“Well, nobody looks to Hollywood for social commentary, do they? They only recently discovered that there were black people in the world. Hollywood has mistreated women in every possible way throughout its history. Gay men don’t exist. “Gods and Monsters” [1998], I think, was the beginning of Hollywood admitting that there were gay people knocking around, even though half of Hollywood is gay.”–Ian McKellen speaking to Time Out London about why he thinks there are so few gay characters in blockbuster films.
Related: Ian McKellen shares a throwback pic from 50 years ago and everyone’s swooning hard
Donston
Hollywood is ultimately about the bottom line. And a gay male character leading a big budget picture remains a huge financial risk. It also an industry still full of self-hating, hetero-worshipping and frankly crazy gay/homo-leaning people. So, that doesn’t help. We still can’t get any high-profile “gay movies” that aren’t centered around “self-discovery” and isn’t led by young, pretty, masculine white guys. Ian has the staure to actually move the needle a bit. I hope he’s focused on that rather than mere complaining about it.
Kieran
At least he didn’t blame Trump for the lack of positive gay role models in Hollywood. Thank you Mr. McKellen.
Billy Budd
Half of hollywood includes Tom Cruise and Travolta? in which half are they in?
samuel88
Their a lack Asian male actor than thier a gay actor. Just saying….
Kangol
Hollywood is notorious when it comes to representing gay, bi and trans characters. They muted the queer sexuality of the women warriors in Black Panther, in part so that the film could offend as few potential viewers as possible, and it worked. When the sequel comes, will they rectify this? I doubt it, though they could do the world a service if they did.
chris33133
Y’all notice that he didn’t go back to Boys in the Band? I wonder if, like me, he considers that movie to have been homophobic down to the marrow of its bones.
Heywood Jablowme
He was about 30 at the time and I’d definitely be curious to hear any opinions he has about that movie (& the current play). But I think you’re missing the point. Gay life then WAS different for many reasons, both cultural and legal. If you hate the movie, just be glad you’re not 50 years older than you are!
Donston
I haven’t seen it on stage. But I did watch the film in my late teens. From what I can recall the movie was stage-y, a bit annoying and indulged most every stereotype. But at least it straightforwardly dealt with self-loathing, depression, confusion and feelings of sociological oppression and awkwardness, things that very much still go on and which most modern movies tend to shy away from. The way it was framed was of course theatrical but also lacked nuance and probably hasn’t aged all that well. But the new stage production has gotten very good reviews.
chris33133
I KNOW the point of that movie. I lived through those times and even back then I thought it to be a homophobic portrayal of gay life. It was based on the dominant view of gay men as those stereotypes and not one bit on how many gay men managed to carve out productive lives for themselves in spite of the dominant values or views of gay folk from those times.
Fifty years earlier, I admit that things weren’t perfect. However, and I may be wrong, I think that people were a bit less judgmental, more live-and-let live; politics had not yet demonized gay folk; and psychology had not yet pathologized gay life.
Donston
You see it as “homophobic”. I see it as a willingness to confront internal and sociological struggles that aren’t completely tied to the “hetero cis gender” world. That’s pretty rare nowadays. It did however work in broadstrokes, as is typical for plays, especially of that time. Overall, movies depicting “gay life” and same-sex relationships still have a ways to go as most films today are hyper focused on “self-discovery” and/or youth.
Heywood Jablowme
@chris33133: “…how many gay men managed to carve out productive lives for themselves in spite of the dominant values or views of gay folk from those times.”
Seriously? You’re blaming the “dominant” values of other GAY folk in 1968 for oppressing gay men with “productive lives”? Gee, that sounds pretty self-hating homophobic to me!
Also, your odd syntax in that sentence is anachronistically modern. In the media environment of 1968, how would the gays with “productive lives” even know what the “dominant,” stereotypical, sleazy, slutty, bitchy, bad gay values were? By going to the bathhouse once a week just to hear all the gossip? The Advocate existed already, but was quite sleazy back then (the ads especially), so those “productive” gays probably weren’t reading it. So I’m wondering how you “productive” gays knew who to feel superior to?
Oh yeah, I get what you’re up to, but you sound very 2018 and not very 1968.
“politics had not yet demonized gay folk; and psychology had not yet pathologized gay life.”
Really? 1968? How had politics not YET demonized gay folk? The federal government was still firing employees found to be gay. How had psychology not YET pathologized gay life? Until 1973 the psychiatric profession officially considered homosexuality to be a mental illness!
Donston
I wanted to point some of that stuff out but wasn’t in the mood to be know-it-all/bitchy.
chris33133
@Heywood: I was referring to 50 years BEFORE the times of boys in the band, which is what I thought that you were referring to in your original post.
As a baby-boomer, I lived through that era and I saw “Boys in the Band” when it was released. But also in college, I took a course called victimless crimes (whose topics included gay sex between consenting adults and prostitution) which studied why such things got labeled as crimes. Though we may not have used 2018 terminology, we certainly did learn ideas that influence that terminology. What is more, I met quite a few people (among them, Alan Ginsberg) who did not live in the broad stereotypes painted by that picture. In spite of their being criminalized and stereotyped for purposes of TV comedy and/or artistic cinema, these were decent people who lived, loved, and worked throughout our society.
DCguy
Another false dodge the Entertainment industry tries to pull is claiming a character was gay after the movie was out but with no indication of the characters sexuality.
As for the people claiming having an lgbt character is a “Risk” please point to ANYTHING showing that.
Donston
There isn’t legit evidence. But in most big businesses if it ain’t broke you don’t fix it. No studio (for right now) is going to put huge money into a film with a gay male lead. Hell, the only reason Black Panther got greenlit was because there being so many successful Marvel movies before it and because having so many comic book movies be made with white male leads was not a good look.