Oscar nominee Viggo Mortensen, best known for his turn as Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, has pushed back against critics of his decision to play a gay man in his forthcoming film Falling.
Falling marks Mortensen’s debut as a feature film director. He also wrote and stars in the film as John, a married gay man who takes in his racist, homophobic and abusive father (played by Lance Henricksen) when the old man begins to show signs of dementia. Laura Linney and Terry Chen also star.
In an interview with The Times, Mortensen slammed his critics who attacked him for playing a gay character, saying it was not a “gimmick.”
“The short answer is that I didn’t think it was a problem,” the actor said. “And people then ask me: ‘Well what about Terry Chen, who plays my husband in the film, is he a homosexual? The answer is I don’t know, and I would never have the temerity to ask someone if they were, during the casting process.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Related: Homophobic judge forced to resign after telling lawyer to ‘suck’ Viggo Mortensen in court
“How do you know what my life is?” he continued. “You’re assuming that I’m completely straight. Maybe I am, maybe I’m not. And it’s frankly none of your business. I want my movie to work, and I want the character of John to be effective. If I didn’t think it was a good idea I wouldn’t do it.”
Despite his defense, Mortensen also told the outlet that having conversations about queer representation in casting is “healthy.”
“Look, these are the times we’re living in, and I think it’s healthy that those issues are brought up,” he added.
Asking an actor about his sexual history during an audition is illegal in the United States, as the law prohibits discrimination based on age, gender, race or sexuality in a job interview. Recently, queer actress Kristen Stewart also pushed back against calls for casting only openly-queer actors as queer characters, labeling the practice a “slippery slope,” and warning that doing so would also block queer actors from playing straight characters.
dhmonarch89
Exactly what law prohibits asking if an actor is gay? We DO NOT have a National law to that effect- ENDA has never been passed. California has a law in place, but about 26/27 other states do not. That question is not illegal. Please get people who actually know something to write these stories!
David Reddish
It’s very illegal, actually. You may want to consult EEOC.gov for more information.
pavel20
With the Supreme Court’s decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights act does extend to employment protections for LGBTQ individuals, questions regarding sexual orientation would now be considered as indicators of potential violation of the Act.
dhmonarch89
pavel- I’ve followed the push for ENDA for 20+ years…and I’ve read about a dozen LGBT blogs regularly for years…I’ve never seen anything on any of them discussing a Supreme Court case that provides sweeping employment protections.
dhmonarch89
www freedomforallamericans org/states (for some reason links don’t get posted.
list of 27 states where it’s legal to fire someone for being gay
Obama passed executive order protecting people in Federal employ, but not the rest of us…Trump over turned that his first week.
Until 1/1/20, it was legal to refuse to hire a gay person or to fire them in Virginia- where I live- I watched this very closely…the democrats took over the State House in 2019 and made this illegal and the Democratic Governor signed it into law.
please provide an exact link to the specific place at EEOC that says that
with Trump packing courts and the Supreme Court- any such protections that may exist, may not have long to live.
wow- an author here actually reads the comments- usually Queerty shows nothing but disdain for their readers.
HenryCameron
Discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status is now illegal nationwide. In the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020) the U.S. Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. Queerty won’t allow links, but just do a search for EEOC and LGBT, and it’s the first thing that comes up. Neil Gorsuch, one of those Trump nominees, wrote the majority opinion. The other Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh expressed support for the idea that the protection should be extended, but dissented on purely legal grounds because that kind of change in the law should be enacted through Congress, not decreed by the Court.
HenryCameron
As for Trump appointing judges to strip gay rights, here’s what Trump said in an interview with the Advocate when he was contemplating running for president in 2000.
What would you do to combat antigay prejudice?
I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books…. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans — it’s only fair.
Twenty years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, did just that in an opinion written by a justice he nominated.
Kangol2
dhmonarch, Henry Cameron is correct that this past June 15, 2020, Neil Gorsuch issued the deciding 6-3 opinion banning workplace discrimination against LGBTQ on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
What he does not say is that Don the Con’s administration actually argued AGAINST this, taking the side of employers who wanted to discriminate. In fact, in 2017 Don the Con administration’s Department of Justice argued before a federal court that the Title VII anti-discrimination protections do not cover sexual orientation, thus suggesting that employees could fire gay people.
Yet a justice Don the Con nominated to the court, Neil Gorsuch, along with another conservative justice (Roberts), and the four liberal justices (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bader Ginsberg (RIP)), shocked his administration and many conservatives this past June by essentially throwing his administration’s anti-gay push out the window, using that same Title VII law!
