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 |
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 |
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment