How do you feel about actors and minority roles?

[jaxie]

The discrimination thread brought this to mind as people were talking about not being allowed to comment if you aren't part of the minority.

More and more in the press we are seeing actors being shamed into giving up roles because they are not personally part of the subject matter which seems wrong in my view as acting is all about playing a part.

What it did to bring to mind though is a question. I'll use the most recent news case as an example. If an actress is not allowed to play a transgender character because she is not transgender does that mean a transgender actor cannot play any role but transgender ones and if not then isn't the nonn trans actress being discriminated against. Can we have a black bond or is that also discrimination against white actors because it is a traditionally white role.

Engage!

[Alf]

Was it Scarlet Johansson who's just been bullied out of a role?

[Oliver_W]

If people were only allowed to play their own sexuality, Broadway would have to close down!

When George Romero cast a black guy for the male lead in Night of the Living Dead, it was seen as controversial and a "big move". But he wasn't aiming for that - it was just that particular actor gave the best audition.

It's tricky. I can see that transmen actors would feel overlooked when the role went to ScarJo, but movies and particular mainstream Hollywood movies "need" to have big actors to bring in audiences.

Chances are that right now, several indie film makers are making films which have a character who's trans, and they'd love an actual trap to play the role, but the limited budget and pool of actors who probably live in their hometown probably mean they can't do that.

[montblanc]

minority/LGBT/etc. roles are already limited so when they're replaced like, for example, Scarlett Jo playing a trans woman or any whitewashing of a film, it kind of closes the already small window of opportunity that minority/LGBT/etc. actors and actresses have

:p

[Northern Monkey]

The clue is in the name “actor”

[Alf]

That's what actors do, they play the roles of a different variety of people.

Cultural Marxism destroys everything in its path.

[user104658]

I think when the movie / show is specifically centered around a culture or certain cultural issues, it will be a much more "real" experience if the actor involved is actually rooted in that, so I get it there. I think it's creatively the better move. However if the character just happens to "be from a place" but it's not a huge part of their character or motivations, it shouldn't matter.

I think the "black bond" issue is different to be fair. The character is culturally British, that is a huge part of it, BUT it is patently false to suggest that its necessary to be white to be culturally "Super British". The tuxedos and well-spoken voice are the important aspects.

I'm not a fan of characters dramatically changing appearance if it's supposed to be "exactly the same character with the Canon history" (*ahem* Hermione) but if it's a new series / semi reboot, which Bond actor-swaps usually are, I don't think it matters.

[Brillopad]

The discrimination thread brought this to mind as people were talking about not being allowed to comment if you aren't part of the minority.

More and more in the press we are seeing actors being shamed into giving up roles because they are not personally part of the subject matter which seems wrong in my view as acting is all about playing a part.

What it did to bring to mind though is a question. I'll use the most recent news case as an example. If an actress is not allowed to play a transgender character because she is not transgender does that mean a transgender actor cannot play any role but transgender ones and if not then isn't the nonn trans actress being discriminated against. Can we have a black bond or is that also discrimination against white actors because it is a traditionally white role.

Engage!

Good point Jaxie. Such attempted positive discrimination is far more reaching and discriminatory than clearly given a thought to . Very badly thought out. All or nothing as anything else would be discriminatory if that makes sense. If only a transgender can play a transgender then only a non-transgender can play a non-transgender. It can’t be all one way as that would be discrimination.

[Ammi]

...as Spike Lee said, really...more movie decisions should be made ‘around that table’ which would include black actors more and offer more diversity ...not the parts that would require a specific skin colour, but those roles where skin colour is irrelevant to the character..(as skin colour is irrelevant to character..:laugh:..)...which is quite a substantial amount movies, I would think...the world around us is a blend of many different skin colour tones and many stories in movies are based on the world around us in the Western world...so movies should reflect that in their ratio in selecting actors for parts...

...hmmmm, maybe the actual ratio of black actors is very small in comparison...that might be a thing as well, I guess...but if that’s so, if it was a say...90 per cent white actor to 10 per cent black, for instance...?...then the only way to balance that ratio more would be to consider diversity more, I would think...and it should be balanced more as that represents ‘realness’...in those movie stories where skin colour for a character is irrelevant, as I said...

[Withano]

No I think actors can play any role, and those saying that they cant are wrong

The same thing happened when a black actress played Hermionie in the Cursed Child.

