Straight actors are constantly being praised for taking gay roles. Bent British entertainer Stephen Fry doesn’t think it’s fair:
[Fry] told the Radio Times: “I think the fact that I’m so well known to be gay makes it very difficult to have a convincing relationship with a woman on screen.
“Straight actors can play gay people and they’re rather congratulated on it. People say ‘Ooh, how brave of you’.”
But Stephen, 50, added that no one says to a gay actor who plays a heterosexual person: “‘How brave of you to kiss that woman, that must have been very difficult for you’.”
He said: “It wouldn’t be at all difficult for me to kiss a woman – I’ll kiss a frog if you like. And why should it be difficult for a man to kiss another man?”
Because the general public lacks sexual imagination…
chandler in lasvegas
I couldn’t love Stephen Fry any more. He is quite simply my kind of genius. And he is the godfather to Hugh Laurie’s children. They have been friends for ages. Gad, I wish he would perform more in the US.
Alexa
I love Stephen Fry, he’s one of the funniest men on the planet, his dry wit is perfect. I’d love him to work with Hugh Laurie again, they were so good together. And he’s so right about this.
timmmyk
Stephen Fry, Sir Ian mcKellen and John Barrowman are awesome role models and make me sad that American actors don’t have the guts to be out.
Ian J UK
Sorry guys, you can’t have our Steve. He’s one of the stately homos of England, and far to funny and entertaining to let go.
Alacer
any more praise would be redundant (yet deserved), so I shall just say “ditto”. The man’s amazing.
Dawster
i don’t disagree, but i just have my own little three cents to add.
first off, gay men have been kissing straight women in Hollywood since the beginning of the motion picture industry. “straight for pay” actors had no choice in the matter, entire studios functioned around their P.R. Today may be a little different but not by much.
second, i don’t think it’s fair to say that straight actors in gay roles are ever considered “brave” anymore. it was for Harry Hamlin and whats-his-face back the “Making Love” days, but since the mid 90’s “bravery” is hardly an appropriate term for a straight actor taking on a gay role.
third, everyone is different. i actually WOULD have a problem kissing a woman. if i HAD to i guess i could, but i would seriously have to gear myself up to do it (a few shots would help). multiple takes would be like nails on a chalkboard. the idea is just not attractive to me. should straight actors be penalized because they feel the exact same way about kissing other guys? yes, some straight guys are okay with it, others are not. people are people and no two are the same.
right now, i would like to see more out actors be comfortable with strong straight roles (like Neil Patrick Harris’ role in that silly tv show). i love steven fry though, and i agree in his statement that sometimes a person’s public life sometimes gets in the way of what’s believable on screen.
afrolito
I don’t know what planet you live on, but on this one straight actors are routinely lauded as brave for taking on gay roles.
Gay men have been playing it straight in Hollywood for years, but the BIG difference is that they were’nt openly gay, or going on about how challenging it was for them.
It’s called ACTING, and if a person has a problem pretending to be any sexuality in a film, then he’s not really an ACTOR.
Finally, being that there are so few gay roles out there, why is it that you want to see out actors take on more straight roles? I love Neil Patrickk Harris, but I would love to see him (and other gay men) actually play interesting, and layered gay people.
There is more than enough hetero visibility in the media as it is.
SeaFlood
@ Dawster
“right now, i would like to see more out actors be comfortable with strong straight roles (like Neil Patrick Harris’ role in that silly tv show).”
Um, ugh. You are contradicting yourself. Out or closeted gay actors HAVE to be comfortable playing straight roles (and that role Harris is playing isn’t “strong” as much as misogynistic and heterosexist, but I guess we all have our reads…)… I don’t understand why you… nevermind.
I agree with Afrolito — we don’t NEED more hetero-visibility. Our WORLD is heterosexual and that’s why sites like this one and even lame as hell LOGO are useful because it provides us with an alternate reality that many of us build within our own lives… where looking at men’s asses is the norm, not something that is worth comment at all.
Just… we don’t need to help hetero-supremacy, Dawster.
Bob R
Afrolito: Well said and as our British cousins would say, “spot on.”
SeaFlood: LOGO, isn’t that the Lesbian Only Gay Occasionally channel? I am so sick of end to end “Bad Girls”, briefly interrupted by “Ex’s and Oh’s” that I’m ready to cancel my cable and go back to satellite because LOGO just isn’t worth the money. They also make me want to puke with old “Smilin’ Bob” rip off commercials and Kinoki Foot Pads. Good grief. It’d be nice if they could give us a little Stephen Fry now and again.
Ash
Brokeback Mountain came out, what, 3 or 4 years ago? Much was made of the ostensibly straight actors’ bravery. Both actors made it very, very clear that they were straight, too, and discussed how difficult it was to play a gay person. ‘Cause you know, being gay is icky.
SeaFlood
@Bob R
Touche! What annoys me is all the needless censoring. They are worse than the FCC! They can’t say shit or cock or dick or pussy — which you can say on all the het channels. You have a point… LOGO is not all it is cracked up to be. But when I need refuge from the het world — it is there. And isn’t Bad Girls on Oxygen? (… I am not proud of myself for knowing that…)