this is my first post, and i’m sure i’m already going all wrong about it. but since arnab forced me to use the password “italysucks” for my first login, i’m trying to mess up his site as much as i can.
i have nothing to say on gay actors, but i thought i’d bring the debate that’s being conducted under michael’s post on steven spielberg to a location where people can find it (why do i know that suddenly no one will have absolutely anything more to say on the subject?).
i would like, though, to say something more on the topic of identity specific actors. the first thing i want to say is screw current theories of performance. the second thing i want to say is that, as reynolds says, it matters very little whether actors can represent characters whose identity is racially/ethnically different from their own (i’m intentionally leaving out class and sexuality — and gender doesn’t seem to be a problem nowadays!), when foreign actors and actors of color have a hard time getting jobs in high-paying hollywood. not to mention that using white and/or american actors to play all sorts of non-white non-american roles does nothing to foster in the audience a true appreciation of diversity. i cannot tell you how bummed i was that the role of paul rusesabagina in the objectionable hotel rwanda was played by don cheadle. how are we going to make americans believe that they are not the only ones in the world who are worth anything if we do not allow foreigners to appear on our screens?
pride and prejudice: i haven’t seen it and don’t plan to either, but it just about broke my heart when, following the release of the excellent bend it like beckham, everyone said that the new star being born was, not the gorgeous and talented parminder nagra, but the insipid keira knightley. now, sorry keira, but do we need another pretty white teenage face? in the meantime parminder has landed only shitty roles.
isn’t there a story out there about a young woman who doesn’t look white waiting to be turned into a good movie? and exactly how many times does p&p need to be remade?
Adding on:
–What do we make of Memoirs of a Geisha‘s Chinese leads playing Japanese?
(Let alone: what do we make of the phenomenon of _Geisha_ as book and now film?)
–Arnab, weren’t you a big fan of Peter Sellers in The Party? I am NOT trying to catch you out, simply interested–couldn’t remember what you had liked about it.
–I actually think Bamboozled hits on these issues exactly, without nailing down an over-determined answer. Its attention to money–who gets jobs, who’s profiting behind the scenes, what kinds of things thus get made–doesn’t undercut its sly (and, yes, I think new-performance-identity-theory-conscious) games with “authenticity” and race.
yes, i enjoyed “the party” very much, but i also saw it as a kid. there’s probably something very inconsistent about my holding onto my earlier uncritical self’s affection for this film but i think there probably is a difference between that era and the one we’re in. from the point of view of availability of actors, i mean. though, of course, “the party” is not about an indian, as it is about peter sellers doing his indian bit.
Going back to a comment posted in the previous location of this discussion, I wanted to ask Arnab what the distinction to be made between visible minorities and invisible minorities was in this context.
Is it that white gay actors can (presumably) pass for straight white actors before a casting board, whereas gay-or-straight actors of color cannot pass for straight white actors?
(Also, I forgot to mention the “cute!” name for the gay equivalent of blackface: “gay for pay.” Ah, the lessons we learn from the gay porn industry.)
“from the point of view of availability of actors, i mean. though, of course, “the party†is not about an indian, as it is about peter sellers doing his indian bit.”
Hmm… I’m not sure this is true. I’ve been to parties where there was an Indian, and he pretty much acted EXACTLY like Peter Sellers in The Party.
Oh wait – that was Arnab… never mind.
Ella Enchanted was not a shitty film (slight, but not shitty, and far better than three of the Harry Potter films). And the opportunity to take on a leading role in ER ain’t such a bad career choice and may offer Ms. Nagra a larger, global audience as she moves further into her career. What was most interesting about Keira Knightly in Bend It Like Beckham was her androgynous allure. I never thought of her as a pretty white girl. There is an athleticism about her that draws one in or at least confounds normative expectations. That all being said, this desire for authenticity is an interesting one . . . particularly when Hollywood is the industry at the center of the debate.
gay actors of any race or skin tone can pass for straight characters of that race or skin tone and vice versa–and for all we know, very many of them already do. naveen andrews, on the other hand, isn’t going to get roles tom hanks gets, though tom hanks can get roles naveen andrews might get. and naveen andrews (and a couple of others) get all the brown people roles.
i can’t say that there aren’t many gay men and women in hollywood; though i can say that there aren’t many out gay men and women in hollywood. the brown men and women can’t help but be out with their brownness.
