Maybe it is just me, but I get annoyed when a straight actor gets an award for playing a gay role. Why can't gay actors play gay roles? Sure the straight guys are fairly convincing, but straight people don't really know the angst of being closeted or coming out. They can pretend to feel the conflict between "being normal" and being real, but it is all fake. I usually wait until I have watched a film to check out the actor's relationships. The guys in Shelter did a great job of faking it, but I still knew they were straight before looking it up. If you want to make an authentic film, use authentic actors. Using straights to represent gays is just like the practice of using "blackface" to replace African Americans as they did many decades ago, and using non Native Americans to play Native American roles. It is just wrong and it shows.
Maybe the film producers choose actors based on how they imagine a character looking and how well they fit the description. Or maybe they choose them based on how well they can act. There are way more straight actors than there are gay so it'd really cut down on time if they don't choose people based on their sexuality. I actually think it's kind of nice, I'm guessing that usually straight and cisgender people don't know much about LGBT culture but they get a chance to learn and get a feel for what it might be like to be in someone else's shoes. Sure, they'll never fully understand but maybe it'd help open their eyes. Serious question: if you think straight actors should only play straight characters, should gay actors only play gay characters as well? Because I feel like they're not going to earn as much since the vast majority of films feature heterosexual relationships. I also really think that comparing it to blackface is a false equivalence too. Blackface wasn't just white people pretending to be black, it was created with the intention of mocking black people and perpetuating racial stereotypes. Meanwhile, if a straight actor just plays a gay character, I don't see the issue.
For the movie "Love, Simon", the main character is played by a straight actor (Nick Robinson). Surely who they play should be nothing to do with their sexuality? Also, it shows that they are in favour of the LGBT community, which is a positive step. 40 years ago, how many straight actors would have played a gay character? I am actually very happy that they have got Nick Robinson for this movie, as he is really good looking. It doesn't matter that he is straight, but will definitely make for great eye-candy in the movie. I'm only 16, but I seem to have a thing for guys his age - is that bad?
Don't doubt who you are attracted to, I am just now realizing what gender that is, and it has taken me 40 years!
One could make that argument (that an actor without ________ experience shouldn't play a role involving that experience) for anything. So a straight actor hasn't had to come out. But plenty of actors haven't had someone important in their life die, or haven't been a criminal, or haven't been an addict, or haven't had to have an abortion, or isn't disabled, or haven't done this or that... that's kind of the entire point of acting. The ability to reach deep into one's emotions, use empathy to understand where their character has been, and what s/he has been through, and deliver a convincing emotional portrayal of that experience is what matters. The sexuality, ability or disability, or other factors are pretty irrelevant.
I don't mind straight actors playing gay characters because a lot of straight actors treat the gay characters with respect, for me an actor is wrong for the role if he just perpetuates the stereotypes of the gay man just to make his character more gay, but I will actually say for LGBT cinema, we need more diverse races playing gay characters like I've never seen an African American man play a gay character in cinema, the only film that has had this is Moonlight. But straight actors playing gay characters is fine as long as they treat the characters with full respect for the LGBT community.
I have often wondered with how progressive and liberal Hollywood claims to be; how sexist, misogynistic and white washing they really are. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Maybe I was just thinking of situations where deep emotion is involved. Coming out or the struggles of being closeted for example.
I think as long as there are people behind the camera (writers, directors, producers) who can bring their LGBTQ experiences to the script, even straight actors can share powerful, moving stories. That being said, of course, I would prefer gay actors to play gay characters - it feels more authentic. There's nothing worse than two straight characters with zero chemistry playing into old stereotypes... That's what makes shows like Please Like Me so special, and real. It's rooted in real experiences. But until the day comes when there are many out actors in Hollywood, I think we are going to have to put up with a lot of straight people taking on "difficult" roles (and getting praise for them).
There is not enough good actors willing to come out as gay and there may be better actors for the job. Well basically Spot said everything I was thinking. Minus the blackface thing I don't know enough about blackface to have an opinion.
There are some outstanding examples of that specific issue where the character was played by a straight actor. One that comes to mind is Tom Hanks in Philadelphia. Another is the actor who played Marco's love interest in DeGrassi (Adamo Ruggiero, who is gay, played Marco; his love interest was played by John Bregara, a straight actor who did an awesome job. Still another is Darren Criss, who played Kurt's love interest in Glee. I don't think one has to be gay to call upon the same sorts of emotions that gay people go through.
