Editorial: It’s Time to Make Peace with STAR WARS
George Lucas Addresses Changes to STAR WARS; Maintains Greedo Shot First
17 New Images from GAME OF THRONES Season Two [Updated with Hi-Res]
Collider Visits the Set of JOHN CARTER
Set Photos from M. Night Shyamalan’s AFTER EARTH Starring Will SmithRupert Everett Advises Young Gay Actors to Stay in the Closet
by Matt Goldberg Posted:December 2nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
|
|
 |
|
25 years ago, actor Rupert Everett looked like he would be one of the biggest stars of the next 25 years. But then he lost it all. Was it drugs? Was it gambling? What did he do to throw it all away?
He came out of the closet.
Now 50, Everett is advising young actors to stay in the closet if they want to have a rich and diverse career. Speaking with the Guardian, Everett had this to say:
The fact is that you could not be, and still cannot be, a 25-year-old homosexual trying to make it in the British film business or the American film business or even the Italian film business. It just doesn’t work and you’re going to hit a brick wall at some point. You’re going to manage to make it roll for a certain amount of time, but at the first sign of failure they’ll cut you right off. And I’m sick of saying, ‘Yes, it’s probably my own fault.’ Because I’ve always tried to make it work and when it stops working somewhere, I try to make it work somewhere else. But the fact of the matter is, and I don’t care who disagrees, it doesn’t work if you’re gay.
Hit the jump for more and why Hollywood isn’t as liberal as you think (or it thinks).
Everett is 100% right. It just isn’t that Everett is gay. There are actors working today where almost everyone in Hollywood knows that the actor is gay but as long as mainstream America stays in the dark, it’s not a problem. Everett’s sin is that he decidedly to be openly gay. And that’s just unforgivable, and Everett doesn’t want to see young closeted gay actors making the same mistake:
It’s not that advisable to be honest. It’s not very easy. And, honestly, I would not advise any actor necessarily, if he was really thinking of his career, to come out.
While undoubtedly outspoken and highly critical, I think Everett is spot-on about this one. Imaging an openly gay actor starring in a summer action blockbuster: He plays a straight character, he’s machismo pumped up to 11, and he’s kicking ass all over the place. If you know he’s gay, can you still accept him in that role? Be honest.
Hollywood thinks your answer is “No.” It’s perfectly fine (and Oscar-worthy!) if a straight actor plays homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual, but apparently it can’t work the other way around. And that’s beyond sad and while it’s great to champion gay rights, remember that in movies, one of the most pervasive and influential mediums of the modern era, it’s okay to be gay but don’t let anyone know if you want to have the same opportunities as a straight actor. And it’s okay if you’re an openly gay actor, but don’t expect to ever fulfill the range of your talents because Hollywood thinks we’re far too stupid to separate performances from personal lives. And with the insatiable craving for celebrity gossip and the ramifications it has on an artist’s career, maybe Hollywood isn’t wrong to have so little faith in us.
What’s worse is that this cycle will continue to perpetuate itself. The only way to possibly break it is to have an actor hailed as a bonafide action star and then come out of the closet. But that won’t happen because there’s too much to lose on a personal level and there’s no guarantee that other popular mainstream closeted gay actors would follow the brave actor’s lead.
Everett’s observations and advice may be harsh but it’s true.
Click over to The Guardian for the full interview which covers Everett’s incredible life beyond his unforgivable sin of coming out and trying to be a mainstream actor.
Please Like Collider on Facebook
|
|
|
|
Every time the guy opens his mouth he sounds like a fucking jerk. Maybe that had something to do with his career slide?
Yep. That’s it. No talented actor ever shot their mouth off and got away with it in Hollywood.
Yeah but with this guy its time and time again…
Yeah but with this guy its time and time again…
Yep. That’s it. No talented actor ever shot their mouth off and got away with it in Hollywood.
Every time the guy opens his mouth he sounds like a fucking jerk. Maybe that had something to do with his career slide?
Every time the guy opens his mouth he sounds like a fucking jerk. Maybe that had something to do with his career slide?
Yep. That’s it. No talented actor ever shot their mouth off and got away with it in Hollywood.
