The whole debate about heterosexual actors playing homosexual characters has been flickering along for quite some time now. The conversation waxes and wanes a lot, as you would expect, depending on what films or TV shows are being produced. The discussion has been stoked further recently as a result of screenwriter, director, and producer Russell T. Davies adding his opinions to the mix. He has argued that straight actors can not bring 'authenticity' to a gay role. This in turn has sparked the conversation further and a large number of people, including prominent performers both gay and straight, are responding. It really is a multifaceted and complex discussion and of course, I too have some thoughts that I wanted to write down. I will start out by saying that in principle, I am not against the notion of straight people playing gay characters. Some of my absolute favourite pieces of LGBTQ+ cinema and television have featured heterosexual actors displaying incredible performances as homosexual characters. That being said, I wanted to dig into my own thoughts and feelings on the debate itself.

One of the key arguments that I have seen repeatedly is that by its very definition, acting is the art of performing a role on film, television, or on stage, etc. An actor portrays a character and performs 'in the flesh' of said character. The very nature of acting is that it grants the actor the opportunity, or at least attempt, to live in someone else's skin. A massive part of acting is that you are performing as something that you are not in your own life. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The whole beauty of acting is that for a short time, it enables you to be a completely different person, with a different personality, different background, different opinions, different motivations, and so on.

While I agree with this argument, you do have to acknowledge that there are also rules when it comes to acting. Broadly speaking, males play male roles, females play female roles. Of course, that sounds rather obvious when I write it like that, but it really is a fundamental 'rule' that is simply accepted. There are exceptions of course, and sometimes males do play female characters and vice versa. However, that is quite often due to the very nature of the character that is being played. 'Drag' as an art form and performance is one such area where, by its very nature, the rules are different. That is a whole different discussion which I am not going to get into here. There is also the discussion around trans characters and performers which I will touch upon in a bit. My main point here is that you don't see a woman in costume as a man playing James Bond. Yes, there have been discussions about a female 'Bond' but that is not the same thing as a woman actually performing as a man. That is, of course, unless they decide to make that a part of the character being portrayed. 

What is really interesting about this 'rule', is that it was not always the case. Historically, it was quite common to see an all-male cast. Shakespeare productions frequently did this. In more recent times, these concepts and rules have been played around with as an exploration of gender and crossing boundaries. I found a fascinating article by Claire McManus, discussing gender in Shakespeare over on the British Library website. It is well worth a read! 

Similarly, it is a commonly accepted and perhaps even more strictly enforced rule, that an actor should never paint their skin colour for a role. The whole notion of a performer donning 'blackface' (I detest even writing that word) for a role is widely regarded as offensive, racist, and quite rightly unacceptable. I am not going to get into lots of detail as to why that is. I don't think I really need to. Putting it simply though, if a character is written as a person of colour, use an appropriate person of colour for the role. If you did want to read more about this discussion, a good place to start is HERE. I also recommend reading about how the practice is rooted in racism HERE. Again though, historically, the current rule was not always the case and was actually common practice on screen and on stage. 

Just to be clear, I am in no way comparing straight performers playing gay to blackface. While it could possibly be argued that there is some commonality here, they are not the same thing. Historically, the very practice of blackface was to mock, demean, and dehumanize people of colour. Throughout history, the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters has also frequently been seen to mock, demean, and dehumanize LGBTQ+ people. That does not make them the same thing though. I am merely making the point that many of the commonly accepted 'rules' for acting have evolved and changed over time. As much as I agree that acting should be just that and that anyone should be allowed to play any role, you can not deny that certain rules exist already. If that is the case, why shouldn't there be a rule about LGBTQ+ people playing LGBTQ+ characters?

Part of the push back against such a rule is that it then begs the question, where do the rules stop? I have seen it argued that if we are going to apply a rule about straight performers playing gay and vice versa, then surely we shouldn't have a non-superhero playing a superhero or a human playing an alien. That is, of course, taking the discussion to an absolute extreme and I would like to remind anyone using that as an argument, you are talking about characters that do not actually exist in real life (at least we don't think they do... - hehe). This makes it incomparable. Similarly, I have seen it argued that if we want to apply a 'gay people for gay roles' rule we should also do the same for characters that are criminals, murderers, and so on. Again, I think this a rather extreme example and there is a whole host of reasons why that rule wouldn't work... I totally appreciate the sentiment but this whole line of argument is comparing apples to oranges. They simply are not the same thing.

The Queer As Folk DVD Box Set. Available from Amazon

As is so often the case these days, it is very important to also consider representation when having this discussion. I have said it before and I will keep saying it. Representation is key. If you want to understand why there is a discussion about 'gay roles for gay people' you have to look at how gay people and the full spectrum of the LGBTQ+ community have been represented in the past. By and large, the LGBTQ+ community was ignored in mainstream film and TV. In the past, those characters simply did not exist as if to suggest that we did not exist. In reality, a huge portion of our community was hidden or 'in the closet' and so it is not a stretch to suggest that this, in turn, was reflected in film and television. That is why Russell T. Davies's own "Queer As Folk" TV show is considered so groundbreaking. It brought to screen at least a part of the LGBTQ+ community and our lives that had never been seen on TV before. It wasn't just groundbreaking, it quite literally smashed down that closet door. It should be noted that despite being a 'superficially realistic depiction of gay life', the main cast of gay characters were played by artists that identify as heterosexual.

Quite often in the past and arguably even now, when an LGBTQ+ character was included, it was done in such a way that it was a caricature played for laughs, or to highlight our apparent 'immorality'. Think about how the LGBTQ+  community had been portrayed, when they were, in some of the older mainstream films and television you have seen. I also want to note here that in terms of LGBTQ+ representation it is possibly the trans part of the community that has borne the worst of these terrible caricaturish, offensive, and downright transphobic portrayals. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend watching the documentary "Disclosure" currently available on Netflix. It is an alarming and eye-opening exposé of how trans performers and characters have been treated in the industry. I will agree that there is a lot to be said about how these historical performances are reflective of the times because that was widely how society viewed our community but that doesn't make it any more acceptable though. 

A part of the justification for having LGBTQ+ people play LGBTQ+ roles is to ensure that we are represented accurately and to avoid falling back into the usual tropes and stereotypes. Again, I must stress that I do agree that a heterosexual performer is absolutely capable of giving an accurate and fair portrayal of a homosexual character. That is the very nature of the craft. I have seen several absolutely outstanding performances given by heterosexual artists and I would not want to rob the world of those incredible performances either. I wholeheartedly believe that heterosexual performers CAN play homosexual characters but I guess what I am questioning here, at this current time, is whether they SHOULD? 

The reason I say that is because one also has to acknowledge that as well as a lack of well-written characters, historically there has been a lack of LGBTQ+ performers given roles or even auditions. I have heard the argument that any role should be given to the actor who puts in the best audition. I agree with that too, but again, that can be considered a flawed argument because LGBTQ+ performers have often been denied even having an audition. For many years, a performer who identifies as LGBTQ+ would be denied an audition or role simply for that fact, regardless of their ability to play the part. For many years, casting an LGBTQ+ artist was, and to a degree still is (and unfairly I hasten to add), considered to be damaging to the chances of success for a film or a TV show. If that wasn't true then why would many LGBTQ+ performers still choose to hide or even lie about their sexuality even now, whether that is out of personal choice or because it is expected of them by studio bosses? Even now, many will do this because they fear it will limit the opportunities they are given. Given that there has been a distinct and disproportionate lack of opportunities for LGBTQ+ artists, there are grounds to argue that surely, at the very least, they can be offered the roles of LGBTQ+ characters? 

Of course, all of this has improved drastically in more recent years. We are now seeing more out and proud LGBTQ+ performers and more film and TV depictions of our community. We do see gay men convincingly playing straight men. For instance, Neil Patrick Harris as Barney in "How I Met Your Mother". This example is frequently cited as a justification for having straight men playing gay men too. Personally, I do feel that it is still tremendously skewed towards heterosexual men playing homosexual characters. I am pretty sure that if you listed the number of straight men playing gay compared to gay men playing straight, there would be a clear dominance. In fact, nowadays, it seems to me that having a straight actor playing gay can be a novelty or marketing tool used to help sell the film or TV show. That practice even appears to be widely accepted. I'd go so far as to say that we have to acknowledge that even us within the LGBTQ+ community sometimes buy into that too. 