HenryCameron
In order to get a ruling from a court, you must have a case in controversy. That means that you have to have two sides arguing against each other. You can also have parties in agreement that something should be done, but disagreeing on how that end should be achieved. In this situation, from a purely legal point, the separation of powers argument against this ruling was strong. To reach its conclusion, the Court basically had to redefine the word sex, by which the people who passed the original legislation meant male or female, to include other aspects of sexuality that they would never have dreamed of. Congress could easily have introduced legislation to extend those protections, and such changes should come from them, not from the Court rewriting the law on its own.
Cam
@David Reddish
Gee, how interesting you say that, since H.R. knows if you have a same sex partner on your insurance, and some companies already ask genders as Male, Female, non-binary, etc..
Funny how it’s illegal to ask but they do isn’t it? Many employers ask for your race as well.
dhmonarch89
yes- I did just see that, but this is the first I’ve seen it- I don’t recall the Advocate, JoeMyGod, Queer Voices discussing it this summer…pretty big deal/news and it didn’t seem to get much coverage.
dhmonarch89
Mortenson flippantly responded 2 weeks ago that a character in the film wasn’t a proctologist is real life- so should he not play one…I guess this is back tracking to cover that remark- which implies being gay is a choice, like your choice of career/employment.
dhmonarch89
The whole purpose behind the ‘gay actors play gay characters’ was more to force Hollywood into accepting openly gay actors and giving them a place in the industry- giving them opportunities. If Hollywood wasn’t prepared to do that- we had to demand no straight actor took a gay part. In a perfect world, we’d all say, ‘It’s acting- let them act’ BUT- 99% of straight roles go to str8 or closeted actors and 90% of gay roles go to str8 or closeted actors. There’s absolutely no incentive to come out, especially if you’re begging for crumbs. Hollywood for all it’s supposed liberalism keeps falling on it’s face on this issue.
Donston
I don’t really trust Mortensen’s perspective when it comes to this stuff considering his general insensitive remarks over the years as well as the mess that was Greenbook. However, points were made.
This is acting at the end of the day. While only “gay” actors playing “gay” isn’t even practical. Hardly any of those actors have lived entirely hetero or homo lifestyles. Hardly any are entirely on the hetero or homo end of the spectrum throughout their entire lives. Straight, gay, bi, fluid, queer, “no labels” etc. are only identities, and they mean different things to different people. You can never know anyone’s exact orientation. You only know what these actors present. You don’t know what type of experimentation any of these folks have indulged, what type of fluidity that they may have experienced, what types of paraphiliacs they have, what their lifestyle reflects, where exactly they fit in the romantic, sexual, affection, emotional investment, relationship commitment spectrum. While hell, most of the “gay” roles in movies are roles that are more on the spectrum. And asking these people such questions about their personal lives is not fair.
What frustrates me (and I think what frustrates a lot of people) is the industry’s hypocrisies and glass ceilings. You can talk about casting bias, the industry’s closet and hetero pressures, the industry’s femme shaming, the industry’s internalized homophobia, the industry’s “straight”/hetero-leaning worship and privilege. I’m also tired of seeing folks going “queer” for these safe movies in an attempt to garner awards recognition. While we’re still mostly getting the same type of “queer stories” we were getting 30 years ago. Making this all about “gay” actors in “gay” roles is a mistake. It will just lead to more division and resentment and it’s ultimately not practical. The subject of identity, sexuality, orientation will continue to be a personal and divisive one. That is something people need to get over. That’s not what the discussion should be focused on.
HenryCameron
Division and resentment are the whole point of identity politics. Now let’s talk about your intersectionality score.
Cam
@HenryCameron
Same old right wing troll, new screename.
Actually identity politics are what happen when companies only hire straight white people. You know, like Hollywood has done for decades.
HenryCameron
Been here for years. Never had another screen name. And Merriam-Webster defines Identity Politics as politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group. Wikipedia says identity politics is a term that describes a political approach wherein people of a particular religion, race, social background, class or other identifying factor develop political agendas and organize based upon the interlocking systems of oppression that affect their lives and come from their various identities. By its very definition, it is politics based on division and resentment rather than unity and respect, and where a trait like being gay used to bring many people together (hence the rainbow flag), now that’s just one small factor in your intersectionality score that determines where you rank on the grievance ladder. So call me a troll if you like, but is what I said not true, or do you just not like hearing it?
MrMichaelJ
Not sure where most people have been in the world lately but most, by far most, men aren’t 100% straight.
Donston
It may seem like “most” based on social media and entertainers. But the majority of males are likely hetero or very overall hetero-leaning. It’s just that this idea that “queers” represent a very small percentage of the population is becoming more and more of a fallacy. While more people are talking about maintaining an “open-mind”. More people are talking about fluidity, curiosity, experimentation, and the gender, romantic, sexual, emotional, commitment spectrum. You can’t say “gay” roles are meant for “gay” actors when most of the “gay” entertainers have talked about hetero relationships, experimentation, curiosity, fluidity, etc. That sets up a president for double standards, restrictions and too freely getting into people’s business.