Yeah but with this guy its time and time again…
I know people are going to start mentioning Neil Patrick Harris here considering he’s roughly that age (a little older), openly gay (well, everyone knows) and plays the straightest of straight guys on TV, fairly convincingly.
The problem is, as good an actor as he is, I’ve seen countless times, people saying they no longer believe him as a straight guy now he’s come out… despite the character being no different since NPH’s outing, or even NPH himself acting any differently, and yet, what was once a perfectly convincing performance is now, for some, unbelievable, which for me is very sad.
But as far as coming out goes, I feel it’s up to the individual. Some famous people don’t want to come out to the public simply because they’d feel like it’s suddenly defining them (oh look, it’s that gay actor), others want to so that they can feel more comfortable in public with their partners, really it’s up to them.
I know people are going to start mentioning Neil Patrick Harris here considering he’s roughly that age (a little older), openly gay (well, everyone knows) and plays the straightest of straight guys on TV, fairly convincingly.
The problem is, as good an actor as he is, I’ve seen countless times, people saying they no longer believe him as a straight guy now he’s come out… despite the character being no different since NPH’s outing, or even NPH himself acting any differently, and yet, what was once a perfectly convincing performance is now, for some, unbelievable, which for me is very sad.
But as far as coming out goes, I feel it’s up to the individual. Some famous people don’t want to come out to the public simply because they’d feel like it’s suddenly defining them (oh look, it’s that gay actor), others want to so that they can feel more comfortable in public with their partners, really it’s up to them.
It’s amazing how upset people get because they can’t shove their agenda down other people’s throats fast enough…
But as far as Everett goes…yeah he screwed up. He pegged himself as a romance guy but forgot that women don’t like to be rejected and his particular disposition just happened to be the ultimate reject of women. But how dare they feel that way, right? How dare they make a personal connection to a movie and not watch it in an absolute vacuum.
It’s amazing how upset people get because they can’t shove their agenda down other people’s throats fast enough…
But as far as Everett goes…yeah he screwed up. He pegged himself as a romance guy but forgot that women don’t like to be rejected and his particular disposition just happened to be the ultimate reject of women. But how dare they feel that way, right? How dare they make a personal connection to a movie and not watch it in an absolute vacuum.
It’s amazing how upset people get because they can’t shove their agenda down other people’s throats fast enough…
But as far as Everett goes…yeah he screwed up. He pegged himself as a romance guy but forgot that women don’t like to be rejected and his particular disposition just happened to be the ultimate reject of women. But how dare they feel that way, right? How dare they make a personal connection to a movie and not watch it in an absolute vacuum.
Axford:
That rant makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean by “agenda”? Seriously, “agenda” has been repeatedly abused in modern politics to associate a particular cause with terror. Emotional appeals work more than logic in certain cases, I’m afraid.
Furthermore, I don’t care about the personal lives of actors when I’m watching a reasonably entertaining movie. Who cares if Ian McKellen is gay if his movies, and more importantly the character, have nothing to do with Ian McKellen himself? If he plays a romantic character convincingly, then I don’t care about the actual actor outside of the movie.
Axford:
That rant makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean by “agenda”? Seriously, “agenda” has been repeatedly abused in modern politics to associate a particular cause with terror. Emotional appeals work more than logic in certain cases, I’m afraid.
Furthermore, I don’t care about the personal lives of actors when I’m watching a reasonably entertaining movie. Who cares if Ian McKellen is gay if his movies, and more importantly the character, have nothing to do with Ian McKellen himself? If he plays a romantic character convincingly, then I don’t care about the actual actor outside of the movie.
Axford:
That rant makes absolutely no sense. What do you mean by “agenda”? Seriously, “agenda” has been repeatedly abused in modern politics to associate a particular cause with terror. Emotional appeals work more than logic in certain cases, I’m afraid.
Furthermore, I don’t care about the personal lives of actors when I’m watching a reasonably entertaining movie. Who cares if Ian McKellen is gay if his movies, and more importantly the character, have nothing to do with Ian McKellen himself? If he plays a romantic character convincingly, then I don’t care about the actual actor outside of the movie.