As long as they can act and do the character justice, I don’t really care. But saying that straight people can’t play gay characters is like saying gay people can’t play straight characters. It doesn’t really make any sense why they shouldn’t be allowed to portray a gay character
I am not bothered by this at all. If they are good actors and actresses, then they are fully qualified. The key three letters are A-C-T. Cate Blanchett was cast as the lead in "Carol." Kudos to her and Rooney Mara for their acting and for debunking myths about what lesbians and lesbian relationships are like.
To me, it doesn't matter as long as the role is portrayed well. Many people in shows that play gay characters do research and talk to people they know, I actually know of several who have gay brothers and heavily depended on their brother's experience for reference. There's been quite a few cases where the chemistry is truly amazing between two actors, which just shows they're good actors. On the situation of rewards, it depends what the reward is for. If it's for playing their role, I don't see why not - they earned it. If it's for some reason being a spokesperson of the LGBT+ community, then yes, I'd find that a bit weird.
So, based on that, how authentic do you think a program/film would be if neither the actors nor director had any experience dealing with the emotion? SOMEBODY needs to monitor it to be sure that it isn't just a hetero scene with a guy in the "girl's part" .
I feel like you can make the same argument for authors. They can have characters that may experience things they themselves have never experienced. Does that mean they shouldn't write their work? No! Like actors, they research and do what they can to make their characters and stories believable. Plus there are most likely more straight actors than there are out LGBT actors. So your saying that a gay actor has to play a gay role just because they are gay? They might not have the right look or personality for the role. Besides, only casting gay actors as gay characters limits their range of roles (same goes for only casting straights as straights), and seems to reduce them to just their sexuality. Do you think they want to be remembered for their roles or their sexuality? If an actor needs work, and can do a role well, I don't think it really matters if their sexuality doesn't match that of their character.
Some people seem to be generalizing. If an incidental character is played outside of their sexuality, there is no problem. It is when there is a gay storyline, a straight director and the main characters are reflecting relationship issues that it becomes important to me. I watched Shelter on Here.TV and noticed some aspects that seemed a bit off. The chemistry wasn't quite right and I felt it affected the authenticity of the film. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the film, but it is slightly lacking due to the hetero influence. It is a story of sexual awakening and angst, which could have been reflected much better by an actor who had experienced said angst. The way the relationship came together didn't reflect the awkwardness and emotional conflict that would have been portrayed by someone going through the struggle. Even the conversation where his sister confronts him about his relationship lack the emotional turmoil. Trevor performs the rest of the part very well, but either he or the director failed to bring the emotional impact to the screen. Brad, on the other hand, is very believable, but he does not have the struggle that Trevor's character should be experiencing. There are other examples, but this is the film that brought me to write this thread. Dang, now this has turned into a movie review.
Do you feel the same way about a film like Call Me By Your Name? That's also played by straight actors but they have great chemistry, and it feels more authentic. But I get where you're coming from - of course I would prefer LGBT actors to play LGBT parts because they bring another level of authenticity to the roles. We just aren't there yet with Hollywood. Gotta wade through a lot of bad chemistry and terrible storylines before we get some good representation! They are still using two women kissing as clickbait for a lot of shows so.... yup. Long way to go.
I did finally get the chance to see CMBYN. I am just beginning the audiobook and find so much was not conveyed in the movie. The two actors did a great job of conveying the relationship, but there was still something missing. Timothee is very cute and I am glad I saw it on the big screen. Armey is handsome, but I agree that he looked too old for the part he was cast. Perhaps it is because of the missing parts, or perhaps it was the directing, but I think it lacked the flirtation I would expect of the situation. However, I have only seen the movie once (not 20 times like some people have posted in discussions) but that was my initial impression. But to the point of the actor's portrayal of the character, even in CMBYN I felt a lack of authenticity. It has to do with the interactions that occur when someone is attracted to another and the way lines are delivered. If you haven't experienced it, you cannot convey the emotion on screen. It is not something a director can tell you to do and have it come out authentic.