These actors need to be focused on breaking down the industry’s phobias, homo shame, hetero pressures and closet pressures and push to make sure that sexuality, orientation, identities, gender expressions, preferences, relationships don’t stifle and limit careers. Merely pushing identity politics is not the route to go.
DhammaKamala
I agree with you. Most men don’t present as gay, but everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum and the majority isn’t on either end, there’s a bell curve. I know quite a few “straight” men.
Roy Ajax
I can’t believe this is even an issue. Who cares about the orientation of an actor. If a straight person wants to play a gay or trans person, then go for it. Someone producing a Hollywood movie only cares about money, so they need a bankable actor to play the main roles or chances are no one will see it. It’s just economics.
Cam
So in other words Mortensen is fine with the current state where studios tell publicists and managers they don’t want to hire LGBTQ actors, and those managers tell their clients to stay in the closet or get a fake opposite sex partner to parade before the cameras.
Let me guess, for his next movie Mortensen will put on Dark makeup to play Malcom X
Jim
Mortensen is a good actor. That and that alone should determine if he can play a role.
Neil Patrick Harris played a straight womanizer for years while being out and nobody complained !!!
Cam
Neil Partick Harris was outted after he already had that role.
DarkZephyr
For my part, I am not on board and have never been on board with this idea that ONLY LGBT people should play LGBT roles. I think this is very short sighted and I agree with Kristen Stewart that this is a slippery slope that can very well lead to blocking LGBT people from playing non-LGBT roles (a point I am not seeing many of you address). I doubt Neil Patrick Harris would have appreciated ONLY playing gay roles. Also, I think this would force many actors to stay in the closet for fear that they would be pigeonholed into only playing LGBT. There are only so many LGBT careers that Ryan Murphy can carry. LGBT people absolutely need to be able to play non-LGBT roles. It should ALWAYS be about who can play the role, regardless of their sexual orientation just like it should always be about who can DO the job.
Plus, no matter how you slice it, and what you think the legalities of it are…this is discrimination, plain and simple. If you tell an actor that they cannot play a role because they aren’t gay…that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any laws that protect against sexual orientation based discrimination actually cover straight people, too.
I’m reading the comments and my jaw is dropping over the sudden defense and *promulgation* of the practice of asking someone what their sexual orientation is before they get hired. But when have we EVER collectively been in favor of that kind of crap, especially given that its usually done to discriminate against us in the workplace? How can we suddenly be in favor of it when its convenient for the outcome we want?
And now we’re demonizing pro-LGBT people when we have real enemies out there? For the “crime” of wanting to shed light on some of what we have to go through?? Are some of us HOPING that our stories stop being told and our representation actually dwindles because studios are afraid to even attempt to touch these stories? We clamor for more representation in films and on TV and then when we get it, we attack it. This is just so absurdly counterproductive in my view.
Seems to me that some of us are hell bent on trying to get the baby thrown out with the bathwater. Its not going to end in a good place. We’re gonna shoot ourselves in the feet.
Cam
My issue is, the excuse to not hire LGBTQ actors has always been “Oh there aren’t any that are really big out there”.
So if we don’t have LGBT actors getting cast there is no way for them to become big, so therefore they can keep casting straight people.
Until someone shows me that massive lines of out of work straight actors because of the one or 2 queer projects a year that Hollywood does, I don’t have a problem with it anymore than I would have a problem with somebody saying that Scarlet Johansson shouldn’t be playing Shug Avery in the Collor Purple.
DarkZephyr
I agree with you on several of your points Cam, but I would like to see LGBT actors get cast in any type of role more frequently rather than just in LGBT roles.
My biggest fear is that if we go that route as our solution to the problem, the solution has the potential to *become* the problem.
And again, I also fear that studios and networks will become afraid to touch our stories for fear of backlash for not hiring the right people or not telling the story the right way, etc. Add to that the hassling they already receive from the homophobes and transphobes and they may just decide its not worth it at all. I have seen this happen with video game development. It would be tragic if that happened in movies and on TV too. Just as we seem to be getting more and more representation, finally.
Also, I don’t think people like Viggo Mortensen deserve our rage for trying to tell our stories, even if we think they aren’t going about it in the right way by not hiring LGBT actors.
Cam
@DarkZephyr
I get your point, I think my view is that they are already screening out LGBTQ actors, so the only people that benefit from us saying that these roles should all be open are the hetero actors. If they weren’t discriminating I wouldn’t be worrying about that. But I think it’s far more important to have high profile out actors, then to have a bunch of queer roles in movies, but nobody queer is playing them.
rdoberts99
Kind of sad, I live here in Jefferson County, NY and this never hit the news. This judge is a disgrace!