In fact, it’s more impressive when an actor does so well that you no longer see said actor, but the character. Actors ideally star in movies to ACT, not to become sex symbols.
In fact, it’s more impressive when an actor does so well that you no longer see said actor, but the character. Actors ideally star in movies to ACT, not to become sex symbols.
In fact, it’s more impressive when an actor does so well that you no longer see said actor, but the character. Actors ideally star in movies to ACT, not to become sex symbols.
Studios a little right because audiences need to believe that what is happening on screen to be true. When an openly gay (male) actor is on screen in a romance or kissing a girl, just rings false. But the real point that I think the great Mr. Everett is missing is the less the audience knows ANYTHING about an actor’s private life, the more they are able to believe his character on screen to be real. The gay factor is actually secondary. Old time movie actors knew this rule and and followed it uniformly.
Studios a little right because audiences need to believe that what is happening on screen to be true. When an openly gay (male) actor is on screen in a romance or kissing a girl, just rings false. But the real point that I think the great Mr. Everett is missing is the less the audience knows ANYTHING about an actor’s private life, the more they are able to believe his character on screen to be real. The gay factor is actually secondary. Old time movie actors knew this rule and and followed it uniformly.
I disagree. We seem to know ever intimate detail of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s life and yet they give great performances time and time again.
And again, why does an audience buy a straight actor playing gay but not the other way around?
Actors are only going to have less and less privacy in the Age of Information (as will the rest of us) so we all need to grow up. It’s not the fault of the artist if the viewer can’t separate fiction from real-life.
He didn’t say he couldn’t do it, but it is easier to see daniel day-lewis in a new role because we don’t know anything about him rather than a hard to believe Aldo Raine. And Angelina Jolie doesn’t give great performances time and time again. One of the main reasons people go and see her is because she’s smokin’.
He didn’t say he couldn’t do it, but it is easier to see daniel day-lewis in a new role because we don’t know anything about him rather than a hard to believe Aldo Raine. And Angelina Jolie doesn’t give great performances time and time again. One of the main reasons people go and see her is because she’s smokin’.
I disagree. We seem to know ever intimate detail of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s life and yet they give great performances time and time again.
And again, why does an audience buy a straight actor playing gay but not the other way around?
Actors are only going to have less and less privacy in the Age of Information (as will the rest of us) so we all need to grow up. It’s not the fault of the artist if the viewer can’t separate fiction from real-life.
Studios a little right because audiences need to believe that what is happening on screen to be true. When an openly gay (male) actor is on screen in a romance or kissing a girl, just rings false. But the real point that I think the great Mr. Everett is missing is the less the audience knows ANYTHING about an actor’s private life, the more they are able to believe his character on screen to be real. The gay factor is actually secondary. Old time movie actors knew this rule and and followed it uniformly.
I disagree. We seem to know ever intimate detail of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s life and yet they give great performances time and time again.
And again, why does an audience buy a straight actor playing gay but not the other way around?
Actors are only going to have less and less privacy in the Age of Information (as will the rest of us) so we all need to grow up. It’s not the fault of the artist if the viewer can’t separate fiction from real-life.
He didn’t say he couldn’t do it, but it is easier to see daniel day-lewis in a new role because we don’t know anything about him rather than a hard to believe Aldo Raine. And Angelina Jolie doesn’t give great performances time and time again. One of the main reasons people go and see her is because she’s smokin’.
No his problem was he was notoriously a dick on set, plastic surgeryed himself worse then Mickey Rourke (impressive!) and is now content to blame it on people’s issue with his sexuality. It probably did factor into his lack of success but it didn’t kill it.
So you honestly believe that if a young actor comes out of the closet he’ll be fine as long as he’s genial? That he’ll get to play action stars and dashing romantic leads?
No his problem was he was notoriously a dick on set, plastic surgeryed himself worse then Mickey Rourke (impressive!) and is now content to blame it on people’s issue with his sexuality. It probably did factor into his lack of success but it didn’t kill it.
No his problem was he was notoriously a dick on set, plastic surgeryed himself worse then Mickey Rourke (impressive!) and is now content to blame it on people’s issue with his sexuality. It probably did factor into his lack of success but it didn’t kill it.