As an example, if you have seen it. Did you watch "Brokeback Mountain" just because it was a film to watch, or because it was a piece of LGBTQ+ cinema, or was it in part because you were intrigued by the notion of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal 'playing gay'? I for one love to see LGBTQ+ film and TV and I seek it out but I will put my hands up and say that in the case of "Brokeback Mountain" is was a bit of all of the above for me. Sure, that probably says more about me than anything else. I mean, come on, be honest, can you say that there isn't at least a small part of you that would pay good money to see someone like Chris Evans (or insert any of your favourite gorgeous straight actors here) playing gay? Ok, so I am veering into a very different, fantasy fulfilment type discussion at this point, but I am sure you understand what I am saying. There is certainly a discussion to be had about using heterosexual artists in homosexual roles to drive interest and marketing for a movie which in turn could be seen as monetising homosexuality. ( - Get back on track already Mark!!!).

Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl

Also, and as discussed in the "Disclosure" documentary, having a heterosexual, cis-gender male play the role of a transgender character is considered 'acceptable' because it isn't real, it is just an act, it is just a costume. Take the film "The Danish Girl" for instance. Much of the buzz and marketing that was generated for the film centered on the fact that it was Eddie Redmayne, a straight, cis-gender male playing at being transgender. That isn't to say he didn't deliver a compelling, thought-provoking performance but it does also evoke the notion that the transgender 'experience' was treated as merely a costume. It really is not. Honestly, I'm probably paraphrasing and simplifying it a bit too much so go and watch the "Disclosure" documentary. It is really very powerful. 

Anyway, forcing myself back on track again. As I said previously, with there now being more discussion on the subject, things are getting better. All of this has happened concurrently with the fact that society as a whole accepts and even celebrates our existence more than ever before. I genuinely believe there are still ways to go. I have discussed this in the past on a purely statistical level when reflecting on an argument that there were too many LGBTQ+ characters in TV soaps. You can read that one HERE. TV soaps are actually one of the better areas of LGBTQ+ representation in terms of the number of characters that are written as part of our community relative to the full cast. That isn't the case when considering the broader spectrum of film and TV. 

Take the popular Marvel Cinematic Universe as an example. Across the ten years of those movies, how many of the prominent characters or even supporting characters can be identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community? I can tell you that it is not reflective of the most widely accepted research into the proportion of people that identify as LGBTQ+. How many of the actors and actresses in those roles openly identify as LGBTQ+? Again, it is not reflective. This is not a criticism of Marvel or their movies by the way. I am a huge fan of them. I just wanted to use them as an example. They are actually one of a few companies that have been quite vocal about addressing the issue of representation and trying to do better and so I feel that should be recognized. 

Of course, you could turn my earlier argument back on me here and say, "oh but Mark, you are talking about a fictional version of our world where superheroes exist, perhaps LGBTQ+ people do not exist in that world". I'll give you that but I would also point out that whilst it is a fictional version of our world, it is still a representation of our world (and others for that matter) and so surely, it should also include representation of the diversity of our world.

As I have already said several times now, as much as I agree that acting should be just that and that anyone should be allowed to play any role within the commonly accepted rules, perhaps that can only truly happen when there is a fairer and more accurate representation of LGBTQ+ performers and characters in the first place.

What are your thoughts on this? Let me know in the comments below or come let me know over on Twitter.

- Thanks for stopping by and reading x

Hello, hello, hello and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

I hope you all had a wonderful festive season despite the craziness that is the world right now. I have just about recovered from all of my New Year shenanigans and wanted to kick the year off with a rundown of what I was listening to throughout December.

First off, here are the top-line numbers!

As you can see, it was a much bigger month for sure, driven by having music playlists running a lot more throughout the day. Of course, this does mean that my Top 20 tracks have been slightly less prominent in terms of my overall music listening habits but they still make up just shy of one-fifth of everything I listened to throughout the month.

Much like in November, there have been quite a few 'New-Entries' for December, 12 to be exact. Three of those are not new songs to me and have been in my library for some time, they are simply songs that have never appeared in my recorded charts before. The rest are all brand new and just like last month, there has been a lot of influence from the Gaydio Breakfast Show. If you have never listened to Dean McCullough's show before I strongly recommend it. It is always a good mix of bangers and banter and a great start to the day. And no, I am not being sponsored, coerced or paid by Gaydio, I just genuinely love the show.

The biggest dropping track but still clinging into the chart was the Kari Kimmel version of 'Cruel Summer', down 10 places to Number 20. The song was featured in the show Cobra Kai at the end of Season 2. If you haven't watched the show and therefore haven't heard it, the song is a slower, darker and moodier version of the 1984 camptastic classic from Bananarama. I love hearing a staple of the '80s given a contemporary twist and this one works incredibly well both within the context of the TV show and as a standalone track.

Also dropping down the chart this month was Little Mix with 'Confetti' and Steps 'Something In Your Eyes'. I was curious how these tracks would do this month as mentioned in the previous chart. They were brand new so I was listening to them a lot. Interestingly to me though, is the fact that Steps didn't make up more of the chart for December. Their new album released right at the end of November so did not have much time to make an impact on the chart there and hasn't really appeared this month either with only one other track staying in the chart, 'To The Beat Of My Heart'.

Only one song actually climbed back up the chart and that was my favourite from the latest self-titled Melanie C album. 'Nowhere To Run' is actually a song about panic attacks and anxiety so the lyrics really resonate with me and I listen to it a lot, hence it climbing 5 places to Number 6. I will always be a huge Melanie C fan and champion her as one of the most underrated and underappreciated artists in British music. If you haven't listened to the latest album I really think you should. You may find yourself quite surprised by it.

Another artist who I will always champion and adore is Kelis. It doesn't matter what she releases or who she collaborates with, I am there for it. She is another of those artists that I actively follow so that I can download absolutely anything that she has her name on. 'Watch Your Step' is no exception and although it has been out for a while, it is definitely still a must-play for me, hence it being the top re-entry for the month. Kelis often features on other artists tracks as a vocalist and this Disclosure release is superb.

As I have already mentioned there have been quite a few new-entries this month and aside from this month's Number 1 the top performer was 'Forever Love' by Bingo Players & Disco Fries feat. Viiq. It is an incredibly feel-good type dance track that takes me back to the late 90s and early 00s without sounding dated. It is so much fun that I will even include the video:

I do want to include a special mention for an online friend and fellow SpiceFan who has just released his very own solo album that was all completely self-written, recorded and produced. It is a fantastic album and one of his tracks made the chart at Number 17. 'Slow Dance' is fantastic and if you get a chance to go check out the album it would be fantastic.

I am writing this and thinking that everything feels a bit all over the place, even by my standards. A big part of that comes from the weight of the new entries and also the fact that Christmas songs also get added into the mix for December. I have a hard rule when it comes to Christmas songs in that I refuse to play them until December 1st. After December 25th that is it, they get unticked for another year. In addition, I also have songs in my Christmas playlist that aren't exactly Christmas songs but were Christmas No.1 in the UK such as Spice Girls, '2 Become 1' which came in at Number 3 on the chart.

A few of my favourite Christmas songs naturally made the chart including 'Last Christmas' by Wham. I have never and probably never will play 'Whamageddon'. I love the song too much to join in the game of avoiding hearing it throughout December. I was really chuffed to hear that it also made it No.1 in the real UK charts for the first time since its release 36 years ago! 

In all my 'basic-bitch' glory, Mariah Carey's 'All I Want For Christmas Is You' is my favourite Christmas song of all time and was almost my top listened to Christmas song for December. That was until Todrick Hall dropped another reworked version of his track 'Nails, Hair, Hips, Heels' in the form of 'Bells, Bows Gifts, Trees' which took my Number 1 spot this month. To me, it is everything that a contemporary, camp, fierce Christmas song needs to be. Obviously, I am writing this in January and to say that the moment has passed would be rather fitting. For that reason I'm not going to go into a whole discussion of its merits (and awesomeness), instead, I shall just see whether it makes an impact in the December 2021 charts...

Anyhow, that is going to do it for my musical musings this month. The full chart can be seen just below.

As always, if you have any music recommendations or tracks you think I really should be listening to, drop me comment below or drop me a line via Twitter...

Thank you for stopping by and reading xx