The idea that Hollywoodland is filled to the brim with gay-friendly liberals may be more myth than fact if the findings from a new study are to be believed.
UCLA’s LGBT think tank Williams Institute surveyed 5,700 SAG-AFTRA members, and the results paint a different picture than is often cited in the media.
Here are some of their findings:
- More than half of lesbian, gay and bisexual performers “have heard directors and producers make anti-gay comments about actors” and that “53 percent of LGBT respondents believed that directors and producers are biased against LGBT performers.”
- More than a third of respondents reported that they had witnessed “disrespectful treatment” to LGBT performers on the set. Almost one in eight of non-LGBT performers reported witnessing discrimination against LGBT performers, including anti-gay comments by crew, directors and producers.
- According to the study, “gay men were the most likely to report they have experienced some form of discrimination, with one in five reporting an experience.
- Gender nonconforming gay and bisexual men were more likely to experience discrimination, as were men who were out professionally.
- Twenty percent of gay men and 13 percent of lesbians who responded to the survey reported that they had experienced discrimination in the workplace.
- “While 53 percent of lesbian and gay actors were out to all or most of their fellow actors, only 36 percent are out to all or most agents they know, and only 13 percent of actors are out to all or most industry executives.”
“Although our industry is heading in the right direction, there is clearly work left to do as certain attitudes and behaviors persist and continue to put pressure on actors to stay in the closet,” wrote Traci Godfrey and Jason Stuart, national co-chairs of the SAG-AFTRA LGBT Committee. “We are confident that this unprecedented study will have profound ramifications for the entertainment industry as a whole. By utilizing the data it contains as it reflects the realities performers face, we can identify the obstacles to equal employment opportunities and full inclusion.”
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.
Despite the more troubling findings, 72 percent of gay respondents said that coming out “had no effect on their careers, and many would encourage other LGBT performers to come out.”
Related stories
How Hollywood Can Keep Gay Actors in the Closet: Contracts
17 Straight Actors Reveal Their Approach To “Playing Gay”
It’s 2014 And These Actors Are Still Terrified About “Playing Gay”
Gigi Gee
Duh!
AtticusBennett
“liberal gay hollywood” is only something that white trash rednecks in middle america say. it’s not reality. duh.
TrueWords
The bitter TRUTH is the following:
Actors have far too many people (of all sorts) tied to them and if their sexuality is deemed a negative then a closed mouth will ensue; Hollywood has ALWAYS been that way and there does not seem to be any change that is going to make those in POWER wake up…nevertheless if you enter the cage with a lion do not be surprised when you get mauled. Hollywood for all its glamour is repressive and stagnant. However, these actors make a TON of money so they deal with it because they are addicted to all of the perks and will take a few lashes to move up the ladder…
Off soap box…
KM201
No wonder our community has gone out of their way to boycott these films. William Haines left Hollywood eighty years ago for this exact problem and things still haven’t changed since then. Spielberg may be saddened by the decline of Hollywood, but I, for one, am not. Good riddance to this exploitative, clueless and homophobic bunch of overpaid clowns.
AlexM
Maybe they should drop names to see who are the as holes.
hex0
One only needs to look at the variety of actors in the blockbuster movies to see this isn’t true. Television despite having lower budgets (or perhaps because of the lower budgets) is more willing to take risks and just bins anything not successful which you can’t do with a 3 figure million budget movie. I much prefer tv to Hollywood movies, the movie industry just charms out sequels, remakes, more marvel shit every quarter, badly written crap when there is so much good source material available from books etc.
hex0
*churns outs
michael mellor
Hollywood was built by men with very misogynistic and sexist attitudes. They bedded young starlets through the casting couch system and rewarded them with roles in movies. The whole set-up is akin to a brothel with women as willing participants.
Black Pegasus
It really is a myth. If you look closer at the other moving parts of a film production, you’ll find it filled with crew members that are comprised of the Camera Dept, Grip Dept, Lighting/Electric Dept, Teamsters Drivers, Contruction Dept, and a few others. While most of these crew members are highly skilled, they are mostly heterosexual men whom are just as homophobic as John Q.Public.
Kangol
No surprise at all. Hollywood is homophobic, still very sexist and misogynistic, and incredibly r@cist!
Cam
Is this a joke? Hollywood LOVES to pat itself on the back but the truth is, Hollywood is MORE bigoted than middle America.
They will use Middle America as an excuse NOT to make gay movies. Also, remember the movie from a while ago, The Bodyguard with Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner? They made a purposeful decision to make all the publicity for it in blue tone so that “Middle America” wouldn’t be offended by an interracial couple.
http://images.moviepostershop.com/the-bodyguard-movie-poster-1992-1020191199.jpg
As for Hollywood being anti-gay, I’ve said this before…
Scream and Brokeback Mountain came out around the same time. Brokeback Mountain made more money worldwide than Scream.
We got 3 sequels to Scream AND multiple knock-off’s like Scary Movie.
We did not get one single gay themed movie from any large studio in the same time.