So you honestly believe that if a young actor comes out of the closet he’ll be fine as long as he’s genial? That he’ll get to play action stars and dashing romantic leads?
If straight Hollywood men can play gay and be convincing, than why does it not work the other way around? Tom Hanks…Sean Penn…Robin Williams…the list goes on. No one thinks less of these actors because they’ve played gay men…so what’s with the double standard?
Prejudice against gays and lesbians will continue as long as people hide their homosexuality like they’re ashamed of it.
And seriously…half of Hollywood IS gay. Just check out the internet rumours to find out who’s who AND their beards…usually young starlets who’ve costarred with said actor and could use the publicity…where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
If straight Hollywood men can play gay and be convincing, than why does it not work the other way around? Tom Hanks…Sean Penn…Robin Williams…the list goes on. No one thinks less of these actors because they’ve played gay men…so what’s with the double standard?
Prejudice against gays and lesbians will continue as long as people hide their homosexuality like they’re ashamed of it.
And seriously…half of Hollywood IS gay. Just check out the internet rumours to find out who’s who AND their beards…usually young starlets who’ve costarred with said actor and could use the publicity…where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Exactly. Sean Penn is straight, and yet he was incredibly convincing as the gay Harvey Milk. Why can’t gay men portray straight men, then? Ideally, actors who genuinely appreciate theater want to ACT, which means assuming roles that may be the exact opposite of who they are in reality. They rarely ask to become sex symbols in the media.
They CAN play straight men in a character role, but it won’t work as a hetero romantic lead. It requires the audience to suspend disbelief to an extra degree. How hard is it for him to kiss her? Was there any real chemistry on the set? Distracting questions to have running in the back of your audience’s minds. Plus it takes them off the table as a celebrity sex symbol. It’s not an anti-gay thing, more a practical issue of just picking the right actor in an overwhelmingly hetero society.
They CAN play straight men in a character role, but it won’t work as a hetero romantic lead. It requires the audience to suspend disbelief to an extra degree. How hard is it for him to kiss her? Was there any real chemistry on the set? Distracting questions to have running in the back of your audience’s minds. Plus it takes them off the table as a celebrity sex symbol. It’s not an anti-gay thing, more a practical issue of just picking the right actor in an overwhelmingly hetero society.
Exactly. Sean Penn is straight, and yet he was incredibly convincing as the gay Harvey Milk. Why can’t gay men portray straight men, then? Ideally, actors who genuinely appreciate theater want to ACT, which means assuming roles that may be the exact opposite of who they are in reality. They rarely ask to become sex symbols in the media.
Exactly. Sean Penn is straight, and yet he was incredibly convincing as the gay Harvey Milk. Why can’t gay men portray straight men, then? Ideally, actors who genuinely appreciate theater want to ACT, which means assuming roles that may be the exact opposite of who they are in reality. They rarely ask to become sex symbols in the media.
They CAN play straight men in a character role, but it won’t work as a hetero romantic lead. It requires the audience to suspend disbelief to an extra degree. How hard is it for him to kiss her? Was there any real chemistry on the set? Distracting questions to have running in the back of your audience’s minds. Plus it takes them off the table as a celebrity sex symbol. It’s not an anti-gay thing, more a practical issue of just picking the right actor in an overwhelmingly hetero society.
I agree with Dogg. I’m a straight man so I can’t answer this, but let me pose a question: did the gay community find Sean Penn’s performance in Harvey Milk to be “convincing”? When we say we as an audience are convinced by the performance of a straight actor playing a gay character, I would say we’re referring to a primarily heterosexual audience. If a heterosexual audience purportedly can’t be convinced by a gay actor playing a straight character, can a homosexual audience be convinced by a straight actor trying to play a gay character? I can say that I watched Brokeback Mountain and was “convinced” by Jake Gylenhaal’s performance, but what does that mean – that it conformed to my suppositions and preconceptions about how gay men are supposed to behave romantically? To be convinced by something on-screen means to believe that it could actually happen, but if we as an audience know that Jake Gylenhaal would never in a thousand years feel genuine emotions for another man, how can his performance be truly convincing? Neil Patrick Harris is terrific in How I Met Your Mother, but part of me at least realizes that there is a certain lack of authenticity when you realize his character is being played by a gay man.