David Leavitt writes:
“Does the fact that none of the principals involved in Brokeback Mountain is openly gay have anything to do with the film’s happy resistance to the stale clichés of gay cinema? Perhaps. In any case, McMurtry, Ossana, and Lee deserve as much credit for their tenacity (it took them seven years to get the movie made) as for the skill with which they’ve translated Proulx’s spare, bleak story into a film with an epic sweep that nonetheless manages to be affectingly idiosyncratic in its portrayal of two men in love. In the end, Brokeback Mountain is less the story of a love that dares not speak its name than of one that doesn’t know how to speak its name, and is somehow more eloquent for its lack of vocabulary. Ascending from plains where they lead lives of drudgery and routine humiliation, Ennis and Jack become the unwitting heroes of a story they haven’t a clue how to tell. The world breaks their backs, but in this brave film, they’re as iconic as the mountain.”
I’m seeing this film on Sunday night at a local museum and will chime in on Monday or thereabouts.
jeff: a regular role on ER is the kiss of death for every actor with big-screen star (as opposed to three-minute supporting role) aspirations. george clooney being the exception that proves the rule.
i’m tempted to say the same for EVERY tv show, but i’m afraid i have watched too little tv lately (i.e. in the last three years) to pronounce confidently on that. isn’t it true, though? (and yes, i’m aware of jennfer aniston, another exception…)
congratulations to all the straight directors, straight leading actors, straight leading actresses, and staight grips won Golden Globes for their work on gay-themed movies!!
right on, pony!
Ha! Yeah, I guess so, Pony.
While I havent exactly been following that line of controversy, that really does sum it up in one sentence.
Let me ask this: Does a movie like Brokeback Mountain, that is hardly any kind of milestone in gay cinema, really need to be authentically gay (have at least a few out actors, writer, director, grips…) to do what it’s doing? And by “what it’s doing” I mean this: Sell lots of tickets in Peoria, Omaha, Montana and Nonautstin, Texas.
There’s plenty (probably not enough) of admired gay writers and directors who get their films made (Araki, Todd Haynes, John Waters for better or worse), and they can push the real envelope – whatever that may be.
But in the center (of the country and the mainstream), it’s still a good thing the film is doing so well, right? It’s goood that this is being accepted as worthwhile entertainment, as a love story, as a movie starring Heath Ledger that doesn’t royally suck.
And the gay people I know that love this movie – and they tell me they love it – don’t seem at all bothered by all the breeders on screen.
Well, I’ll throw down the gauntlet and question whether Lil’ Pony’s genuine and heartfelt frustration is not a tad too essentialist in its ideology. Speaking for myself only, sexuality is far too complex to be so evenly divided into straight and gay (right and wrong, good and bad). Who’s to say that Phillip Seymour Hoffman or Jake Gyllanhall didn’t fiddle about with their best friends in high school? Whose to say that Heath Ledger doesn’t understand same-sex desire? Who’s to say that Ian McKellen didn’t shag his best girlfriend in college? And Felicity Huffman, well, she’s playing a man who wants to be a woman. That’s an extremely complex feat for anyone (straight or gay or somewhere in between) to pull off. Hell, for centuries actors have been tormented and condemned because of their ability (their need) to channel those energies and desires which occupy the contingent spaces between those normative definitions/categories to which social systems cling for dear life. The best actors go places the majority of us are unwilling to confront (that’s why we admire them so . . . but it’s also why we keep them at a distance). Furthermore, the very notion of the movie star–the carefully constructed and preened persona of the Hollywood celebrity–invites us all to question constructs of identity (Tom Crusie anyone). And just because Truman Capote was gay . . . does that make Capote a reductively queer text? The character’s sexuality plays a role in the dramatic action, but it certainly isn’t a central role (it’s his desire for fame, and the power that accompanies it, which far surpasses his desire for men, and that is why the sub-plot involving his lover Jack Dunphy is central to the plot). As for Brokeback Mountain, would we (they, you) be so bold to challenge the film’s complex politics of representing male subjectivity if it had failed at the box office and/or with the critics and the awards people? Think of all the actors who turned that project down for fear that it would taint their reputation (and no I can’t cite sources, but you know a heapin’ handful of actors certainly did; I mean, really, do you for one moment imagine Heath and Jake were the first names on Ang Lee’s list). Ledger and Gyllenhall’s willingness to take those risks deserves some kind of benefit of the doubt. And yes, it does appear to be trendy for actors to play gay these days, but I think that’s because some actors want to push the very boundaries that Lil’ Pony’s posting acknowledges (while it is also true that they want to push their own boundaries as artists, and if that makes them more desirable to the public or reinvents their career so they command a few more dollars or a few more years in the limelight, well, I’m all for it).
