual preference is not a physical trait, its not 'visible' - its not comparable to being disabled or different races.
whoeever is best for & whoever they choose should play the role - what they like to do in bed etc is not relevant to acting.
its their job - by its very definition its supposed to be them acting as someone else, pretending to be a different character.
i understand some gay people feel they miss out on roles because they are gay, but its not 'because' they are gay, its if they are unable to be 'straight-acting' if thats what the part requires.
i know in the past there has been stigma & loss of roles, but that is not how it is now. its 2021!
the best person for the role should get the part - what they like to do in bed etc should never ever be a consideration.
can you imagine in any other job even being asked about your sexual preference in the interview?
you'd be up in arms, saying it doesnt matter, its irrelevant & no-ones business - so why in acting do some seem to want to make it a big deal, or even essential information?
some actors will claim they were refused roles because they were gay, but most likely they just simply werent chosen for the role - for no particular reason against them, they just chose someone else - but they are bitter & looking for excuses & blame.
the times that has happened for real, will have been down to individual prejudices of the casting dir/producers etc - which is utterly wrong, and certainly not the norm.
then it should be challenged of course.
if you cant turn someone down for a role based on sexuality, then it stands to reason you cant choose them based on it either.
whoeever is best for & whoever they choose should play the role - what they like to do in bed etc is not relevant to acting.
its their job - by its very definition its supposed to be them acting as someone else, pretending to be a different character.
i understand some gay people feel they miss out on roles because they are gay, but its not 'because' they are gay, its if they are unable to be 'straight-acting' if thats what the part requires.
i know in the past there has been stigma & loss of roles, but that is not how it is now. its 2021!
the best person for the role should get the part - what they like to do in bed etc should never ever be a consideration.
can you imagine in any other job even being asked about your sexual preference in the interview?
you'd be up in arms, saying it doesnt matter, its irrelevant & no-ones business - so why in acting do some seem to want to make it a big deal, or even essential information?
some actors will claim they were refused roles because they were gay, but most likely they just simply werent chosen for the role - for no particular reason against them, they just chose someone else - but they are bitter & looking for excuses & blame.
the times that has happened for real, will have been down to individual prejudices of the casting dir/producers etc - which is utterly wrong, and certainly not the norm.
then it should be challenged of course.
if you cant turn someone down for a role based on sexuality, then it stands to reason you cant choose them based on it either.
there are also other reasons for choosing actors, not just their technical ability to act - their box office draw is a massive part of it.
Whether we like it or not, a well known but lesse skilled actor doing a medium job in a role, will make more money than a highly skilled unknown.
the people who finance movies care mostly about their investment, not the craft of acting itself, so they go with the money.
Whether we like it or not, a well known but lesse skilled actor doing a medium job in a role, will make more money than a highly skilled unknown.
the people who finance movies care mostly about their investment, not the craft of acting itself, so they go with the money.
I find all this incomprehensible. Actors are people who portray characters who are not themselves. The characters are not even ones that they have created, but are the creations of writers, usually imaginary. Of course 'straight' actors should be able to portray gays. Unfortunately there are limits these days, because nowadays black people cannot 'white-up' and vice-versa - which does limit artistic creativity and interpretation. Sad, really. So should a rich actress not portray a pregnant derelict?
///sexual preference is not a physical trait, its not 'visible'/// Apparently it is to other gay people.
As I said in my post, it has to be believable to me, so if I know for a fact that 2 male actors are not gay in real life but are playing a gay married couple in something, it just isn't believable to me.
An actor who you know to be gay, playing a steamy love scene with a woman, not believable, doesn't work for me.
As I said in my post, it has to be believable to me, so if I know for a fact that 2 male actors are not gay in real life but are playing a gay married couple in something, it just isn't believable to me.
An actor who you know to be gay, playing a steamy love scene with a woman, not believable, doesn't work for me.
there was recently a lot of *** about Jared leto playing andy warhol - some were outraged because hes not gay.
and even after learning some facts about the situation they didnt care, in their mind, all that mattered was that the actor be gay ...
this is problematic in many ways -
andy warhol was much more than his sexuality, hes not famous for being gay, its not relevant to reason hes so huge in the art world - so focussing on it minimises him to his sexuality.
he'd be furious and upset to know people cared more about his sexuality than his art.
leto is a HUGE warhol fan, knows more about warhol, his work, his life, etc, than most other actors they could choose.
i think i read AW is his favourite artist.
Jareds also known to delve deep into his roles so would no doubt get into the character of AW in a way many others couldnt or wouldnt even try. leto would put the work in.
and finally - the entire production of this film was jareds idea!
hes the one pushing for it to be made!
he's been in talks and made plans etc - he's the only reason there is even a warhol film in the works!
he has done this because he loves AW & its his dream to play him.
so to try to now say he shouldnt be allowed to do the role because he prefers women in bed is ludicrous.
picking another actor over him, just doesnt make any sense.
even if all that wasnt the case, leto's physicality, voice, dedication, attention to detail etc, would make him a great choice, and even if he had nothing to do with getting the film made, im pretty sure he'd have been on the casting dirs list of options to play him anyway.
aside from all that - leto is known to have 'dabbled' in bisexuality in the past, which makes him LGBT anyway!
and even after learning some facts about the situation they didnt care, in their mind, all that mattered was that the actor be gay ...
this is problematic in many ways -
andy warhol was much more than his sexuality, hes not famous for being gay, its not relevant to reason hes so huge in the art world - so focussing on it minimises him to his sexuality.
he'd be furious and upset to know people cared more about his sexuality than his art.
leto is a HUGE warhol fan, knows more about warhol, his work, his life, etc, than most other actors they could choose.
i think i read AW is his favourite artist.