Conversely, one could also argue that love is a universal emotion that transcends sexual orientation, and that as an actor portraying someone who is in love has nothing to do with the gender of the person being loved. If the audience as well as the actor can believe that, and/ or if the actor is a good actor and is able to make the audience believe that, then the performance could be called “convincing”. However, I agree with Dogg in that there is certainly an added layer of disbelief to suspend when watching someone of one sexual orientation portray someone of another sexual orientation, especially in romance scenes/ movies.
I’ll conclude this (overly) long comment by saying that I think the overarching issue is that, in general, audiences knowing about actors’ off-screen lives distorts the illusions the actors try to create on-screen. I know more than a few people who avoid Tom Cruise movies not because of his on-screen performances, but because of his off-screen lifestyle choices. Even reading on Wikipedia that a straight actor is married puts a dent into the genuineness of a performance when you see that actor being in love with someone else on-screen. Because of the Age of Information, as Matt puts it, we do know a lot more about actors’ personal lives; indeed, with services like Twitter, often the actors want us to know more about them. I think in a lot of ways it’s great that we’re all more connected; if anything, it reminds us that, for better or for worse, actors are just people too. But I think it’s important to realize that the more we know about an actor the harder it is to believe they’re someone else on-screen. Sexual orientation is just one facet of that.
I agree with Dogg. I’m a straight man so I can’t answer this, but let me pose a question: did the gay community find Sean Penn’s performance in Harvey Milk to be “convincing”? When we say we as an audience are convinced by the performance of a straight actor playing a gay character, I would say we’re referring to a primarily heterosexual audience. If a heterosexual audience purportedly can’t be convinced by a gay actor playing a straight character, can a homosexual audience be convinced by a straight actor trying to play a gay character? I can say that I watched Brokeback Mountain and was “convinced” by Jake Gylenhaal’s performance, but what does that mean – that it conformed to my suppositions and preconceptions about how gay men are supposed to behave romantically? To be convinced by something on-screen means to believe that it could actually happen, but if we as an audience know that Jake Gylenhaal would never in a thousand years feel genuine emotions for another man, how can his performance be truly convincing? Neil Patrick Harris is terrific in How I Met Your Mother, but part of me at least realizes that there is a certain lack of authenticity when you realize his character is being played by a gay man.
Conversely, one could also argue that love is a universal emotion that transcends sexual orientation, and that as an actor portraying someone who is in love has nothing to do with the gender of the person being loved. If the audience as well as the actor can believe that, and/ or if the actor is a good actor and is able to make the audience believe that, then the performance could be called “convincing”. However, I agree with Dogg in that there is certainly an added layer of disbelief to suspend when watching someone of one sexual orientation portray someone of another sexual orientation, especially in romance scenes/ movies.
I’ll conclude this (overly) long comment by saying that I think the overarching issue is that, in general, audiences knowing about actors’ off-screen lives distorts the illusions the actors try to create on-screen. I know more than a few people who avoid Tom Cruise movies not because of his on-screen performances, but because of his off-screen lifestyle choices. Even reading on Wikipedia that a straight actor is married puts a dent into the genuineness of a performance when you see that actor being in love with someone else on-screen. Because of the Age of Information, as Matt puts it, we do know a lot more about actors’ personal lives; indeed, with services like Twitter, often the actors want us to know more about them. I think in a lot of ways it’s great that we’re all more connected; if anything, it reminds us that, for better or for worse, actors are just people too. But I think it’s important to realize that the more we know about an actor the harder it is to believe they’re someone else on-screen. Sexual orientation is just one facet of that.
