Hiding in the Backwaters Just one more blog on the net.

Things that make you go, hmmmm….

...the Academy generally frowns on gays playing gays—it's not really acting, after all. Though Sir Ian McKellen broke the curse in 1999 with a Best Actor nomination for Gods and Monsters, actual trophies have been reserved for "courageous" straights playing gay, like William Hurt, Tom Hanks, Hilary Swank, Charlise Theron, and Philip Seymour Hoffman (as if it takes courage to accept career-defining roles most actors would die for). Alas, whenever another X-Men movie rolls around, no one says, "Wow, Sir Ian was so brave to play straight! What a stretch!" (Musto, 2007)

What is it, do you think, that requires "courage" to take on a gay role? Why do straight folk get more credit for acting in a gay role than gay folk get for acting in a straight role? Does the Academy have a one-dimensional view of gay folk that presumes all gay people think and act alike? Would a gay, nelly actor be given credit for acting the part of a butch leather daddy or vice versa? Is it really about your acting ability? Your ability to pretend you are something you are not? Is it really because pretending that you're gay is more difficult than pretending you are a cannibalistic serial killer, King Aurthur, or Miranda Preistly?

Or is it because of the fear that if you act in a gay role, people might actually think you are gay? Is it about the weight of possible repercussions for playing a role that is still objectionable to most of society? You can play a serial killer and no one bats an eyelash, because no one seriously thinks there's a possible reality behind the role. But play gay, and watch the rumors fly. Watch the press ask stupid questions like "Did you enjoy kissing [insert name of co-star here]?" as if a straight man kissing a man is really so different than a straight man kissing a woman for whom he has little or no attraction.

The "courage" that is required is bucking the possible damage the being gay can do to your career. Nor is is it an unfounded fear. Hollywood has a long history of pressuring gay bachelors to get married to deflect rumors of their deviance. Remember Tommy Kirk? Didn't think so. Tommy Kirk was the cute, young man who played in multiple Disney movies in the 50s and 60s. Old Yeller, Swiss Family Robinson, The Shaggy Dog, Son of Flubber, Savage Sam, to name a few. Disney found out Tommy was gay in 1965 ... and fired him ("Tommy Kirk," n.d.). Tommy now runs an upholstery and carpet cleaning business.

Even today in our brave new world Rupert Everett complains that he is denied roles because studio execs don't think the public will accept an openly gay man in a romantic leading role. (But they'll accept Jack Nicholson? Puhleeze. Ladies, how many of you are dying to make it with Jack?) Is it really about public perceptions or are execs just unwilling to tell Everett he doesn't have the acting ability to pull it off? One lady friend of mine opines

Depends on how good an actor he is really. If he can ACT like he's having a good time when he's kissing a woman then he's good enough to play straight guys. If not, if that underlying 'yuk' factor is in his body language, then everyone will remember that he's very openly gay and that's all they'll see.

I agree, but I still have a hard time seeing how this is materially different from straight actors who are not attracted to each other or, not entirely unlikely, who despise each other. Still, one openly gay casting director has said he refuses to date actors because "an actor seen in public with him risked confinement to gay or sexually ambiguous roles" (Bartone, 2002).

Apparently in Hollywood, the land of morally bankrupt liberals who are trying to teach America's children how to be gay, it's only O.K. to act gay. It's still not really O.K. to be gay.