“I think it shouldn’t matter at all what character people play, but of course there is a narrative that’s very clear, that openly gay men aren’t playing straight in leading roles.
And also, there’s a reason why gay characters are so interesting. Because much like the women in Bridgerton, there are a lot of hurdles and there’s a lot of self-growth, and there’s a real strength to gay men. So the fact that a lot of straight men have gone on to play iconic gay roles and to be lauded for that is fantastic, that that story is being told. But wouldn’t it be brilliant to see gay men play their own experience?”— British actor Jonathan Bailey speaking to Digital Spy about the ongoing conversation about whether queer roles should go to queer actors. Bailey, who is gay, plays a straight role in the upcoming Netflix series Bridgerton, premiering on Christmas day.
wikidBSTN
Oooooh – I have always like him. So glad to learn he’s family.
Gourmet Guy
Bailey makes some really important points. It’s important to remember that for too many people, the only contact they have with gay people–that they know of!–is through TV and movies..
rpg233
I agree with your statement but everybody I know knows at least one gay person. It’s not that rare.
SteveM
Bailey’s right. I think gay roles in movies and on television should go mostly to gay men.
Openminded
Does it count that many many closeted gay men played straight parts many years ago? I agree with Bailey on his stand but it’s not like a gay person has never played straight parts.
batman305
No, although that really is the point. Gay men have had to be closeted and suppress if they want to be successful. I get what Bailey is saying – the narrative is you can’t be out and gay and play leading straight parts. Thats the myth and culture of ‘hollywood’. I think ‘gay’ means out and visible in this instance. Really interesting and brilliant points. Well done Bailey.
rray63
I still think its a dangerous precedent. Gays play gays, straights play straight, etc., etc. You will be limiting certain groups even more. Unless of course what we are saying is it only applies to us as LGBTQ+ people?
Ronbo
Yes. It’s called acting, not “representing”. But there are limits like blackface and inherent deception of my grandmother’s picture of Jesus as a blue-eyed freckled white man.
My favorite is the redneck who attacked the inflatable black Santa writing “”Please remove your n—o Santa Claus yard decoration,” the letter read, using an outdated term for Black people. “You should not try to deceive children into believing that I am a n—o. I am a caucasian (white man, to you) and have been for the past 600 years.”
The letter continued: “Your being jealous of my race is no excuse for your dishonesty. Besides that, you are making yourself the laughing stock of the neighborhood. Obviously, your values are not that of the Lakewood area and maybe you should move to a neighborhood out east with the rest of your racist kind.” I hope the letter was sarcasm.
rpg233
It’s still representing though for gay people.
butchqueen
I wanna sit on that stubbly chin!
Donston
As I’ve said many times, it’s a complicated topic. We do need to stop seeing “straight” actors get extra applause for playing “queer”. It does appear that that’s at least mostly behind us though. Also, “straightness” was and still is used as a marketing ploy. I recall in half of the interviews for Brokeback Mountain someone would ask Jake and Heath what it was like to kiss a guy. Very tacky and sensationalistic stuff. We also know that Hollywood still pressures people (particularly young male actors who depend on their sex appeal) to stay closeted or to maintain hetero appeal. We know openly “gay” actors are still automatically limited in their options, face a glass ceiling and are at the hands of studio and casting directors’ biases.
On the other hand, you can’t cast based purely on orientation or identity. Getting into people’s personal business while pretty much interviewing for a job is not only unfair, in many ways it’s illegal. While there is no real why to tell if someone is actually “gay”. Someone can just say that they’re “gay” just to get a role. (Just like many present themselves as “straight” to get roles). While things like fluidity and the gender, romantic, sexual, emotional, commitment spectrum can complicate identity and sociology.
It is a complicated discussion. But at least this is an actor who somewhat understands the nuances of it and the biases and isn’t completely dismissive.
Vincent22
I have no issue with straight actors playing gay roles. I just hate when they or writers/directors decide the actor should make a conscious effort to be softer. Why not just use your actual voice? And I don’t mean being effeminate I mean being very soft and passive when it doesn’t even go with the character. It just feels like they try to promote an outdated stereotype.
Donston
“Gay” bio male characters still mostly fit into three categories. They’re sassy, one-note side characters that typically support a female lead. They’re tragic figures and victims of their sociology and environment. Or there’s an attempt to overcompensate and make them as “normal” and dull as possible. Sometimes they fit into two of the three.
MudgeBoy
It would be such a loss to map all gay roles to gays and straight roles to straights. My otp of all time is #philkas where Tyler Young and James Paxton played Philip and Lukas so authentically, for many reasons, but mostly because they are good people and good friends in their private lives. And I can never forget Heath and Jake in Brokeback. As @Ronbo said, it’s called ” acting” not “representing.” When I was in high school and in college there were no out gays anywhere, on tv, in politics, or anywhere, except for maybe Paul Lynde. We live in a wonderful new world where we need integration not segregation.
Celtic
OF COURSE gay men play straight roles, and vice versa. Who the hell cares?