[ethanjames]

the thing with the scarlettjo **** is that she is a woman and being cast as a trans guy which doesn't feel right,,, surely they should be casting even a cis guy to be playing a trans guy it doesn't make sense otherwise

[Crimson Dynamo]

just sick of the reverse bullying tbh

:bored:

[Oliver_W]

the thing with the scarlettjo **** is that she is a woman and being cast as a trans guy which doesn't feel right,,, surely they should be casting even a cis guy to be playing a trans guy it doesn't make sense otherwise

For all we know, the storyline could start when the character is still presenting as female, and could follow his transition.

[user104658]

No I think actors can play any role, and those saying that they cant are wrong

The same thing happened when a black actress played Hermionie in the Cursed Child.See I disagree on Hermione, because it's not a retelling / separate "universe", it's a direct sequel. If someone remakes Harry Potter or makes another separate series based on the same lore and Hermione (or anyone else) is black (or any other race) that's fine... But, if it's a direct sequel to the original story, then the characters should have as close to the same physical description as possible.

Completely unrelated to race also; I'd take as much issue with it if a character was established as being short and was recast with a 6 foot tall actor :shrug:.

[Withano]

See I disagree on Hermione, because it's not a retelling / separate "universe", it's a direct sequel. If someone remakes Harry Potter or makes another separate series based on the same lore and Hermione (or anyone else) is black (or any other race) that's fine... But, if it's a direct sequel to the original story, then the characters should have as close to the same physical description as possible.

Completely unrelated to race also; I'd take as much issue with it if a character was established as being short and was recast with a 6 foot tall actor :shrug:.

It was based off a book where Hermionie was only really described as having frizzy brown hair though (or something cba to find the actual quote). It just doesnt matter to me.

[user104658]

It was based off a book where Hermionie was only really described as having frizzy brown hair though (or something cba to find the actual quote). It just doesnt matter to me.That was a lie / misremembering by Ms Rowling... Hermione's skin tone is specifically mentioned more than once.

I struggle with this because on principle I agree that it shouldn't matter, but I'm a huge fan of fiction, and specifically I'm a huge fan of persistent universes, and maintaining the "integrity" of said universes IS important to me (and many people) as failing to do so breaks immersion / "bursts the bubble" so to speak and destroys the element of escapism.

So basically I don't care at all what race etc. any character is, but I do care that it's adhered to once its established within that storyline.

E.g. Again, it's fine with Bond as each new actor for all intents and purposes represents a new storyline / "new Bond" and always has, with a few small caveats.

And it would be fine to, for example, reboot "The Matrix" from the start as a TV show with Neo being Asian and Trinity black and Morpheus Mexican or any other combination... BUT if they were to make a sequel with a new cast, I would expect them to be as close in appearance to the originals as possible. :think:

[user104658]

Hell give me a flimsy in-universe reason for the change and its still fine. Like Hermione decided to change appearance for some reason and used magic to do that. All good! It's why I have zero problem really with The Doctor becoming a woman... It's "alien Sci fi stuff" so no problem.

[bots]

i think it's important that the actor give a good, believable performance. That's where it ends for me.

[Ammi]

i think it's important that the actor give a good, believable performance. That's where it ends for me.

...that’s it exactly really...(..I love your slim word useage, bots...I try...but I fail..)...

[user104658]

i think it's important that the actor give a good, believable performance. That's where it ends for me.For new stories I definitely agree with that. I also think it would be MORE problematic for minority actors for it to be any other way; e.g. There are far more gay actors playing straight characters than vice versa, and also, a lot of minority actors would miss out in some huge roles if authenticity was insisted on (e.g. Most of the cast of Black Panther are not actually from Africa, they are American, their accents are learned etc)

Also the HUGE (strangely disproportionate!) number of British / Irish / Aussie actors who repeatedly play Americans... Scottish actors who play English characters... Et al.

[armand.kay]

It's just a bit of a slap in the face to the trans community when you're happy to exploit a trans persons story but would rather not hire a trans actor

[user104658]

It's just a bit of a slap in the face to the trans community when you're happy to exploit a trans persons story but would rather not hire a trans actorIt's business though and there aren't many (any?) who could carry a large, cinema-release movie reliably enough for a major studio to fund it, so it's a tough one. You could go with lower funding / indy... But then the movie isn't going to raise anywhere near as much awareness. Expecting a studio to front the money on a total gamble is unrealistic.

Although in this case, it may have been better to cast a new face as that role and then fill the supporting cast with big names for the "star power".

[Maru]

I don't pay attention to the actors themselves, I just let them tell the story. I'm completely disassociated from the person who is actually performing. I can understand someone with a particular physical disability having to play certain roles, but I think it's pretty much unnecessary for the person to check certain boxes... it's all in how well and realistically they play the part. Now, if the person is a different race and the white person plays them... that might be OK in something like a play? If the group is a traveling group... but even then, I think that staying at least within the right skin tone makes the most sense for the sake of immersion.

I don't think all actors/actresses have to have direct experience with the type of people they play though... but if the person who does have the experience plays the role and does it quite well, then it's probably ideal... my feeling though is when we are too close to our own subject matter, it's increasingly difficult to remain objective in portrayal... so I don't believe having personal experience is always a benefit... sometimes it becomes a crutch and may even weaken the way the role is played as the person is too internally associating themselves with the character they play... versus someone who takes the time to play it from the outside, they may be more willing to play up even some of the aspects that are not so positive... just a thought. We have this problem in most art forms, where it's important to be able to step away from our own work and see it from a distance (physically and emotionally)... harder to do that when we are so attached to a role and relate too heavily with it, to see it from all aspects I think. Not saying it can't be done, but it is harder.

[armand.kay]

It's business though and there aren't many (any?) who could carry a large, cinema-release movie reliably enough for a major studio to fund it, so it's a tough one. You could go with lower funding / indy... But then the movie isn't going to raise anywhere near as much awareness. Expecting a studio to front the money on a total gamble is unrealistic.

Although in this case, it may have been better to cast a new face as that role and then fill the supporting cast with big names for the "star power".
Yeah that would of probably been the best thing to do. As it would also elevate the career of the trans actor who they did..


I mean I would of probably gone to see the movie anyway had scarlet stayed on because I wasn't outraged by it but I could totally understand the trans community's frustration.

[Ammi]

It's just a bit of a slap in the face to the trans community when you're happy to exploit a trans persons story but would rather not hire a trans actor

It's business though and there aren't many (any?) who could carry a large, cinema-release movie reliably enough for a major studio to fund it, so it's a tough one. You could go with lower funding / indy... But then the movie isn't going to raise anywhere near as much awareness. Expecting a studio to front the money on a total gamble is unrealistic.

Although in this case, it may have been better to cast a new face as that role and then fill the supporting cast with big names for the "star power".

...I would say it’s a bit of a Catch 22 really in that there aren’t trans actors to carry a leading Hollywood role already established in their acting experience ...but then if a trans actors aren’t cast for roles, then that experience will never be there...and this would be the perfect movie role to break that catch 22, irs an obvious one and one that would only come up once in a while..

...I do understand it’s about the dollars baby as well...and maybe there would be a worry about that, if it was an unknown trans actor...?...but surely the controversy of publicity in itself that it may create ...could be a raising of box office takings etc...

[armand.kay]

I think with scarlet as well this backlash was also to do with the fact that she has a history of taking roles that were meant to minorities

[Maru]

Another thought to add on top of others here: .. Hollywood is garbage, so I don't really look to them to "set the standard" for the rest of society.... it's my strong opinion, it's on us little folk to reset society and to set the core standard. We've become too "reliant" on other "authorities" to perpetuate that for us... in truth it's society itself that sets the golden standard, and then Hollywood and their lazy butts follow suit when they see dollar signs coming from it. Truthfully, their calls to pick up the little man and pull him up is a bit disingenuous... there's a lot of things about Hollywood culture that can be pointed to that reinforces the "ails" in American society, for example, their obsession with violence, especially gun violence.

[user104658]

...I would say it’s a bit of a Catch 22 really in that there aren’t trans actors to carry a leading Hollywood role already established in their acting experience ...but then if a trans actors aren’t cast for roles, then that experience will never be there...and this would be the perfect movie role to break that catch 22, irs an obvious one and one that would only come up once in a while..

True but then, most actors don't experience a "meteoric rise" and would have a gradually increasing profile in supporting roles (often TV roles these days, as TV series' are more respected as "real acting" than they used to be) before being cast as a "centrepiece" role.