JessPH
We shouldn’t care if the actors playing gay characters are straight or gay. Our priority and advocacy should be making sure that gay characters are included and gay stories are being told in mainstream films, TV, etc.
Openminded
That’s my thinking too. Look at the bright side here and be glad a movie with a gay guy is even being produced.
dianestaudt
They’re actors playing roles. Does Lance Henricksen have dementia?!
Cam
Let me know when they cast Kirsten Dunst to play Michael Jordon in a bio-pic. I mean, she’s an actor playing a role right?
Donston
For people mentioning Neil Patrick Harris in How I Met Your another, he got that role while he was still publicly closeted. I kinda doubt he would have been cast if he was fully out.
There are some people and a few actors who are being unreasonable. Only “queer” actors playing “queer” roles is kinda absurd. Who are we to determine what “queer” is when everyone pretty much has their own thing going on when it comes to gender, sexuality, orientation, fluidity, lifestyle, preferences, relationships? Those demands create entirely new issues as far as identity and invasion of privacy. However, most of the complaints are coming from a different place. When it comes to big productions with “gay” roles, “straight” or seemingly hetero-leaning actors are still given the priority. Yet, there are no “gay” male actors being cast as leading “straight” men in big movies. There’s still a ton of pressure to stay closeted or to maintain hetero appeal if you want to get substantial roles, especially if you’re young and are dependent on your looks and sex appeal. There’s a lot of femme-phobia and wanting to cast more overtly “queer” male actors as only over the top femmes. There’s still a lot of internalized homophobia in the industry.
Some of the frustrations have led to a few actors saying only “gays” should play “gays”. But that’s clearly not the crux of the issue.
Cam
Exactly!
This wouldn’t be an issue if managers weren’t still telling their clients “Studios won’t hire you if you’re gay so stay in the closet”.
If there was equality there would be no issue. But there isn’t, so I have no problem with people saying they’re tired of multiple straight actors being called “Brave” for playing us, but never bothering to cast any LGBTQ actors.
DarkZephyr
“For people mentioning Neil Patrick Harris in How I Met Your another, he got that role while he was still publicly closeted.”
Being out or closeted had nothing to do with my personal motive for bringing him up. Regardless of being in the closet or not, he was a gay actor that was perfectly capable of playing a straight role and he did it quite well.
I’m sorry you think that the “place” I’m coming from about this (that we may ultimately block LGBT actors from getting to play anything BUT LGBT) is somehow the “wrong” place to be coming from.
Donston
Calm your horses. I merely said that Neil got that role when he was publicly closeted. It is very unlikely he would have gotten that role if he was publicly out. For the most part, I agree that expecting only “queers” to play “queers” is misguided and problematic and not at all practical. But whether “straights cis actors” are capable of playing these roles is not what most of the discussion has been about. Making it all about that is undermining the nuance of this conflict.
Donston
Wentworth Miller’s recent statements do not reflect most people’s views or even the views of actors who have said that they want “gay” actors playing “gay” roles. Most of those actors seem to be coming from a place of not liking that studios still look first at actors who appear “straight” or “mostly straight” when it comes to casting high-profile “gay” roles. Most seem to be upset that being publicly out equates to automatically getting cut them off from a variety of job opportunities. Most seem to be upset with how much closet pressure and hetero pressure is still in the industry, especially when it comes to male actors. Those things are primarily why some have said “queers” should play “queers”. But if they thought about it for a few minutes they’d realize that it is impractical and will just lead to more division and conflict. Only “queers” playing “queers” will not resolve these issues.
DarkZephyr
My horses are perfectly calm, thank you.
Beyond that, I agree with your last post about it.
I get the nuances, I get the reasoning. I understand that for most, its not a belief that non-LGBT actors are incapable of playing LGBT. It really does suck that Hollywood seems far less likely to hire out LGBT actors for non-LGBT roles than they are to hire non-LGBT actors for LGBT roles. Its pretty ridiculous. I just feel like focusing on one set of nuances might cause us to ignore another also important set of nuances that potentially have serious repercussions down the road. I wish there was a solution to this problem that wasn’t its own potential set of problems.
Cam
@DarkZephyr
Of course NPH was capable of playing the role, the point others are trying to make is that he never would have been cast in it if he had come out before he auditioned.
They are still actively screening us out of roles, (Except for Greg Berlanti and Ryan Murphy)
trsxyz
Never really understood why in the world of live (on stage) theater, being gay or straight is not really an issue for casting. So many stage actors are proudly “out” (Cherry Jones, and over half the male actors in NYC…) and their stage work does not suffer. Yet in the world of movie making, this continues to be a huge issue. Are theater audiences that different from movie audiences in their ability to imagine actors as characters?