So when hollywood claims that gay movies, or black movies etc… don’t make money, it’s a lie. Brokeback made MORE than Scream and yet still nothing. They claim black movies don’t make money and yet Tyler Perry has made far too much money putting out movie after movie.
Hollywood is run by a bunch of old bigots. Remember, they will brag about giving an Oscar to the woman who played Mammy in Gone with the Wind. What they don’t tell you is that they didn’t let her walk the red carpet, she had to go in through a side door.
AJAnders
@Cam: The movies did not come out at the same time. The first Scream movie was from 1996. The second was in 1997. The third in 2000. Brokeback came out in 2005 and the the fourth installment of Scream was in 2011.
Cam
@AJAnders:
Hmm, you are right, ok, lets go from there. Brokeback came out when they would claim to be even more liberal. It’s been nearly 10 years since it did come out. Within 4 years Scream Had two sequels as well as spinoff’s. Brokeback, none, and no other gay themed fiction movies from a large studio with a large budget. (Milk Doesn’t count it was a Docu-Drama), until the Normal Heart. And remember, Normal Heart played in Theaters in Europe, but nobody would release it in the U.S. so it went to TV.
MarionPaige
This is all so very very stupid. “Hollywood?” What the fuck is Hollywood? It makes no fucking sense. It’s like saying “Wall Street” when there, today, isn’t any real power broker investment bank on the street called Wall.
In general, wealthy people investing money in shit are only interested in a maximum return. It is petty little assholes who are always “personal”. IF something gay was returning big on investment, everybody and their fucking brother would be sucking up to gay performers and gay themed entertainment.
I call bullshit on this story because one has to first define HOLLYWOOD. If you are talking about the motion picture “industry” then you are talking today about an industry that is GLOBAL and that has a whole lot of risks (for really big budget movies). Movie theaters have to pay for movies, generally, sight unseen based only on a description of the movie and its stars. And, since the presale of a movie pretty much determines whether that movie will be made, MOVIE PROPERTIES have to be marketable globally to all audiences around the world – including some that may not be as liberal on sexuality issues.
It is one thing to argue Gay and Out but it is pretty stupid to not face the realities of how Gay and OUt can be perceived in some cultures. For example, the “people” fighting Israel were empowered by the fact Israel allows openly gay soldiers – “they” are convinced that Israel’s army is weak because its soldiers are gay.
Another example of how things are perceived different in other cultures is Meryl Streep. While people in North America and the UK may fall over over Streep’s Accent Stunts, I read some very interesting about marketing Streep abroad. The article said that, when Streep’s movies are translated into other languages, her appeal disappears.
Cam
@MarionPaige:
Your desperation to deflect from the actual topic would be laughable if it wasn’t so ridiculous.
Everybody knows exactly what the article refers to, except apparently for you. So you know, if everybody else gets what is going on, and you don’t….doesn’t mean you are the clever one now does it?
MarionPaige
Hollywood is … “They” … as if the global entertainment industry acts as a single hive brain. And,
For someone to say that “Brokeback Mountain made more money than Scream”, that person would have to know something it is agreed that no outsider knows, i.e., just how much money a movie makes.
It’s like the continuing propaganda that the first “Sex And The City” movie was a big hit when the movie was financed by the pre-sale of all of its european rights.
Just how much movies make has been in publicly debated in the movie industry and finance worlds since Buchwald v Paramount. According to legend the majority of movies made by major studios “technically” go down in studio accounting as showing no profits.
robirob
Political correctness or liberal mindedness are just fake public image brandings. Ego, ambition, and greed run Hollywood and any other business in general.
MarionPaige
BTW, I think it is also “outdated” to claim that movies with Black stars don’t sell. Maybe in North America there is still some “resistance” to Black Talent but, as I said, the movie industry is global. North America reportedly today is approaching less that 50% of any movie’s profits. Globally, Black Culture sales, from what I’ve read. According to legend, a production was resisting Eddie Murphy for a movie because he was viewed as washed up until Murphy’s “team” produced Murphy’s movie sales in Europe.
There is a movie about an alien invasion set in Russia and the opening scene shows the two American actors driving in Moscow, the background music is Rap – Rap in Russian.
degaulle
I can’t name one openly gay leading man in Hollywood movies. TV seems to have progressed, giving us actors like Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris and Matt Bomer and yes, these sometimes get small roles in the movies but generally the Hollywood movie industry is as closeted as it was in Rock Hudson’s heyday.
pressuredrop
Marion Page is at least right in the sense that Hollywood is just a place, and the entertainment industry is a global network that stretches beyond California. The profits, undoubtably, come from all corners of world, so the homophobia within the entertainment industry is reflective of attitudes that middle- and upper-class consumers openly accept and propagate by funding on a daily basis.
In other words, people might recognize the homophobia within the entertainment industry, but nobody is willing to vote with their wallets to fix the problem.
DonW
@Cam: Thank God there were no sequels of “Brokeback.” Would have ruined a hauntingly beautiful piece.
Cam
@DonW:
More of the issue is that there were no other gay themed movies from any large studio even though Brokeback made a lot of money, and in fact because of it’s budget was one of the more profitable movies that year percentage wise.
MarionPaige
had brokeback in fact been profitable enough, there would have been sequels or, at the very least some cable series. Who can begin to calculate how much money was spent marketing a movie about Butt Sexing Cow Herders to begin to claim that Brokeback was “highly profitable”? There was a “sequel” to Rupert Everett in “… Wedding” in that that Julia Roberts movie was profitable enough and Rupert’s character was popular enough that Everett was essentially given card blanche to do any movie he wanted.
Gay Rupert Everett being given card blanche to make any movie he wanted (according to Everett’s book) sorta kinda is counter to Hive MInd Hollywood not liking Gay. According to Everett there were multiple major studios after him and he sold three scripts to production deals after “… Wedding”
MarionPaige
btw, after having finally seen Brokeback on Hulu, I wonder why it was / is being embraced as “a gay themed movie”. Two young guys “deprived” of the companionship of females (for a time) have sex with each other; this is no different from all of a number of prison and military themed stories. Both guys were married and neither seemingly identified with anything gay identity. The movie for all practical purposes could / can be seen as an American form of Yaoi . As I recall the movie was marketed to a degree as a love story to women.
Blackceo
@AtticusBennett:
Ha!!! I like you!!!
onthemark
@MarionPaige: It’s been awhile since I saw Brokeback, but isn’t it made clear they both continue having sex with each other (on occasion) after that year? And the Gyllenhall character is more or less actually gay, has sex with other guys too, and eventually gets murdered in a gay-bashing?
Cam
@onthemark:
It is perfectly clear, Marion simply read the synopsis on whatever right wing site she was reading I guess.
Cam
@MarionPaige: said…
” Who can begin to calculate how much money was spent marketing a movie about Butt Sexing Cow Herders to begin to claim that Brokeback was “highly profitable”? There was a “sequel” to Rupert Everett in “… ”
______________________-
Funny how you ignore pretty much the first sentence of my comment which was “Brokeback made more money worldwide than Scream”. Additionally, Brokeback cost about 75% less to film than Scream.
So since the money wasn’t an issue, it is obviously bigotry. But of course that this the exact topic you are trying to deflect from right?
MarionPaige
in re the gay bashing scene in Brokeback … that scene was allegedly Heath Ledger’s character imagining what really happened to Jake Gyllenhaal’s character
MarionPaige
I will add that, there are still a lot of countries that don’t have “established” movie production infrastructure (for both making and financing movies). The movies from these markets are generally publicly financed in some way in that they are student projects or (today) crowd sourced. For example, there is a gay movie director in Portugal who said (at least for his first movie) that Portugal had no established movie production industry.
To lump all of the movie production around the world into some fantasy entity designated as “Hollywood” is beyond nonsensical.
I would recommend Parting Glances or Burnt Money (Plata Quemada) over Brokeback
Cam
@MarionPaige:
You keep trying to alter the subject.
Nobody was lumping Portugal into “Hollywood”. I’m curious why you seem determined to double down on continuing to pretend to misunderstand?
jar
@MarionPaige: This: “had brokeback in fact been profitable enough, there would have been sequels or, at the very least some cable series” is fallacious reasoning.
Your claim that “Hollywood” and “Wall Street” don’t exist is equally fallacious. They are signifiers, the former denoting the US film industry and the latter the NY financial industry. Every third grader understands this.
As a nit, it is carte blanche, not card blanche. You could say blank check if you don’t want to use the original French. On this point, I assure you Rupert Everett was not given a blank check to make any film he wanted. I have his book but got bored long before his BFW gig. His writing is grandiose and not terribly honest. If you have actual evidence of him being given a blank check, that would make your point. I’m also curious to know how you reconcile Everett’s perpetual whining about how being out harmed his career with the carte blanche you claim he was given.
MarionPaige
and how would one go about suing a “signifier” for discrimination? Close to 90% of the management of major investment banks in NY are White Male. However, while “industry wide” stats may be used by the EEOC for industry wide action. an individual would have to show that his particular employer discriminated against him because of one of the protected classes covered in the Civil Rights Laws.
With entertainment “talent” the issue becomes even more “tricky” because a lot of the talent and “labor” in the movie industry appears to be TEMP LABOR / CONTRACT LABOR assembled for a particular project / movie. In fact, the way movie productions “call on” contractors and “on demand services” is presented by some business management experts as the way all businesses could operate. The point here being that someone gay working on “The Lord of the Rings” movie who is subjected to a hostile work environment on the production WOULD HAVE TO SUE HIS EMPLOYER for placing him in a hostile environment. And, in the case of movies – his employer is not likely to be the movie studio ultimately responsible for making the movie.
According to his book, Rupert Everett claims that, after My Best Friend’s Wedding, a lot of studios were after him, that he sold three scripts to production deals and that, in discussion with Sherry Lansing about a movie, “she” said “whatever you want”, more or less. Everett goes on to say that he picked Madonna as co-star even though everyone viewed Madonna as box office poison.