[Daniel-X]

I’ve never really thought much about this until recently, but it doesn’t sit right with me anymore in 2021 that a large portion of queer roles in film and TV still go to heterosexual actors. LGBTQ people are either parodied in a costume type way (see: James Corden’s horribly offensive performance in that Netflix film) or literally reduced to just straight-acting gays with little reference to gay culture or actual queer stories.

It’s erasing actual queer actors from the industry and reducing job opportunities. There are probably 100 heterosexual roles to every LGBT role. It’s not the equivalent to blackface but it’s pretty prejudiced and a bit shocking in 2021 that it’s still so commonplace.

What’s everyone else’s opinion on this?

[UserSince2005]

Merge this with the last convo, of many convos

[Cherie]

Do you need to be a serial killer to play one, the clues in the name...actor

[Daniel-X]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Do you need to be a serial killer to play one, the clues in the name...actor

I’m sure you wouldn’t be saying the same if a man was playing a woman.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Daniel-X

I’m sure you wouldn’t be saying the same if a man was playing a woman.

A man playing a woman, do you mean a transwoman playing a woman, because I would have no issue as long as they played the part well

and men play women every year in panto

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

A man playing a woman, do you mean a transwoman playing a woman, because I would have no issue as long as they played the part well

and men play women every year in panto

It's a bit of a tradition in certain stage scenarios I thing - e.g. I've seen a few "Robin Hood" pantomimes over the years and I've yet to see one where Robin Hood wasn't played by a woman . My daughter's school even put on a performance of "Robin and the Sherwood Hoodies" (lol) a few years ago and Robin was a P7 girl.

[_Seth]

Well the point of acting is to pretend to be someone who you are not, so no it doesn't matter at all. It would be discrimination to not hire someone because of their sexuality, even if they can do the role, and that should not be acceptable to anyone.

Originally Posted by Daniel-X

It’s erasing actual queer actors from the industry and reducing job opportunities.

There are probably 100 heterosexual roles to every LGBT role.

Is it really? I don't think it is.

Probably because there are 100 heterosexual people for every LGBT person.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

A man playing a woman, do you mean a transwoman playing a woman, because I would have no issue as long as they played the part well

and men play women every year in panto

Don't forget Drag Race, isn't that a load of men pretending to be women too? There's no up roar about that either

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Daniel-X

I’m sure you wouldn’t be saying the same if a man was playing a woman.

But Daniel THAT has happened in movies

[user104658]

We did this thread recently . I can't remember what I said at the time. My current thoughts are that sexuality is complicated so I don't think sexuality should be a barrier to which actors get which parts - after all, I imagine many (most?) gay actors would be pretty hacked off if they were told they could no longer play straight characters.

However I do think people casting roles should be wary of "immitating personality traits". Not all gay people are camp, so I don't think it's an issue for a straight actor to be playing a character whose personality matches their own but just happens to have a different sexual preference, but I *do* think it's an issue for straight actors to... umm... "camp face"(?) and immitate stereotypically "gay character traits" that are not actually part of their own personality. Just find an actor that better matches the character.

[Babayaro.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

We did this thread recently . I can't remember what I said at the time. My current thoughts are that sexuality is complicated so I don't think sexuality should be a barrier to which actors get which parts - after all, I imagine many (most?) gay actors would be pretty hacked off if they were told they could no longer play straight characters.

However I do think people casting roles should be wary of "immitating personality traits". Not all gay people are camp, so I don't think it's an issue for a straight actor to be playing a character whose personality matches their own but just happens to have a different sexual preference, but I *do* think it's an issue for straight actors to... umm... "camp face"(?) and immitate stereotypically "gay character traits" that are not actually part of their own personality. Just find an actor that better matches the character.

pretty much this

[Oliver_W]

Of course it doesn't matter.

Should there be an LGBT test to allow actors to play a role? What if an LGBT actor isn't out?

[Braden]

How would it be measured? Would an agent be required to ask every auditionee what their sexuality is and do checks to ensure they are gay? It’s just bizarre, IMO

.

[Smithy]

It didn’t used to bother me, but I read a really good interview with Russel t Davies after it’s a sin came out that changed my mind

For Davies, the issue is less about authenticity than about equity for gay actors, who he says have been systematically excluded from straight roles. And since there are so many more straight roles than gay ones, he thinks it isn’t right to make gay actors compete against their straight counterparts to play gay characters.