I agree with Dogg. I’m a straight man so I can’t answer this, but let me pose a question: did the gay community find Sean Penn’s performance in Harvey Milk to be “convincing”? When we say we as an audience are convinced by the performance of a straight actor playing a gay character, I would say we’re referring to a primarily heterosexual audience. If a heterosexual audience purportedly can’t be convinced by a gay actor playing a straight character, can a homosexual audience be convinced by a straight actor trying to play a gay character? I can say that I watched Brokeback Mountain and was “convinced” by Jake Gylenhaal’s performance, but what does that mean – that it conformed to my suppositions and preconceptions about how gay men are supposed to behave romantically? To be convinced by something on-screen means to believe that it could actually happen, but if we as an audience know that Jake Gylenhaal would never in a thousand years feel genuine emotions for another man, how can his performance be truly convincing? Neil Patrick Harris is terrific in How I Met Your Mother, but part of me at least realizes that there is a certain lack of authenticity when you realize his character is being played by a gay man.
Conversely, one could also argue that love is a universal emotion that transcends sexual orientation, and that as an actor portraying someone who is in love has nothing to do with the gender of the person being loved. If the audience as well as the actor can believe that, and/ or if the actor is a good actor and is able to make the audience believe that, then the performance could be called “convincing”. However, I agree with Dogg in that there is certainly an added layer of disbelief to suspend when watching someone of one sexual orientation portray someone of another sexual orientation, especially in romance scenes/ movies.
I’ll conclude this (overly) long comment by saying that I think the overarching issue is that, in general, audiences knowing about actors’ off-screen lives distorts the illusions the actors try to create on-screen. I know more than a few people who avoid Tom Cruise movies not because of his on-screen performances, but because of his off-screen lifestyle choices. Even reading on Wikipedia that a straight actor is married puts a dent into the genuineness of a performance when you see that actor being in love with someone else on-screen. Because of the Age of Information, as Matt puts it, we do know a lot more about actors’ personal lives; indeed, with services like Twitter, often the actors want us to know more about them. I think in a lot of ways it’s great that we’re all more connected; if anything, it reminds us that, for better or for worse, actors are just people too. But I think it’s important to realize that the more we know about an actor the harder it is to believe they’re someone else on-screen. Sexual orientation is just one facet of that.
I find it extremely sad that so many people here seem so comfortable with the notion that gay actors can’t be believable as straight romantic heros on screen because of the audience’s inability to separate real life from reel life. Is that the case for some people? Yes. Are these the people or the standards we want to be catering to? God I hope not. I know a lot of people, men and women, gay and straight, who are able to separate an actor’s orientation from the role he or she plays. I’ll never understand the knee jerk reaction society tends to have to pander to the lowest common denominator. There’s always the possibility that these more enlightened people would continue to buy movie tickets.
Yes, coming out of the closet can undoubtedly be detrimental to some careers. And I’ve always thought that whether to come out or not should be a personal decision so would never presume to tell anyone to do so if they were not ready. By the same token, it really bothers me that the advice Rupert is giving people is to choose a safer path to career success over being able to live their lives the way they might want to. The answer is not to hide and hope you skate by. The fact that there is a dollar value attached to certain perceptions the public has about actors and their personal lives does not make it right. It’s going to take a lot of time but someday we will live in a world where you can be whatever you want and not be judged in the workplace on anything but your abilities. Getting there will require a lot of sacrifices by a lot of people. But it’s the people who came out before that paved the way for those who are able to do so now. And the ones who do so now are paving the way for the next generation. To encourage people to have to choose career success or personal fulfillment but tell them they can’t have both is only a giant step backwards imo.
And I have to laugh when people say gay actors can’t be believable as straight romantic leads because the audience knows they’d never be with a woman but they can be believable as serial killers, astronauts, time travelers and super heroes. Y’all know that the actor who plays Superman can’t really fly, right?…right?…sigh
I find it extremely sad that so many people here seem so comfortable with the notion that gay actors can’t be believable as straight romantic heros on screen because of the audience’s inability to separate real life from reel life. Is that the case for some people? Yes. Are these the people or the standards we want to be catering to? God I hope not. I know a lot of people, men and women, gay and straight, who are able to separate an actor’s orientation from the role he or she plays. I’ll never understand the knee jerk reaction society tends to have to pander to the lowest common denominator. There’s always the possibility that these more enlightened people would continue to buy movie tickets.
