Actor Simon Callow has weighed in on the “should straight actors take gay roles” debate after Tom Hanks recently said he could not as a straight man today play his 1993 role in the movie Philadelphia.
Callow, who is gay and has appeared in films like Four Weddings and a Funeral and Amadeus, called it a “dangerous idea” that only out-gay actors should take gay parts.
Hanks won an Oscar for his work in Philadelphia as lawyer Andrew Beckett, who hides his sexuality and HIV status from colleagues before suing his former employers for firing him. Earlier this month, he said he felt the world has moved “beyond that now” and “wouldn’t accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.”
Callow respectfully disagrees.
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.
In an interview on GB News on Tuesday, the 73-year-old actor countered: “Think of all the wonderful performances of people who are not gay have given: John Hurt, Daniel Day Lewis, Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain.
“I mean, these are all as far as I know, heterosexual actors who’ve given utterly convincing credible and illuminating performances.”
He added: “Though I’m gay, it doesn’t qualify me to play all the many different kinds of gay people that there are. It’s a very simple idea and a dangerous idea that you can only play someone who you actually are.
“So although I think Tom Hanks’ heart is clearly in the right place, I think it’s a terribly important thing that we stress, but actors are about imagination, about creating characters.”
Later in the interview, he said the idea that “only people who are something should act them” is not an “enlightened” view.
“It’s a limiting thing. It kills the imagination, it kills the liberation that you feel as an actor when you play somebody else.
“So, I think Tom Hanks is a very kind and gentle and thoughtful man who was trying to ally himself with a sympathetic idea, but it’s a dangerous one, in my view.”
Hanks previously told the New York Times: “Let’s address ‘could a straight man do what I did in Philadelphia now?’ No, and rightly so.
“The whole point of Philadelphia was don’t be afraid. One of the reasons people weren’t afraid on that movie is that I was playing a gay man.”
He added: “It’s not a crime, it’s not boohoo, that someone would say we are going to demand more of a movie in the modern realm of authenticity.”
Donston
This is a tired ass “debate”. And each side tends to overlook either nuance, imagination, casting bias or privilege. While I’m definitely tired of supposedly “out and proud” public figures showing off their internalized phobias and “straight presenting” worship. Both Hanks’ and Callow’s perspectives are one-note and pandering and “dangerous”. I’m starting to wish all these actors- whatever their dimensions and identities- just shut up about the topic. It only shows off how calculated, phony or dumb most of these actors are.
wikidBSTN
Wrong side of the bed this morning?
Donston
It’s not “the wrong side of the bed” as much as being tired of idiocy, cliched comments and lack of a nuanced discussion.
thisisnotreal
@donston
I know this is gonna come across as a salty comment but I genuinely don’t mean for it to be. I always enjoy reading your comments and I actively look for them on some articles because I enjoy hearing your opinions on things since they are usually well thought out and thought provoking. but most times dude I’m sorry to say that as much as I enjoy hearing your thoughts on things, I get irritated by how you say them. in so many of your comments you post the same copy and paste line about the romantic and sexual spectrum where you list that long ass list of things like romantic leanings and sexual desires and paraphilias etc. and like dude? we know. your preaching to the choir here, us lgbt people know that human sexuality and attraction is widely varied and complex so why do you always list that super long extensive list of things like your trying to be politically correct and check off every box in your comment to make sure everyone is included? i find your answers to usually be quite insightful and well thought out and i enjoy reading your takes on things, I just wish I didn’t have to mentally parse through half of what you are typing in order to get to the meat of what it is your trying to say. again not trying to be a brat here, just wish your replies were more succinct instead of feeling like a college level essay written by a professor with a PhD whose thoughts can only be understood by other professors with a PhD. idk maybe I’m just not as smart as i like to think i am, but i wish your replies didn’t lose me as often as they did.
Donston
It’s fine thisisnotreal. I don’t feel like I’m preaching to the choir though, because I still see a lot of ignorant articles and a lot of silly comments here. So, while you may have a hold on a lot of stuff, many clearly don’t. There are definitely repetitive aspects to a lot of my posts. But I’ve become okay with that, because these things do need to be fried in people’s brains, and there’s not enough discussion about this stuff, even in “queer spaces”. Most of my posts are for people who rarely visit this place.
mailliw110
It’s called acting for a reason. No one gave Neil Patrick Harris grief for playing a straight man in “How I Met Your Mother”!
Donston
Neil was publicly closeted when he was cast in that role. But also, for at least two-thirds of people it’s not about “authenticity” as much as it’s about Hollywood’s closet pressures and the fact that almost all high profile “gay roles” go to “straight presenting”/hetero-leaning actors. Though there have been quite a few times where it’s been obvious an actor is trying trying to “act ‘gay”. Demanding that only “gay presenting” actors play “gay roles” is extreme and narrow . You’re demanding that actors be “out” and have to express their identities publicly. It’s also very easy for an actor to take on a “gay” identity for a role the same way many actors stay closeted to get certain opportunities. And you’re dismissing the individuality of sexuality, potential experienced fluidity and contradictions, and how expansive the gender, sexual, affection, romantic, emotion, relationship, commitment spectrum is.
What there is no doubt about is casting bias, hetero/gender “normal” privileges and the pressures on men who have conventional sex appeal to maintain hetero appeal. That is what the majority of the focus should be on.
kevininbuffalo
“Of course I can play a heterosexual, I’m an actor!”
Sir John Gielgud
wikidBSTN
I would sympathize more with giving out gay actors work if we had more quality out gay actors. There is only a handful of them capable of playing a lead or main supporting – and those few can’t play all the roles.
Otherwise, I agree with Callow.
theaterbloke
I was thinking that if I were an actor of Tom Hanks’ standing and I believed that a performance really benefited from an “authentic” life experience, he would be more qualified to star in Philadelphia just because he has experienced Covid. I have never suffered from a life threatening illness and have no frame of reference to “authentically” play someone with that condition. Indeed, I have virtually nothing in common with Andrew Beckett, never having been in a high pressure professional career nor having had a long term relationship, so my lived experience would not inform any kind of performance I might deliver.
bbg372
The story of Beckett was only told, because a star was willing to play him. And it took a beloved straight actor in the role to humanize a gay man to mainstream audiences who were not sympathetic to gay people, particularly those who were dying of AIDS. This notion that only minorities should play themselves is stupid. It is an example of the intelligence expert Robert Sternberg quote, “It sometimes takes a really smart person to do something truly stupid.”
VTIcarus
Well said, Reverned Mr. Beebe!
Few if any actors who play Kings are kings; few if any actors who play murders are murders; few if any actors having sex on screen are having sex on screen. (Really! Shia – how could you?) It is called acting and they should be able to play any role which they can earn in the auditions.
LumpyPillows
Tom is correct in that cancel culture vultures would come out of the wood work, not because he couldn’t do a good job. The problem never was, in my opinion, actors playing roles that were contradictory to who they were. The problem is the bigotry that ended people’s careers because of who they were, with no regard for their talent.
Neoprene
It’s called acting. Go find Bill Maher’s Youtube clip for a reasonable tutorial on this subject.
cuteguy
It’s dangerous bc then lgbtq actors can only play lgbtq parts. Maybe actors should share less about their private lives so the audience can have a better time in suspending reality for 2 hours. We should be encouraging more lgbtq actors to play heterosexual parts like NPH did in his award winning performance of How I Met Your Mother. Is it no wonder younger actors like Kit Connor from Heartstopper are afraid to disclose their sexuality bc of backlash from either side. If he comes out as lgbtq he will be limited in his future projects. If he reveals to be heterosexual he will be criticized for playing a lgbtq role even tho he’s an ally. It’s a no win situation. Tom Hanks was the right actor for Philadelphia. As was Hilary Swank for Boys Don’t Cry. As was Jake Gyllenhal for Brokeback Mountain. I respect actors like Vin Diesel and Matt Damon who keep their private lives private. There should be no shame in being discreet
Neoprene
You consider Vin Diesel an actor? Well, ok.