“It is not a fair playing field,” Davies said. “The equality notion is based on 50 percent this way, 50 percent that way. But 90 percent of actors are straight and 10 percent of parts are gay.”

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Smithy

It didn’t used to bother me, but I read a really good interview with Russel t Davies after it’s a sin came out that changed my mind

Are LGBT actors really being excluded from straight roles? Tell that to Kate McKinnon, Jodie Foster, Lily Tomlin, Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris, John Barrowman ...

[Cherie]

I think alot of actors whatever their sexuality would say they are being blocked from getting roles, its seems to very much the same people in vogue at the moment, I think this is something that is ongoing a bit like ITV using 'the family' for literally every programme

[Marsh.]

Most of Hollywood are closeted gays playing straight so it's neither here nor there.

If you believe rumours.

[Tom4784]

It's not something I care about that much tbh, there's also the risk that if you say, for example, that only gay people can play gay roles, it opens up the idea of pigeon holing gay actors into gay roles, and so on and so forth. When it comes to sexualities, as long as it's handled sensitively and tastefully (IE not like Jack Whitehall in Jungle Cruise or James Corden in Prom), I'm fine with straight actors playing LGBT roles. It's more about whether or not they have the talent to portray the character well than anything else.

When it comes to trans people, it's trickier, especially considering that one thing I hear a lot from trans people is that they don't just want to play trans roles, but on the other hand trans people are passed over by cis actors in trans roles quite often as well. It's a case by case thing really. Trans roles should ideally be played by trans people, but it's a two way street, trans people should be able to play cis roles as well.

For me, ultimately, it's more important that our stories are being told. Love, Simon got some controversy because a straight person played Simon, but tbh, it was nice having an LGBT film that was neither an unceasing tragedy, or just an endless parade of nudity and sex scenes. I want more LGBT stories that don't highlight the tragedy of us (although, admittedly, we are a people whose history is routed in it), or reduce us to just edgy sex scenes.

[bots]

the criteria for an actor getting a role should be based on how well they meet the director/producers vision of the role. Nothing else is important

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's not something I care about that much tbh, there's also the risk that if you say, for example, that only gay people can play gay roles, it opens up the idea of pigeon holing gay actors into gay roles, and so on and so forth. When it comes to sexualities, as long as it's handled sensitively and tastefully (IE not like Jack Whitehall in Jungle Cruise or James Corden in Prom), I'm fine with straight actors playing LGBT roles. It's more about whether or not they have the talent to portray the character well than anything else.

When it comes to trans people, it's trickier, especially considering that one thing I hear a lot from trans people is that they don't just want to play trans roles, but on the other hand trans people are passed over by cis actors in trans roles quite often as well. It's a case by case thing really. Trans roles should ideally be played by trans people, but it's a two way street, trans people should be able to play cis roles as well.

For me, ultimately, it's more important that our stories are being told. Love, Simon got some controversy because a straight person played Simon, but tbh, it was nice having an LGBT film that was neither an unceasing tragedy, or just an endless parade of nudity and sex scenes. I want more LGBT stories that don't highlight the tragedy of us (although, admittedly, we are a people whose history is routed in it), or reduce us to just edgy sex scenes.

Plus as Braden pointed out already, you'd be asking people to declare or prove their sexuality as well. What if you'd rather not say what your sexual orientation is? Or what if you're bisexual, are you allowed play a gay character then? Or a straight one?

I do get the point on the overly camp thing, it can come across like taking the piss or making a caricature of gay men

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's not something I care about that much tbh, there's also the risk that if you say, for example, that only gay people can play gay roles, it opens up the idea of pigeon holing gay actors into gay roles, and so on and so forth. When it comes to sexualities, as long as it's handled sensitively and tastefully (IE not like Jack Whitehall in Jungle Cruise or James Corden in Prom), I'm fine with straight actors playing LGBT roles. It's more about whether or not they have the talent to portray the character well than anything else.

When it comes to trans people, it's trickier, especially considering that one thing I hear a lot from trans people is that they don't just want to play trans roles, but on the other hand trans people are passed over by cis actors in trans roles quite often as well. It's a case by case thing really. Trans roles should ideally be played by trans people, but it's a two way street, trans people should be able to play cis roles as well.