But yes this would probably be one of the rare opportunities to make it a real statement. However they couldn't "token cast" someone, so you have the challenge of finding someone who aesthetically fits the role AND is a great natural actor who can manage to not seem amateurish despite not having had much experience. There's no point casting an "authentic" new face if their performance isn't going to shine.

[user104658]

Another thought to add on top of others here: .. Hollywood is garbage, so I don't really look to them to "set the standard" for the rest of society.... it's my strong opinion, it's on us little folk to reset society and to set the core standard. We've become too "reliant" on other "authorities" to perpetuate that for us... in truth it's society itself that sets the golden standard, and then Hollywood and their lazy butts follow suit when they see dollar signs coming from it. Truthfully, their calls to pick up the little man and pull him up is a bit disingenuous... there's a lot of things about Hollywood culture that can be pointed to that reinforces the "ails" in American society, for example, their obsession with violence, especially gun violence.Yes I agree that the motivation is profit over "social justice" here. Much in the same way that Disney / Marvel are going to be ALL OVER the Black Panther franchise now that they've realised that there's an absolutely massive and largely untapped mainstream market there.

[Ammi]

True but then, most actors don't experience a "meteoric rise" and would have a gradually increasing profile in supporting roles (often TV roles these days, as TV series' are more respected as "real acting" than they used to be) before being cast as a "centrepiece" role.

But yes this would probably be one of the rare opportunities to make it a real statement. However they couldn't "token cast" someone, so you have the challenge of finding someone who aesthetically fits the role AND is a great natural actor who can manage to not seem amateurish despite not having had much experience. There's no point casting an "authentic" new face if their performance isn't going to shine.

..yeah many actors do tread the boards before that big break comes along, I know, TS...but there are also for instance, child roles where that ONE roll is offered to an unknown and that then sets them onto stardom and other child rolls, you know...there may be scripts for trans actors just laying there and not yet considered ...stories specifically about trans characters...?...and how would the Hollywood world ever know that’s something that movie lovers would want to see more of if those scripts just lay there...so this movie with a trans actor playing the roll, would be the perfect thing to gage that interest..?...if you don’t try it, they can’t buy it, those movie goers...the only way to see more successful trans actors would be to cast those unknowns with less experience ...as in child actors...

[Maru]

Yes I agree that the motivation is profit over "social justice" here. Much in the same way that Disney / Marvel are going to be ALL OVER the Black Panther franchise now that they've realised that there's an absolutely massive and largely untapped mainstream market there.

Even if the motivation were positive, it's still not a good thing to rest all our hopes on any establishment. Surely that'll be corrupted eventually with time. Kind of like how I'm being paid to basically watch YT essentially on my TV (I only have local + HBO)... These organizations fork over tons of money to these companies to know exactly who is watching what, when, and what advertises they are more likely to turn the channel on. The desperation to capture a ready audience is quite strong, or else why spend that much money paying one organization to pay people to "log" what they watch. They have to justify those costs somehow, so I can't really blame them for being picky in what productions they invest in...

Anyway, I don't fault Hollywood being the way it is, if that is what people are willing to watch... but if people are watching hoping it will facilitate their ideologies, they will be sorely disappointed. That is actually one of the core arguments for smaller govt, is with the govt having less power, there's less "tendency" to corrupt as the interests won't really be there. We keep voting for the two broke parties, and nothing changes, the govt gets larger... Hollywood, it's the same thing really, it has such an influence over not only the US, but the rest of the world... really too much relevance is given to that industry imo, and yet we are constantly disappointed.

[Alf]

Nobody could have played Christy Brown as good as Daniel Day Lewis. Same goes with Billy Bob Thornton playing Sling blade.

[jaxie]

I think with scarlet as well this backlash was also to do with the fact that she has a history of taking roles that were meant to minorities

See I kind of have a problem with "roles that were meant for minorities" I mean if some said Denzel was taking roles that were meant for white men everyone would go crazy over the racism. Saying certain roles are reserved for minorities, ethnicities or other groups sounds just as bad as the opposite. I think that's very wrong specially in regard to acting which is playing a role and pretending to be someone or something you are not.