Very well said, Jeff. I agree with what you say about pushing boundaries, especially in combination with Mauer’s point about the appeal of Brokeback in the heartland. Essentialism by definition is reductive and, more to the point, can be really boring. AND, who’s to say Jake didn’t fool around with his best friend in high school? I certainly would be the last to say that. Because I have no idea, of course.
But the context in which I am (still) interested in advancing this essentialist argument is the one I’ve discussed before. I’m not saying that no straight actor should play gay-for-pay (or trannie-for-pay). What I’m saying is, it kind of IRKS me that Hollywood (including its Foreign Press) falls all over itself for gay-for-pay actors. I think that this disproportionate reaction calls attention to itself.
First, there is the sociological interest of an industry that does so much to prevent people from being out and successful while at the same time romanticizing or pathologizing or taking-pains-to-understand the difficulties of the closet on screen. If you accept “Hollywood” as a viable unit of analysis, then it’s kind of pathetic. Why can Hollywood have it both ways? Why can they expect acceptance of fluid identities or non-essentialist actorly identifications while making it so difficult for gay actors to be out? Unless, I guess these roles really are “paving the way.” We’ll see on that one.
Second, why oh why is it always these films that get commended so highly? Is it because gay-themed stories, or stories about people-who-happen-to-be-gay, are simply the most compelling stories in the industry? Well, possibly. I know they often are so for me, but that may be because I am a narcissistic-imperialist gay. OR, is it because the bestowers of awards are telling us that they think there is an extra essentialist challenge to be overcome in a straight actor’s playing a gay role, a challenge that mandates congratulating the actor when it is successfully met?
Third, I think this all touches on Arnab’s … reminder that gay actors can pass, etc., and that therefore the politics of blackface are not appropriate to this discussion. If I reduce Arnab’s point properly, all actors of color will always be perceived as actors of color, whereas gay actors can choose to pass through strict and unrelenting body- and speech-control. But the problems faced by gay actors, while different from those faced by straight actors of color, are still big problems. And those problems are made all the creepier by the fact that “passing” and “non-essentialist casting” enable Hollywood hypocrisy towards gay people (actors and characters) in ways that would no longer be tolerated in regards to race.
P.S. By the way, apparently Jake WAS the first name on the Brokeback casting list. When he was sixteen years old. No joke. Jake has confessed that he didn’t want to take that chance at that point in his career. I’m glad the project was delayed. Plus, his hair looks better now than when he was 16.
i think the pony is right.
absolutely. my point was (i hope, but at this stage can’t remember) only that it isn’t the same thing, and doesn’t work the same way as does colour or race. i think that the politics of blackface are relevant, they’re just not adequate–as your detailed analysis demonstrates.