Yes, coming out of the closet can undoubtedly be detrimental to some careers. And I’ve always thought that whether to come out or not should be a personal decision so would never presume to tell anyone to do so if they were not ready. By the same token, it really bothers me that the advice Rupert is giving people is to choose a safer path to career success over being able to live their lives the way they might want to. The answer is not to hide and hope you skate by. The fact that there is a dollar value attached to certain perceptions the public has about actors and their personal lives does not make it right. It’s going to take a lot of time but someday we will live in a world where you can be whatever you want and not be judged in the workplace on anything but your abilities. Getting there will require a lot of sacrifices by a lot of people. But it’s the people who came out before that paved the way for those who are able to do so now. And the ones who do so now are paving the way for the next generation. To encourage people to have to choose career success or personal fulfillment but tell them they can’t have both is only a giant step backwards imo.
And I have to laugh when people say gay actors can’t be believable as straight romantic leads because the audience knows they’d never be with a woman but they can be believable as serial killers, astronauts, time travelers and super heroes. Y’all know that the actor who plays Superman can’t really fly, right?…right?…sigh
I find it extremely sad that so many people here seem so comfortable with the notion that gay actors can’t be believable as straight romantic heros on screen because of the audience’s inability to separate real life from reel life. Is that the case for some people? Yes. Are these the people or the standards we want to be catering to? God I hope not. I know a lot of people, men and women, gay and straight, who are able to separate an actor’s orientation from the role he or she plays. I’ll never understand the knee jerk reaction society tends to have to pander to the lowest common denominator. There’s always the possibility that these more enlightened people would continue to buy movie tickets.
Yes, coming out of the closet can undoubtedly be detrimental to some careers. And I’ve always thought that whether to come out or not should be a personal decision so would never presume to tell anyone to do so if they were not ready. By the same token, it really bothers me that the advice Rupert is giving people is to choose a safer path to career success over being able to live their lives the way they might want to. The answer is not to hide and hope you skate by. The fact that there is a dollar value attached to certain perceptions the public has about actors and their personal lives does not make it right. It’s going to take a lot of time but someday we will live in a world where you can be whatever you want and not be judged in the workplace on anything but your abilities. Getting there will require a lot of sacrifices by a lot of people. But it’s the people who came out before that paved the way for those who are able to do so now. And the ones who do so now are paving the way for the next generation. To encourage people to have to choose career success or personal fulfillment but tell them they can’t have both is only a giant step backwards imo.
And I have to laugh when people say gay actors can’t be believable as straight romantic leads because the audience knows they’d never be with a woman but they can be believable as serial killers, astronauts, time travelers and super heroes. Y’all know that the actor who plays Superman can’t really fly, right?…right?…sigh
The plural for medium is media not “mediums.”
The plural for medium is media not “mediums.”
The plural for medium is media not “mediums.”
If they’re good enough actors, it doesn’t matter to me what their orientation is.
I assume most of the male actors are gay/bi (and that they are shorter than average).
If they’re good enough actors, it doesn’t matter to me what their orientation is.
I assume most of the male actors are gay/bi (and that they are shorter than average).
Every woman who marries a gay guy who has been impersonating a straight male should due for “misleading advertising.”
Stupid idiot. He let his career slide because well, he didn’t age well. Check out pictures of him these days. Overrated, overblown ego. Yawn. Thousands of straight actors can’t get a job over their looks. How about that? Cry me a river.
And that description doesn’t fit William Shatner, how?
Do you honestly think this is sour grapes and that he’d have the same career whether he stayed closeted or not?
And that description doesn’t fit William Shatner, how?
Do you honestly think this is sour grapes and that he’d have the same career whether he stayed closeted or not?
Every woman who marries a gay guy who has been impersonating a straight male should due for “misleading advertising.”
Stupid idiot. He let his career slide because well, he didn’t age well. Check out pictures of him these days. Overrated, overblown ego. Yawn. Thousands of straight actors can’t get a job over their looks. How about that? Cry me a river.
And that description doesn’t fit William Shatner, how?
Do you honestly think this is sour grapes and that he’d have the same career whether he stayed closeted or not?