I do agree with those saying casting is about money. But it is a fact that a star in a movie will draw more interest and revenue and a studio spending cash to make it wants it to be a success. The star is making the movie reach a wider audience. If Scarlet was in the trans movie I might watch it. If some unknown trans person was the star I probably wouldn't be drawn to it. In fact knowing an actor had been bullied into backing out of a role would probably make me avoid the movie on principle.

[kirklancaster]

a) The percentage of 'non-white' to 'white' actors in the USA - or the UK for that matter - has to be smaller.

b) The percentage of roles specifically calling for 'non-white' actors has to smaller.

c) The number of non-white actors drawn from a) above who are 'bankable' ie, calculated by those putting the millions up to create the movie/show as being the most capable of 'putting bums on seats', has to be smaller.

Where a role is non-specific as to colour, gender or creed, then it should only really be a matter of which actor - regardless of colour, gender, or creed - is the most suitable and capable for the role.

We have come a long, long way from the days of white entertainers 'blacking-up' and even the 'token' Black man/Chinese man/Native American Indian roles, but to FORCE a studio or production company to award ANY role to an INFERIOR actor through Political Correctness is B.S.and wrong - in my opinion.

[armand.kay]

See I kind of have a problem with "roles that were meant for minorities" I mean if some said Denzel was taking roles that were meant for white men everyone would go crazy over the racism. Saying certain roles are reserved for minorities, ethnicities or other groups sounds just as bad as the opposite. I think that's very wrong specially in regard to acting which is playing a role and pretending to be someone or something you are not.

I do agree with those saying casting is about money. But it is a fact that a star in a movie will draw more interest and revenue and a studio spending cash to make it wants it to be a success. The star is making the movie reach a wider audience. If Scarlet was in the trans movie I might watch it. If some unknown trans person was the star I probably wouldn't be drawn to it. In fact knowing an actor had been bullied into backing out of a role would probably make me avoid the movie on principle.

When there are very few roles for minorities available and the fact that hollywood is so inflexible with non white actors playing a white character then there really isn't a problem. I don't have a problem with it at all when it comes to theatre because theatre is a lot more flexible with woken play who. So for example, a black actor can play hamlet and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

[Ammi]

See I kind of have a problem with "roles that were meant for minorities" I mean if some said Denzel was taking roles that were meant for white men everyone would go crazy over the racism. Saying certain roles are reserved for minorities, ethnicities or other groups sounds just as bad as the opposite. I think that's very wrong specially in regard to acting which is playing a role and pretending to be someone or something you are not.

I do agree with those saying casting is about money. But it is a fact that a star in a movie will draw more interest and revenue and a studio spending cash to make it wants it to be a success. The star is making the movie reach a wider audience. If Scarlet was in the trans movie I might watch it. If some unknown trans person was the star I probably wouldn't be drawn to it. In fact knowing an actor had been bullied into backing out of a role would probably make me avoid the movie on principle.

..but shouldn’t those roles that are meant for white, never have been meant for white in the first place though, Jaxie...I mean shouldn’t they always have been there for Denzil as well...it’s more that really for those roles that wouldn’t matter what a skin colour was...the are specific roles which could only be cast as black or white or Asian etc...but many roles don’t have those specifics..and I think more diversity is needed there in thought when that casting is done at casting level...

..I understand that celebrity names are a pull as well in movies but I think my thoughts would be with the trans role if played by a trans actor...oh amazing, this is a first, type thing in a big movie, this is a huge progression... so I’ll definately go to see that, here are my dollars..:amazed:...

[jaxie]

..but shouldn’t those roles that are meant for white, never have been meant for white in the first place though, Jaxie...I mean shouldn’t they always have been there for Denzil as well...it’s more that really for those roles that wouldn’t matter what a skin colour was...the are specific roles which could only be cast as black or white or Asian etc...but many roles don’t have those specifics..and I think more diversity is needed there in thought when that casting is done at casting level...

..I understand that celebrity names are a pull as well in movies but I think my thoughts would be with the trans role if played by a trans actor...oh amazing, this is a first, type thing in a big movie, this is a huge progression... so I’ll definately go to see that, here are my dollars..:amazed:...

Well I don't know. One of my favorite movies is the amazing Man on Fire with Denzel. He plays the part beautifully but I don't know if the original guy it's loosely based on was black or white. I don't think that matters, the role is played by a superb actor and it's his best role I think. That's how it should be, it is played by a good actor. I don't care about pigment.