Jareds also known to delve deep into his roles so would no doubt get into the character of AW in a way many others couldnt or wouldnt even try. leto would put the work in.
and finally - the entire production of this film was jareds idea!
hes the one pushing for it to be made!
he's been in talks and made plans etc - he's the only reason there is even a warhol film in the works!
he has done this because he loves AW & its his dream to play him.
so to try to now say he shouldnt be allowed to do the role because he prefers women in bed is ludicrous.
picking another actor over him, just doesnt make any sense.
even if all that wasnt the case, leto's physicality, voice, dedication, attention to detail etc, would make him a great choice, and even if he had nothing to do with getting the film made, im pretty sure he'd have been on the casting dirs list of options to play him anyway.
aside from all that - leto is known to have 'dabbled' in bisexuality in the past, which makes him LGBT anyway!
Barsel - that is on you though, not the actors.
if youre unable to see past the actors real life - which is not relevant at all to their job or the role - thats your problem.
most people can and will do that. most people dont get hung up on an actors real life, to the point it affects their ability to enjoy a tv show.
actors by nature are supposed to be chameleonic, so if no matter how good an actor they are, you still refuse to accept their ability because of their real life, then you have an issue, not them.
do you also feel the same when it comes to believing an actor is scientist, because they arent one in real life?
or that theyre a superhero, even though they arent one in real life?
what about an actor playing a chef, who in real life is a terrible cook - do you struggle to believe that too?
what about if theyre from the 18th century? the actor clearly isnt in real life - do you have an issue there too?
or is it only homosexuality you have an issue with?
if youre unable to see past the actors real life - which is not relevant at all to their job or the role - thats your problem.
most people can and will do that. most people dont get hung up on an actors real life, to the point it affects their ability to enjoy a tv show.
actors by nature are supposed to be chameleonic, so if no matter how good an actor they are, you still refuse to accept their ability because of their real life, then you have an issue, not them.
do you also feel the same when it comes to believing an actor is scientist, because they arent one in real life?
or that theyre a superhero, even though they arent one in real life?
what about an actor playing a chef, who in real life is a terrible cook - do you struggle to believe that too?
what about if theyre from the 18th century? the actor clearly isnt in real life - do you have an issue there too?
or is it only homosexuality you have an issue with?
mexican - you raise a valid point - its important to have this period of inclusiveness, but really we need to normalise that people are all types & races exist all over the place and in time, the need to 'make up the numbers' wont exist, it will just be a given.
but i agree for some actors i'd think the feeling that theyve been chosen for that reason rather than talent, might be a little hurtful.
but i agree for some actors i'd think the feeling that theyve been chosen for that reason rather than talent, might be a little hurtful.
joko all along I have said, if you know the actor is gay/straight in real life, it wouldn't be believable to me.
I had no idea Andy Warhol was gay and I've no idea who Jared leto is anyway, so seeing him play the part, to me, would make no difference. In fact from what you have said, he seems ideal for the part. It wasn't what I was trying to convey.
I had no idea Andy Warhol was gay and I've no idea who Jared leto is anyway, so seeing him play the part, to me, would make no difference. In fact from what you have said, he seems ideal for the part. It wasn't what I was trying to convey.
bednobs @17:57
\\im surprised at you webbo, only last year you were telling us it was "factually incorrect" for a black person to play a role. Why has your view changed? https:/
thats a real person and not a character.
\\im surprised at you webbo, only last year you were telling us it was "factually incorrect" for a black person to play a role. Why has your view changed? https:/
thats a real person and not a character.
joko I think that is the most insulting post I have ever heard directed at me and just goes to show how you have absolutely no concept of what I'm talking about. How very childish of you to think I would expect a chef to play a chef or that I have a problem with homosexuality. I wish I could put it into words that you could understand, but I feel I am wasting my time, so I'm leaving this thread now.
OG - the issue of make up ... originally the offense came from when it was actual proper blackface - ie, B&W minstrels, al johlson etc, not just ordinary make up as used by an actor to genuinely look different.
the lines of those 2 things have become blurred now and its basically a blanket ban on all alteration of skin colour, no matter the reason.
the 2 things are very different - one is an ignorant, abusive, othering, racist, offensive, caricature, that existed only to abuse, hurt & ridicule, that bears no resemblance to actual black people - in looks or character - and is quite rightly relegated to the annals of history
the other is genuine SFX makeup use in film & TV in order to genuinely replicate the looks etc of someone else.
it is done with skill & care for a realistic effect. its not mocking or abusive.
i think the lines between the 2 got blurred from all those awful *** takes in the 60s-70s - white actors with fake slanted eyes, etc doing ridiculous cliches and caricatures for 'comedy' skits.
the lines of those 2 things have become blurred now and its basically a blanket ban on all alteration of skin colour, no matter the reason.
the 2 things are very different - one is an ignorant, abusive, othering, racist, offensive, caricature, that existed only to abuse, hurt & ridicule, that bears no resemblance to actual black people - in looks or character - and is quite rightly relegated to the annals of history
the other is genuine SFX makeup use in film & TV in order to genuinely replicate the looks etc of someone else.
it is done with skill & care for a realistic effect. its not mocking or abusive.
i think the lines between the 2 got blurred from all those awful *** takes in the 60s-70s - white actors with fake slanted eyes, etc doing ridiculous cliches and caricatures for 'comedy' skits.
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles75 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.