There’s no argument here. Hollywood does enable hypocrisy toward gay and lesbian and transgendered people (people of color, the disabled, women older than 40). It’s a catch-22. I don’t get the feeling that the capitalist industry that is Hollywood is going to change anything unless there is more money to be made. See here. Sadly, more Ian McKellans and Rupert Everetts and George Takeis and Ellen Degenereses and Alan Cummings (Rosie O’Donnell, Sandra Bernhard . . . does the list stop here?) are going to have to come out, and producers and directors are going to want to cast them, and audiences are going to be willing to follow them as they create and sustain their careers. And then, they too will probably resist being cast only in gay or lesbian roles and will demand the opportunity to push the boundaries of their art. That, of course, will be a great day for actors as artists (as opposed to actors as icons or sturdy and dependable reifications of social norms). Finally, I don’t know a damn thing about the bestowers of awards or about the cultural politics of such awards. It’s all capitalist spectacle to me (entertaining but meaningless). But when Hillary Swank’s work (in Boys Don’t Cry as a character who truly believes he is heterosexual) or Meryl Streep’s work (in Sophie’s Choice as a Polish immigrant mourning the loss of her children and her country) or Denzel Washington’s work (in Glory) or Robert DeNiro’s work (in Raging Bull as Jake LaMotta) or Daniel Day Lewis’ work (in . . . well anything) or Marlon Brando’s work (in Streetcar or On the Waterfront) or Geraldine Page’s work (in Trip to Bountiful) is recognized in a public forum as quality examples of artistic expression where risk, meticulous technique, and naked emotional honesty merge into something unforgetable . . . well, when that does happen, I’m pleased.
Chad Allen out and proud and in need of support (you remember Chad; as a child he played autistic Tommy Westphall whose imagination conjured up the entire series of “St. Elsewhere”). Click here. Now this is a straight-for-pay performance, but it is creating a mini-tsunami of controversy. This could be a “put up or shut up moment” for us all.
put up or shut up? i’m afraid i don’t get it jeff. this film doesn’t thematize the character’s sexuality in any way, does it? if not, it isn’t “straight for pay” any more than the countless gay actors playing straight roles because those are the majority of roles that are out there. brokeback mountain on the other hand is a film that is almost entirely about the homosexuality of its protagonists.
there’s also the question of balance: there are very few gay roles out there, and little support for out gay actors (thus prominent gay roles will go to “brave” straight actors who then get rewarded for their “bravery” with awards). surely the point of this discussion is not to say that straight actors should only play straight roles and gay actors should only play gay roles. it may be better to approach this question less from the point of simple identity politics and more from that of actual material opportunities for straight and out gay actors. it seems to me that that is the crux of lil pony’s argument.
St. Elsewhere was a really good TV show though, Arnab.
I guess the thread I was following (my own personal thread) is that actors who are out are marginalized and are unable to fully participate in the industry while gay actors in the closest must suffer the indignities of Hollywood hypocrisy in order to sustain a career. Which leads us to the awkward “gay for pay” issue in which straight actors are applauded for playing gay (while gay actors are accosted for playing straight . . and Christian, god forbid). What I would like to see is a world where actors, straight and gay, have the opportunity to play roles that speak to them and to us without them being marked by the taint of their sexual identity (straight or gay). This also connects to the “It’s A Boy” thread. How many of us went out to support Niki Caro’s work (and Charlize Theron’s) in North Country? Because Hollywood is only going to change its hypocritical ways when the powers that be smell a tidy profit margin. And female directors, and smart women-centered films (say by someone like Nicole Holofcener), and openly gay and lesbian actors and performers are only going to generate such attention when (if) audiences decide to get off their couches and support their work. And if such an action is more politically motivated than aesthetically motivated well so be it (i.e. North Country may not have received the glowing reviews that George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck received, but the George Clooneys of this world will never lack for projects and will always find their way to the top). Women directors, directors of color, openly gay and lesbian performers . . . they are going to require an audience who bring a little good will into the stadium seats in order to effect a tiny bit of social change.
but how does this thread lead to a “put up or shut up moment” for us? are you saying we need to go out and support with our money every film that stars an openly gay (or other minority/discriminated identity) actor?
the happy world you look forward to already exists for straight actors. and this partial existence doubles the barrier for gay actors. (i think someone said or cited somewhere in this discussion or the other related one makes this point far more cogently.)
I am going to choose “shut up,” until later when I choose “still refusing to put up with institutional problems of homophobia, but also refusing to ostensibly support my critique by seeing some crap Christian quasi-film, so now arguing anyway.” Still later yet, I may choose some other form of the “[verb ending in “ut”] up” options. That’s just the way I roll.
Reynolds, you’re such a cut-up.