For me, ultimately, it's more important that our stories are being told. Love, Simon got some controversy because a straight person played Simon, but tbh, it was nice having an LGBT film that was neither an unceasing tragedy, or just an endless parade of nudity and sex scenes. I want more LGBT stories that don't highlight the tragedy of us (although, admittedly, we are a people whose history is routed in it), or reduce us to just edgy sex scenes.

I think that's the main bullet point for me.

For example, one of my favourite films from last year was Boys in the Band. The recent movie and the 1970 version are known for having an all-gay ensemble. It's a story written by a gay man, depicting the lives of gay men. Would it have been equally as enjoyable with a straight cast? I'm not sure. Would it have weirded me out if straight men played the characters? Maybe.

However, there seems to be a lot of politically correct rhetoric, making this an issue when the content and depiction of gay characters is probably more important than the actors playing them. Not to mention the whole process would muddy the waters for everyone in terms of ethics.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Braden

I think that's the main bullet point for me.

For example, one of my favourite films from last year was Boys in the Band. The recent movie and the 1970 version are known for having an all-gay ensemble. It's a story written by a gay man, depicting the lives of gay men. Would it have been equally as enjoyable with a straight cast? I'm not sure. Would it have weirded me out if straight men played the characters? Maybe.

However, there seems to be a lot of politically correct rhetoric, making this an issue when the content and depiction of gay characters is probably more important than the actors playing them. Not to mention the whole process would muddy the waters for everyone in terms of ethics.

...I was just actually thinking of that movie myself, Braden......one of the things about the movie was that it was an all LGBTQ cast, which was a huge unique thing about it an all LGBTQ cast playing all LGBTQ characters...but would any of the characters have worked just as well with some non LGBTQ actors also... that’s a really interesting one and I honestly don’t know because the cast is so utterly perfect exactly as they are...

[Ammi]

...what I’m trying to say is that ‘stereotypical can be portrayed within LGBTQ as well, so I think the criticism of James Corden particularly might have been a quite a bit harsh, from me as well...because it was mainly because he was ‘straight playing gay’....

[Braden]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I was just actually thinking of that movie myself, Braden......one of the things about the movie was that it was an all LGBTQ cast, which was a huge unique thing about it an all LGBTQ cast playing all LGBTQ characters...but would any of the characters have worked just as well with some non LGBTQ actors as also... that’s a really interesting one and I honestly don’t know because the cast is so utterly perfect exactly as they are...

I completely agree! I'm glad I thought about the film because it allowed me to form a bit of nuance to my opinion. It's a really special and unique film because of the cast.

[_Seth]

Originally Posted by Braden

Would it have been equally as enjoyable with a straight cast? I'm not sure.

If the straight actors were talented enough to portray the roles well then why would it matter?

Originally Posted by Ammi

...just touching on James Corden in The Prom, who has been mentioned...?..and his performance of Barry was described as ‘disgusting’ because of the ‘stereotype’ that Barry’s character was ....or was it that James portrayed him as that stereotype...it was such a controversial casting, anyway ...I watched the movie and his portrayal wasn’t the greatest but at the same time, his character was actually quite endearing as well, I did like the character...I might watch it again, actually...but his performance was termed as ‘offensive’ ...but then if he had been LGBTQ, surely he would have still given the same performance and portrayal of. Barry...so would ‘offensive/disgusting’ etc not have applied then also because he would be seen as portraying his own sexuality...?...what I’m thinking as well is that Rupert Everett as a LGBTQ person portraying George, an LGBTQ person in My Best Friend’s Wedding was also surely a very ‘stereotypically portrayed’ character and his performance didn't get criticism so far as I recall...

This is where it just gets over complicated for no reason. Plus, the public are fickle as hell so I would expect their opinion on this to waver based on the actor.

At any rate, how would casting directors verify if someone even is gay? What if they're unsure and still discovering themselves? Can bisexual people play gay roles?

How about we just let the best actors play the roles they audition for, or is that seriously unreasonable?

Side note regarding gay stereotypes - as a person in the gay community I can confirm that the utterly vast majority of gay men are extremely effeminate and present in a very feminine manner. (Which is fair enough, but unfortunately when I'm gay I have very little choice because I'm not attracted to men who act like women, as much as I would happily be friends with them. )