Let's be honest the trans role is played by a trans actor and if they still make the movie will it probably be watched by you and 3 1/2 people. Because the star has been bullied into backing out.

[jaxie]

When there are very few roles for minorities available and the fact that hollywood is so inflexible with non white actors playing a white character then there really isn't a problem. I don't have a problem with it at all when it comes to theatre because theatre is a lot more flexible with woken play who. So for example, a black actor can play hamlet and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

There are few roles for unknowns too. That doesn't make it any less discrimination to demand only an actor who is the same as the character can play the role.

[user104658]

a) The percentage of 'non-white' to 'white' actors in the USA - or the UK for that matter - has to be smaller.

b) The percentage of roles specifically calling for 'non-white' actors has to smaller.

c) The number of non-white actors drawn from a) above who are 'bankable' ie, calculated by those putting the millions up to create the movie/show as being the most capable of 'putting bums on seats', has to be smaller.

Where a role is non-specific as to colour, gender or creed, then it should only really be a matter of which actor - regardless of colour, gender, or creed - is the most suitable and capable for the role.

We have come a long, long way from the days of white entertainers 'blacking-up' and even the 'token' Black man/Chinese man/Native American Indian roles, but to FORCE a studio or production company to award ANY role to an INFERIOR actor through Political Correctness is B.S.and wrong - in my opinion.

Well yes I agree with the part in bold, although, I don't really think it's necessarily a matter of actual acting talent or being a "better" actor. There are a lot of huge name actors who are great in things, and have HUGE charisma, but aren't particularly great actors as the vast majority of the time they are just themselves. Will Smith is a good example; I generally enjoy him in things and his characters, but they are pretty much always the SAME character, and he's the exact same in interviews. Chris Pratt is another contemporary example. I like him in things but he's just Chris Pratt playing "Chris Pratt IN SPACE" or "Chris Pratt WITH DINOSAURS!" or "Chris Pratt IS A COWBOY NOW"... if you see what I mean. They play the characters they're given well, but that's because the characters are specifically written FOR them to play.

ScarJo TBH pretty much falls into that category... she doesn't have a huge acting range, she's just currently a very bankable "Star", and that's what the studios are hiring in these cases. I think it's much more likely that some genuinely talented actors ARE overlooked in favour of a "Big Name" who won't actually nail the role in quite the same way.

BUT like I said above - it's a difficult thing to work around, really. Movie studios aren't charities, at the end of the day they're looking to make a profit. A big name makes bigger profits... so a bigger budget film needs those names. The other option is to make a smaller scale film with lesser known stars - and some of these films can be amazing - but they rarely get the same sort of exposure. So if you have a message that you want to spread... do you go big name / big budget and spread that message as far and wide as possible, OR do you go with a smaller independent production which will be more "authentic" but will most likely have a much smaller audience. It's a tough call but it has to be one or the other... if you say to big budget studio "you MUST use new authentic minority stars for these movies"... the simple outcome is that they just won't risk their money on the movie at all, and it won't get made.

For my own two cents - not to speak for the trans community - but I would personally say, if having an established Hollywood name in a film about being trans furthers the acceptance and understanding of transgenderism to a mainstream audience, then it's probably worth allowing it to happen, as a stepping stone to more real diversity. It comes back to the usual issue of people wanting to force rapid FALSE change, at the expense of gradual REAL change.

[Tom4784]

In issues of sexuality, it's dumb. As a bisexual person, I wouldn't expect only bisexual characters to play bi roles.

In terms of transgender characters, things are a bit more murky. I think if it's a film like The Danish Girl for example, I could understand why they cast a man in the role instead of a transgender woman because that film is about transitioning and I think it's likely easier to make a man look like a transitioned woman than it is to make a transitioned woman look like a man again, plus a trans actress may not be comfortable with doing so. I think roles involving trans characters that are transitioned should always go to trans actors.

Characters should always be played by their appropriate race. There's not enough roles in Hollywood for non-white actors and there's no reason for whitewashing established characters so a white person can play them.

[James]

If you look at a list of the Best Actor Oscar winners I reckon 15 or 16 of the last 31 winners, going back to Rain Man, are able-bodies actors playing a character with a disability, or a non LGBT+ actor playing a LGBT+ character, or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor