Cate Blanchett defends straight actors playing LGBT roles

I never realised she had such beady eyes.

Cate is fuckin fearless not.

[quote]She said: "I will fight to the death for the right to suspend disbelief and play roles beyond my experience."

And not do fuck all for out gay actors.

It’s called “acting” because you’re pretending to be something you’re not.

You mean like an openly gay actor pretending to be straight R4?

""I will fight to the death for the right to work for pedophiles."

Fight to the death, seriously? On the one hand I do think straight people should be allowed to play gay characters--I just wish there it was okay to be openly gay in Hollywood and that gay actors got more roles of any kind.

[quote]And not do fuck all for out gay actors.

Ah so do you also believe the corollary — that out gay actors should not be “allowed” to play any role but out gay?

Yes r5 that’s exactly what I mean.

I’ve read that gay actors get turned down for gay roles because they’re gay. I don’t agree with her. Gay actors are struggling for work.

Can you name some who have won awards for doing so R9?

[quote]that out gay actors should not be “allowed” to play any role but out gay?

Out gay acts rarely get to play anything while straight actors get to play everything.

I thought Dante Tex Gill was a lesbian.

I think I read years ago that a gay actor was rejected for the role of Will of Will & Grace because he was gay.

[quote]Can you name some who have won awards for doing so [R9]?

Keep moving those goalposts.

Do you support gay actors being able to get any role they can perform? Gay, bi, or straight? If you do then you have no grounds to demand that only a gay actor can perform a gay role, because that means only a straight actor can play a straight role.

If you want gay actors to play gay roles then the logical extension of that is that straight actors have to play straight roles. And you end up boxing gay (and all) actors up into only being able to play roles of the type to which they conform. It's such a self-evidently fatuous position that it's amazing anyone with a modicum of intelligence would adopt it...

I think we agreed a while ago that Cate is not one of the brightest.

Hurray for Cate.

The problem is that some argue that the pool of acting gigs for openly gay actors is way too small and gets even smaller if famous straight actors are cast to get more movie tickets sold.

Hollywood needs to cast openly gay actors in high profile straight roles. But Hollywood refuses to do so, because that may piss off homophobes who can't be entertained by the idea that a gay actor can play straight, because all they can see is the gay celebrity who probably likes it up the butt and simply cannot have any romantic chemistry with any of the women (because the actor is GAY!!!!) and rather goes shopping with them than save the world or have a car chase to chase a bad guy. Apparently suspension of disbelief can't do that for the audience when it comes to openly gay actors.

R14 John Barrowman says he was rejected as Will from Will And Grace because he read as “too straight”.

r21 As if!!!

On the flip side I think Gay actors are often typecast for the rest of their careers which isn’t right.

But Cate takes herself entirely too seriously. It’s really not that deep “fight to the death” I mean really. She’s one of those celebrities that I like better when she isn’t giving interviews.

Btw what is it with Australian actors?

Her and Hugh Jackman literally found the most hideous man and matronly looking woman to marry. They’ve both been married for close to 20 years. Is that thing in Australia are the pickings that slim for spouses?

You're right, Jackman and Blanchett should have just lavendered with each other

[quote] Hollywood needs to cast openly gay actors in high profile straight roles.

Why?

r26 To get back at straight cunts for stealing OUR ROLES, you troll.

As long as the chemistry is believable.

R24 Her father was an American from Texas. Have you seen the ugly fatties that hook up down there? Some of those people look like baby whales!

FF’d R26.

It's stupid in the first place that openly gay actors are only considered for gay roles. Straight and closeted actors are allowed to play, and get cast in, both straight and gay roles. And back in the old days (80s and 90s) straight actors got praised for playing gay and received the credible actor label for pushing the envelope by playing gay. Nobody has ever praised an openly gay actor (or a closeted one) for being so damn great at playing straight and presenting him with the credible acting label. It's ridiculous.

[quote]Gay actors are struggling for work.

This. There is a lot of gay talent out there struggling for work.

When you have these gay movies being made without any gay actors, it is just a kick in he nuts to them. No one is saying straight actors should be forbidden for ever playing gay, but try to support gay talent when you can.

Any actor should have access to any role, as long as they are competent and exhude the right energy.

Resentment ideology leads nowhere.

A good discussion between people with different points of view can be fruitful. I don't see any reason to FF someone who has a different point of view. Only someone who is threatening, etc.

If there were more talented actors with star quality who were also openly gay, then we might see more diverse and better roles going to those actors. Sadly, at the moment, anyone who is gay and who has that potential is closeted, so these types of discussions are only really about which roles are going to average or mediocre gay "talent".

[quote]Any actor should have access to any role, as long as they are competent and exhude the right energy.

Except that isn't how it works. You used to have white actors playing black roles, now that would be unthinkable to happen. And that is becoming true of all ethnicities, where they make sure they have the an actor from the correct culture portray the character.

Cate Blanchett should rather fight for gay actors having a shot at playing straight roles, level (the) playing field so-to-speak.

Is there an openly gay actress that could have played Carol, an actress that matches Blanchett in looks and talent (if not fame)?

who* could have played

r37 Nope.

[quote]because that means only a straight actor can play a straight role.

Which is what most people in Hollywood believe and clearly, so do you R15.

Exactly, R32.

That's the thing, it is hard to know if they are never given a chance r37. Racial minorities get a chance to let their talent shine when projects are made that deal with their culture. It gives them an acting job they might not have received otherwise.

It is sad that for gay actors they don't have the same opportunity, because most gay themed projects don't necessarily care about hiring gay talent.

There are many straight actors who have played gay convincingly. There also many gay actors who play straight convincingly. As long as you have a Kevin Spacey for every John Hurt, then it should be fine.

I wish I could remember the movie but some years back a director defended hiring het actors because he said gay actors playing gay isn't really acting. Oddly enough, he only cast straight actors to play straight roles.

We've gotten to a point where Amanda Stenberg had to pull out of a black role because she was mixed race. We've reached peak hysteria at the moment.

[quote] Any actor should have access to any role, as long as they are competent and exhude the right energy.

This doesn't happen for various reasons.

- Nepotism. Actor gets gig because of the connections he has (I include Scientology in this one as well).

- Box office draw. Not perfect for the role, but gets people buy tickets.

- Hollywood politics. "You get A-list actor, but you also have to cast some of our lesser known clients from our talent agency".

- Prejudice (sure, his audition was great but he comes with too much baggage that could risk the success of the project). And yeah, being openly gay is still considered "too much baggage" for some roles and projects.

So who are the incredibly talented, openly gay A-list-potential actors who are currently being cruelly ignored?

[quote]Sadly, at the moment, anyone who is gay and who has that potential is closeted,

But they're closeted precisely because they won't get any roles if they come out.

r47 doesn't understand cause and effect.

[quote] The problem is that some argue that the pool of acting gigs for openly gay actors is way too small and gets even smaller if famous straight actors are cast to get more movie tickets sold.

It shouldn't if gay actors are being cast in straight roles. However, it seems British actors have a far easier time portraying different sexuallities due to the old trope of British men being more feminine than their American counterparts.

So, none, then?

R47 No gay man will become an A Lister by exclusively playing gay roles. Your premise is flawed.

Hollywood does shitty movies for a shitty mainstream market. And everybody involved wins. And yeah, some gay actors want to get in on that scheme, but can't.

r52 You appear to be under some misapprehension. I think actors should play any and all roles that aren't merely representations of their own type. The irony of people moaning about typecasting of gay actors and then -- quite literally -- arguing that gay actors should be cast according to their type, appears to be quite lost on these people.

[quote]So who are the incredibly talented, openly gay A-list-potential actors who are currently being cruelly ignored?

It is impossible to know. Would Zach Quinto land some oscar bait roles if he wasn't openly gay? Would Luke Evans be starring in some comic book franchise if he wasn't openly gay gay? Would Neil Patrick Harris have a better post-HIMYM career than doing a kid's show for Netflix?

There is a reason the A-list pool of actors has no openly gay people.

Imagine if they said that about black people!

R54 I agree that's quite the irony. A skilled actor should be able to portray both.

R54 is Tom Hanks.

[quote]Would Zach Quinto land some oscar bait roles if he wasn't openly gay?

Well, obviously, no. Come one, for fucks sake.

[quote]Would Neil Patrick Harris have a better post-HIMYM career than doing a kid's show for Netflix?

Of course not.

[quote]Would Luke Evans be starring in some comic book franchise if he wasn't openly gay gay?

He appears to be doing extremely well for someone of his talent level. I can't see many reasonable people complaining about his career up to this point.

I think for most gay people who advocate gays playing gays, it's less about an accurate and honest portrayal, which good straight actors can pull off, and more about the scarcity of gay roles for out gay actors. Basically, if we can't play gay, then opportunities are even less.

[quote]Would Zach Quinto land some oscar bait roles if he wasn't openly gay?

He looks like Paul Schneider who is, also, a lot more talented. Paul is not getting Oscar bait roles either.

[quote]Would Luke Evans be starring in some comic book franchise if he wasn't openly gay gay?

Luke has done big budget films. I wonder if he's ever flirted with the idea of spending five, six years doing two franchise films. That may simply not be his ambition.

Luke Evans was part of The Hobbit franchise.

Hets like casting straight actors because they know most gay actors won't play gay Step 'n' Fetchits on screen. A het actor will have no problem playing a gay stereotype while a gay actor might not want to. Plus no one is more anti-gay and homophobic than Hollywood.

The position is a passive one. Demanding that the powers that be allow us to play these roles or give us these opportunities. In the 90s, the whole "New Queer Cinema" movement was about taking control and making inroads ourselves. Now it's "Please, Sir, can we have some more roles?" Either way, the emphasis on actors playing roles that only conform to their own type is not only idiotic it's also self-defeating.

Careful what you wish for.

Maybe straight roles should only be offered to straight actors/actresses with gay actors even if closeted only being considered if there is no other alternative.

How does that sound?

^^^Like something that has already been posted here R65. Read the entire thread before posting moron.

[quote] [R26] To get back at straight cunts for stealing OUR ROLES, you troll.

R27, if in response to a simple question you can't make a cogent argument here at a friendly forum, how in the hell will you make one in the industry. Petulant name calling won't sell your argument. Try again.

r65, that's like the current status quo, idiot.

I think part of Luke's success is that he's not in the press as much as Quinto, Bomer and NPH so he's openly gay but because you don't see him with his boyfriend on red carpets I think casting people don't frown upon casting him.

It's ultimately up to the producers/directors/casting agents and if they don't put their biases aside it's a moot point for people to criticize straight actors for taking on gay roles. There was a recent article about the career of Timothee Chalamet and an unnamed producer showed the archaic mindset TPTB has.

[quote]“The way I define and break down my male actors is very specific,” the producer says. “I determine whether they’re alpha or beta — I need to know which side of the ledger they come up on. Leonardo DiCaprio is alpha. He’s alpha in the way he runs his life, in the performances he gives; he’s alpha in the choices he makes. When Timothée walked out of the room, he was beta for me.

[quote]To be sure, for some of the industry’s old farts, Chalamet can be an acquired taste. “He’s pretty fey,” says one veteran studio hand and Academy voter in his 60s. “He might be the next Anthony Perkins, rather than the next Leo.”

If they think this about a straight non-masculine actor you just know they have no desire to cast a gay man.

[quote]here at a friendly forum

Do you even know where you are, cunt?

[QUOTE]If you do then you have no grounds to demand that only a gay actor can perform a gay role, because that means only a straight actor can play a straight role.

I can't believe people still trot out this moronic argument.

If gay actors were treated like straight actors, you might have a point. They aren't, so you don't. Gay actors are told they can't play particular types of roles because they'll have trouble marketing the film to audiences who are homophobic. The one set of roles where that bullshit can't apply is to gay roles; if the audience is homophobic they aren't going to see a film with prominent gay characters anyway, so there's no harm in casting a gay actor in that role.

That's why it's totally different, because there's such a small amount of roles that openly gay actors will be considered for, and it's utterly unfair when those roles are taken by straight actors who are Oscarbaiting.

[quote]I can't believe people still trot out this moronic argument.

It reminds of the "Well if there is a black history month, why isn't there a white history month?!"

The same false equivalence nonsense.

Sorry if that goes off topic, but apparently enough people in the US believed that Trump is going to drain the swamp and build a wall and deal with those illegal aliens, and yet an openly gay actor playing the straight lead in a summer blockbuster movie is a bridge too far?

[quote]If gay actors were treated like straight actors, you might have a point. They aren't, so you don't. Gay actors are told they can't play particular types of roles because they'll have trouble marketing the film to audiences who are homophobic. The one set of roles where that bullshit can't apply is to gay roles

But your argument is based on submission to that homophobic audience.

r72 BINGO! What do I win?!

R74 Yes, and? Hollywood gladly submits to that audience. Especially, as it allows them the extra control over talent that the closet provides them. "Oh, we've heard TMZ has some photos of you kissing a guy, we'll take care of it, but you'll owe us..."

Cate Blankett is over-exposed and appears in too much trash.

[quote]Yes, and? Hollywood gladly submits to that audience.

"Hollywood" submits to any and all audiences that will boost its profits. It has no moral qualms beyond that one aim. We, on the other hand...

She’s right. Quit making racist requirements for art.

As Tarantino said, Cate Blanchett does little arty pointless movies looking for Oscars and nobody will ever remember her or them in 30 or 40 years.

We need a different branch of Hollywood that levels the playing field for all actors gay or straight. It works for TV where gay producers like Greg Berlanti and Ryan Murphy cast openly gay actors in straight roles. For example Berlanti hired John Barrowman as Malcolm Merlyn in CW's Arrow / Victor Garber as Dr. Martin Stein in The Flash and Legends of Tomorrow ... and Ryan Murphy hired Zachary Quinto as Dr. Oliver Thredson in American Horror Story: Asylum.

To be fair, Tarantino's films will have a far shorter life than anything Blanchett has done. His first three films may still be valued in 10 or 20 years, but the rest will be long forgotten. Unless the dumbing down of our culture continues on it's current trajectory, in which case Kill Bill may be considered the greatest film ever made come 2050.

It's called acting, gay actors should play straight and gay characters indistinctly, the same with straight actors. Why the controversy about it? that is beyond my understanding. Just show how primitive we still are as a society. I'm sure in 50 years will be different.

Apropos of nothing, there is something particularly beautiful about seeing two gay actors being intimate with each other on screen...

Having said that, I always retch when anyone talks of "authenticity" in films.

Like most of you, I’d like to see all gay, lesbian, etc. actors come out. I’d like to see them playing every type of role imaginable. But Hollywood is not a government program or a state university; I don’t think quotas and rules about who can play what have any place in private industry. I wish marketing were less important than talent and artistic vision where casting is concerned, but Hollywood is first and foremost a for-profit business and secondarily a creative venture.

You know what would level the playing field in Hollywood? If every non-heterosexual actor came out immediately. But that’s not going to happen. In the meantime, I agree with the poster above who cited New Queer Cinema. When Gregg Araki, Todd Haynes and their contemporaries first hit the scene several decades ago, it not only greatly expanded opportunities for gay actors, it stretched by leaps and bounds the characterizations of gay people on screen.

In other words, if you want a fair shake for out gay actors and you want to see less stereotyping of gay folks in film, get off your ass and make a movie instead of begging the powers that be in Hollywood for a scrap or two. Don’t fight for a larger share of a small pie. Make more pie.

R84 Poor Danny.

R78 Who is the "we" you're talking about? The gay community? How exactly are we going to be able to change the way Hollywood operates?

[quote] How exactly are we going to be able to change the way Hollywood operates?

By supporting gay actors and making their projects a commercial success.

[quote]How exactly are we going to be able to change the way Hollywood operates?

Hollywood isn't a single entity, so the question isn't one that can be answered. The main problem is this cycle where gay actors who have the potential for A-list stardom don't come out, we presume because they fear losing those roles, and therefore Hollywood only fills those roles with straight or closeted actors... thereby reinforcing the fear that openly gay actors will never be cast in such roles. That stalemate can only really be broken by more gay actors coming out.

Where it R84 from?

R89 If studios aren't making projects with gay actors, how can we support them? The indies that do exist are on such a small scale it'll never make a difference to the existing studio thinking.

R90 Or that ends up with more people overlooked for roles. It's going to take change from within the system (at this point, most likely a generational shift), or some kind of massive external factor forcing studios to change. And I can't help but feel that your answer is basically trying to blame the actors rather than the shitty system.

R91 Teen Wolf

Fuck up Cate, your eyes are too small to play anything but a lemming

Whatever. I feel Cate and Sean Penn miss the point re: current movements because they come from a place of privilege.

The real question is why does Hollywood support the closet for big gay stars like Bradley Cooper, and why dies he go along with it?

And why can’t Hollywood promote out gay actors like Jonathon Groff or Andrew Rannels for bigger stardom?

[quote]And I can't help but feel that your answer is basically trying to blame the actors rather than the shitty system.

The actors are part of the shitty system.

[quote]The real question is why does Hollywood support the closet for big gay stars like Bradley Cooper

You think Hollywood should out Cooper against his will? Bradley Cooper is responsible for his own choices in life, no one else.

[QUOTE]and why dies he go along with it?

My point was that Hollywood and actors like Bradley help to create homophobia.

Cooper is a traitor to his kind.

[quote]My point was that Hollywood and actors like Bradley help to create homophobia.

How so?

She would only have a point if openly gay actors could as easily get roles as straight characters, which is clearly not the case in Hollywood.

Other than that she is just an opportunistic idiot and limited talent who should give her undeserved Oscars to Toni Collette and Jacki Weaver who both are way more talented.

Because they maintain the status quo that actors must be closeted in order to increase profit. This keeps out gay actors fighting for crumbs.

[quote]She would only have a point if openly gay actors could as easily get roles as straight characters, which is clearly not the case in Hollywood.

But you would only have a point if there were as many openly gay actors in Hollywood as straight ones.

[quote] Cate Blankett is over-exposed and appears in too much trash.

Hey, a gal's gotta eat.

R22. Her and Hughe Jackman?

Oh, dear.

When black people complained about lack of diversity, Hollywood and TV ran out and suddenly black actors were in everything.

Gay people complain about lack of work for gay actors and we're told to sit down and shut-up.

The big question is - how does Cate feel about G4pay?

Tiresome actress, tiresome topic. I’m bored of her.

[quote]When black people complained about lack of diversity, Hollywood and TV ran out and suddenly black actors were in everything.

Yeah, that's what happened.

Black Panther is what happened R109. And have you seen Lil Rel?

R104 The number of openly gay actors has nothing to do with it. Those that are out are clearly being treated differently from straight actors. Again, you're just trying to blame the actors rather than those actually making the decision to overlook openly gay actors.

Hardly surprising you're one of those posters who went with the "if only gay actors can play gay then only straight actors can play straight" line.

[quote]The number of openly gay actors has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. If one group is tiny, the other group is massive and everyone is going for the same relatively small proportion of roles, it's statistically inevitable that the smaller group will underrepresented in the final product.

R112 is trying to pretend it's just a game of numbers rather than systemic homophobia.

r113 Lighten up, dollface x

I agree R114. Mainstream Hollywood is garbage.

It's better to stay out of it and create one's own niche market on YouTube and Vimeo..

I think R112 deliberately doesn't get it.

I think r116 is a silly sausage.

I find that many LGB,( i refuse to include transexuals as most of them mentally ill) persons feel like straight actors playing our characters legitimatize us as as a group. Imagine a white actor playing an african-american. A black actor playing a Chinese native. Why is it different when to comes to race. I am one of the few LGB people who feels like people aren't born that gay, thats why. Its a mixture of both nature and nurture.

Were you just nominated to the appeals court by Trump R118?

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with an actor of one race playing a character of a different race. The problem is obviously historical context.

r119, There is nothing in my post to suggest I am fringe right you cocksucker brainwashed, leftist vampire.

[quote]brainwashed, leftist vampire.

So R119 clocked you correctly.

r122, no you didn't dear. But keep living in your fkin bubble. Keep feeding what your masters sell you. Why not try some independent thought for a change.

I have R118 on ignore. Must be a Trumpster.

Who elected her to speak for the gay community? Stay in your own lane, dear.

Used to be a fan, but she's become pretentious as fuck. And always acting like some great auteur. That resume hasn't been stellar in ages.

I'm doing just fine playing a straight leading man in a macho David Fincher production.

Ah, bullshit.... by some standards you then couldn't play a deathbed scene unless you were actually dying. Let actors act and skip the identity politics. Jesus.

[quote]So who are the incredibly talented, openly gay A-list-potential actors who are currently being cruelly ignored?

This is such a troll question. Out gay actors have trouble getting to A list status because they're out.

But successful gay actors who have been pretty much ignored since they've come out? Plenty of names:

Sean Hayes (would be in Matthew Broderick territory if he was straight).

The guy from Who's the Boss

Chad Allen

Cheyenne

Ricky Martin

Wilson Cruz

Zach Quinto

Wentworth Miller

Jack Noseworthy

Neil Patrick Harris is struggling despite having two hit series.

Even Matt Bomer is struggling to get A list roles.

It's not identity politics when you have next to no out gay actors who are successful as straight actors. When gay men are on the same level, then you can apply this term.

r124, no you are just a soft bitch; who mutes someone on an online message board, outside of posting obscene pics. They are just words.

All those out gay actors are a hell of a lot more successful than most actors, no matter who they're going to bed with. Most "actors" would kill for the success of the least successful on that list.

[quote]I don’t think quotas and rules about who can play what have any place in private industry.

Jurisdictions around the world fall over themselves handing out public money and tax incentives to filmmakers.

A bit of and affirmative-action style approach wouldn't hurt. Underrepresented groups need a leg up to overcome community prejudice. Hollywood has a lot to answer for propping up homophobia.

[quote]Even Matt Bomer is struggling to get A list roles.

That's presumably because he isn't A list material.

[quote]Sean Hayes (would be in Matthew Broderick territory if he was straight).

Surely you jest?

[quote]The guy from Who's the Boss

He's probably being ignored by Hollywood for the same reason that you can't remember his name.

The other names on your list just aren't very good actors, unfortunately. And equally deficient in personality. Neil Patrick Harris is an end of the pier entertainer. He's done phenomenally well, considering. And he seemed to get a lot of opportunities specifically after he came out.

r132 reminds me of those who argued that Michael Sam's football career went nowhere, because he wasn't good enough and so not because the football league didn't want him, an openly gay footballplayer, around. Michael Vick had worse stats and still got better treatment and second chances after his dog fight scandal.

I like the fact that r133 thinks Michael Sam and "the guy from Who's The Boss" were both good enough to warrant better careers. That's lovely.

r134, r133 here. That wasn't me at r128, but thanks for your "contribution". I am sure you future comments will be just as riveting. Shame I will not read them. Such a darn shame. Oh, what a shame.

r135 How very interesting x

[quote] Hollywood has a lot to answer for propping up homophobia.

Hollywood is a for profit business industry first (exceptions like the Roseanne firing are quite rare).

Other countries give local movie producers money (through government programs) to feature or highlight local culture and the country's diversity. Only in the US it's about local employment only.

I can't help reading the "homophobia is everywhere!!" posts in the voice of David Sedaris...

Guys like Greg Berlanti and Ryan Murphy do good work by using their clout to hire gay actors young (Colton Haynes) and old (Denis O'Hare).

Or they use their clout to hire actors they want to fuck.

Closeted gays have been playing straight characters since the first show was put on stage.

[quote]Is there an openly gay actress that could have played Carol, an actress that matches Blanchett in looks and talent (if not fame)?

I can easily imagine someone like a glammed-up Cynthia Nixon or even Sarah Paulson.

Rooney I outright hated. Blanchett was OK but nothing spectacular. She just cuts a striking figure on screen.

[quote]I can easily imagine someone like a glammed-up Cynthia Nixon or even Sarah Paulson.

Me too, but it would have been a smaller and less impressive film, given that neither is on the same level as Blanchett in terms of looks and talent (and star quality).

R142, Sarah Paulson was already in Carol playing a lesbian character. She's about the only out lesbian (or bi, she's not explicit but her dating history suggests lesbian) actress but she doesn't have the star quality and screen presence of Blanchett so it would be tricky to give her a lead role in a movie.

Cynthia Nixon is a TV comedy actress, she wouldn't work in a serious movie like Carol.

Berlanti and Murphy are truly the saviors we need to look toward. They have done more for the gay community in Hollywood over the past decade than anyone else.

Cythnia Nixon is a TV comedy actress? Oh, I must have forgotten about those two Tonys she won for dramatic roles. Rabbit Hole was such a laugh riot! And playing abused wife Birdie was such a knee-slapper. Maybe her Tony-nominated turn in Wit was the funny one you were thinking of?

Zach Quinto is the perfect example of a guy who would be A List if he were closeted. Super attractive, super talented, flair for comedy and drama and yet can’t land the big roles. Maybe he doesn’t want them and is happy with his career, but Quinto should be in the top tier of stars if that’s his desire.

"I thought Dante Tex Gill was a lesbian": She was.

Is any accent not a form of appropriation? Is making an actor appear older a form of appropriation? I want more diversity in casting, especially when the written details are not essential to the role: black actors for roles written as white; women considered for male roles if, again, it isn't germane. I like that Louis CK cast a black woman as his ex wife and didn't explain why the daughters are blonde and blue eyed.

I wouldn't call Zach Quinto super attractive, but I do think he'd be in more blockbuster movies playing villains like Loki in the Thor and Avenger movies. Not insinuating that that's what he wants his career to be.

Rooney Mara did not and does not have star quality. She is too boring and too bland.

That’s two-time Oscar nominee Rooney Mara to you, R148.

She was brilliant in Carol and great in the underrated Side Effects too.

Why do people think Blanchett is so striking and attractive? I’m in the minority who don’t see it.

^^ Sorry, wrong thread.

R150 I'm with you. Have never got the awe. She's OK, sometimes.

Thank you R138 for that amusing post.

I hadn't appreciated Sedaris before but he paints a nice portrait of the obsessed and blind young SJW.

Charles Dickens presents a similar character in Mrs Jellyby in 'Bleak House'.' She is a "telescopic philanthropist" obsessed with the charity of an obscure African tribe but having little regard for the welfare of her own family.

They're like the hundred of earnest and silly millennials who infest DL now. ( I used to be one myself in my 20s.)

[quote]Why do people think Blanchett is so striking and attractive? I’m in the minority who don’t see it.

She's one of the all-time great stage and screen actors. The most persistent criticism I see of her is that she's "mannered", but the vast majority (in fact, I would say all) of great stars/actors are "mannered" and easily impersonated: Olivier, Brando, Streep, Dean, De Niro, Pacino, Nicholson. The main one who isn't, I think, is Gene Hackman.

[quote]Me too, but it would have been a smaller and less impressive film, given that neither is on the same level as Blanchett in terms of looks and talent (and star quality).

Blanchett's looks have nothing much to do with artistic quality or acting skills. Star quality and studio preferences wasn't under discussion. The question was whether there are non-straight actresses of similar talent, and both Nixon and Paulson have versatile skills, can pull off period looks, and could be as impressive when glammed up and shot and directed by the same crew.

[quote]Sarah Paulson was already in Carol playing a lesbian character.

How is that a problem in an alternative scenario?

[quote]but she doesn't have the star quality and screen presence of Blanchett so it would be tricky to give her a lead role in a movie

The question wasn't about star quality but about level of talent.

Blanchett is a hit or miss for me, and I don't think she and she alone could give the role justice. Like I said, both Nixon and Paulson are more than capable, versatile experienced and award decorated actresses. Would the movie be somewhat different - likely, especially if they didn't have the Mara block of blankness to play opposite. Would it be "smaller", "less effective" -- no one can say, but no off the top of my head. It was a niche movie to begin with.

[quote]Blanchett is a hit or miss for me

Sorry, but that's irrelevant. She's clearly a star presence and it's beyond doubt that her abilities as an actor are much admired, both on stage and on the screen. The same cannot be said of Cynthia Nixon or Sarah Paulson. They're just not in the same league, by any measure.

[quote]t's beyond doubt that her abilities as an actor are much admired, both on stage and on the screen. The same cannot be said of Cynthia Nixon or Sarah Paulson.

You sure?

Yep, pretty sure, hun. Winning one award for one performance is a measure of that one performance and is also dependent on the quality of the other performances that year, but also of the actor's success networking and campaigning that year. Blanchett's huge critical success has been consistent for well over two decades. I'm amazed this is even up for debate.

[quote]Sorry, but that's irrelevant. She's clearly a star presence

Not for me in this movie. I didn't especially like her in it, and outright hated Mara. So, my opinion stands. I much preferred her in the Woody Allen movie. And I haven't watched any of her movies just because she stars in them.

Again, for the cheap seats. The question wasn't "Is there another Cate Blanchett, only lesbian?" The question was whether there were as capable, non-straight, actresses, who could play the role. The answer is yes. One of them was even in the movie.

[quote]Not for me in this movie.

Again, the fact you don't think she has star presence is irrelevant, since she demonstrably does have star presence.

Demonstrably for whom? Not for me, R160. Stop being daft.

Er, as demonstrated by the fact she's been starring in Hollywood movies for the last 20+ years?

Gay actors don't want to play gay roles. Get the hell out of here! Gay men don't even won't to be perceived as gay. It's why the write down "straight-acting" in dating profiles. The minute you play a gay role you get type cast. The people bitching about what she and others are saying a gay white males, and everyone is sick of hearing their shit. They're the same as straight white males. They reek of privilege. And stop trying to say that being black is the same as being gay. It's not. Black people have told you to stop with that shit. Anyone can have a gay experience. No one can have a black experience. Race and sexuality and not the same thing.

Gay actors don't want to play gay roles. Get the hell out of here! Gay men don't even won't to be perceived as gay. It's why the write down "straight-acting" in dating profiles. The minute you play a gay role you get type cast. The people bitching about what she and others are saying a gay white males, and everyone is sick of hearing their shit. The reason why DL is so against trans people is because they're getting all the attention now. It's the same with whites against blacks who they perceive as getting handouts and special treatment. Now that trans are getting the attention, gay white males are pissed. It must always be about them. Racist gay white males = straight racist white males. Same shit. They both reek of privilege. And stop trying to say that being black is the same as being gay. It's not. Black people have told you to stop with that shit. Anyone can have a gay experience. No one can have the black experience. Race and sexuality are not the same thing.

[quote]Er, as demonstrated by the fact she's been starring in Hollywood movies for the last 20+ years?

Congrats, DL, we got ourselves a Blanchett Loon.

r165 Do you practice being this boring or does it come naturally? x

[quote]The question wasn't "Is there another Cate Blanchett, only lesbian?" The question was whether there were as capable, non-straight, actresses, who could play the role. The answer is yes. One of them was even in the movie.

Well, since I posed that question, I will say that I don't think Paulson or Nixon fit the looks criteria. Carol is supposed to be an unattainable object of desire for Therese; a romantic ideal, which traditionally presumes some type of beauty. And while Nixon can carry a film, talentwise, there is something about Paulson that just doesn't grab attention on the big screen. She is a competent actress, but somewhat forgettable.

I've seen Blanchett on stage (fantastic) and in plenty of films, starting with Oscar & Lucinda. She is just that rare combination of talent and star quality.

If only Saffron Burrows could act...

R167, I saw Paulson on the big screen for the first time in that execrable Down with Love (had to go with friends who love Pillow Talk). She was outstanding, got the period look down pat, and was superbly comedic and totally appealing on screen. I know she can do as well with dramatic roles. Her vibe isn't everyone's cup but she works for me. So I still say she's an option.

Burrows, though undeniably beautiful, has always had a low depressive energy for me on the screen. That's apart from any discussion of talent.

Anyway, if you are indeed looking for an exact copy of Blanchett, only lesbian, you predetermined the answer.

The answer is not Paulson or Nixon, R168.

This is anecdotal, but my elderly mother wanted to see Carol because of Blanchett. She organized a group viewing with her friends, who are between the ages of 65 and 85. She loved, loved, loved the film and Cate. A friend of mine laughed when I told him that my mom's favorite films that year were Carol and The clouds of Sils Maria.

She and another friend are going to see A star is born. She remembers the Streisand version and is curious about the Cooper/Gaga one. I'd be curious to hear what she thought of the two of them.

This kind of fantasy booking crap is always used by those who want to defend the homophobic status quo, as no matter who you pick they'll always find some fault, and move the goalposts if they can't find a real fault, and use that as proof that the system needs to be kept in place. It really does show the lengths that some people on here will go to - for some reason - to defend people who despise us.

[quote]The answer is not Paulson or Nixon, [R168].

Of course. It's not like the question was ever posed in earnest.

Well, I was kind of hoping that some names would come up, R171, etc... (I figure you are a multiple poster.) Carol could have been made into a foreign character: French, Scandinavian, British... Sad if there really isn't anyone out there.

Considering Paulson was in the film in a lesser role I'm guessing that Todd Haynes liked her enough to have her in the film, just not in the lead part. She's fine, just not a leading actor material.

The issue is that the studio wants someone who can open a film. They're looking about profitability. The problem is that how can a gay actor reach that status if they're not getting the type of work to get them to that level? Alan Cumming just became the first openly gay leading man of a series last year. How is that right?

That Todd Haynes 'Carol' may have had accurate costuming and decor but he knows zilch about film-making and story-telling.

I turned off half-way through.

I saw the one Cate Blankett performance on stage in Shakespeare and she was satisfactory. But she can light up the screen in the right role.

And she does have a strange horse-face like the late Kay Walsh.

[quote]The problem is that how can a gay actor reach that status if they're not getting the type of work to get them to that level?

A lot of actors leading franchise film today come out of nowhere. Who ever heard of the model who was cast in Wonder Woman? Previous exposure to the public is not the sole criteria by which actors get cast. Personally, I find a lot of these newcomers rather bland.

[quote]Who ever heard of the model who was cast in Wonder Woman?

People who have seen the three Fast and Furious films she was in.

See, I didn't know that, R177. I associate those films with Michelle Rodriguez.

“He's pointed out that no openly gay man has ever won the Academy Award for best actor,”

What about Gielgud? And only men matter. Forget Jodie Foster.

Personally I don’t give a shit.

How many out gay actors have we rallied around? We claim we want them but when they come out we don't support them.

They have to rely on straight people's support to get work and when they fail we blame the straight people for it while throwing our money on straight actors instead of gay ones.

When was Foster openly out? Certainly not while she had an active acting career.

Now that you mention her, she'd have been beyond wrong as Carol. My god.

R179 The great Sir John Gielgud never won the Academy Award for best actor.

He didn't care about American baubles.

[quote]That Todd Haynes 'Carol' may have had accurate costuming and decor but he knows zilch about film-making and story-telling.

That's hilarious. The fact we're debating over Sarah Paulson and Cynthia Nixon shows the dearth of out gay actresses who could potentially be bigger than they are. Richard Nixon's had more star presence than poor old Cynthia.

Cynthia was ludicrous.

Carbon Cate is a silly fish.

[quote]Carbon Cate is a silly fish.

It's amazing how this thread can go on for this long and not get the point.

Anyone who is saying "straight" actors shouldn't be "allowed" to play LGBT roles is obviously not thinking this through. Trans people seem to be the ones making this argument. The point is of course anyone should be able to play a role if they can act it.

The point is a lot of "straight" actors have won Oscars for playing LGBT characters. What's more nauseating about it is that they co-opted and exploited the struggle that we've faced as human beings and turned into just another part and a way to snag an Oscar nomination. Sean Penn, Tom Hanks, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlize Theron and so on, including trans characters Jared Leto, Hilary Swank. And those are just winners. We can raise eyebrows at some of these. Leto isn't trans but is almost certainly bi. Jake is still on the list as a a "straight" man playing a gay character.

The problem is Kevin Spacey got his wins as a man viciously denying he was gay. That's all we've got.

More actors need to come out if they're gay and more need to be given straight roles. Then we can talk about fairness on even grounds.

One of the main problems was mentioned upthread: most gay actors don't want to play gay roles.

When the best actor for the role is chosen we can stop complaining. A gay actor will never be chosen for straight roles today and it is ridiculous. Cinema is imagination and I don't need to know what the actor is really like. Rupert Everett is the cautionary tale here.

More actors should be like me. Mysterious.

That's speculation, not based on any fact, R189. Do you have a survey of gay actors to back that up. Most? That's a big claim.

My guess is that there are plenty of gay actors who would've wanted to play Harvey Milk or Truman Capote. There are plenty of gay actors who don't give a shit about being stars who could have played Lili Elbe better than Eddie Redmayne. The problem is that the film industry, particularly Hollywood, wants to cast "stars". And there are few gay stars.

And THIS is what we're dealing with. Here's the "wiki" version of the story – interesting fodder for debate as Oscar nominees who are LGBT. First the list claims people like Cary Grant, James Dean, and Greta Garbo based on substantial gossip, then people like Janet Gaynor and Agnes Moorehead based on very thin gossip. And yet Jared Leto is NOT on the list despite just as much gossip and Jake Gyllenhaal is certainly not on the list.

And while we're on the subject, to me the problem is often gay producers and writers. Why was Kushner so determined to have Justin Kirk and Andrew Garfield play Prior Walter. Or Patrick Wilson to play Joe Pitt? Were they really the best actors to play those parts? Given Kushner's politics, I would've thought he would be screaming like Louis at the thought of casting straight people in key roles. But no...

This is a more complex problem than Blanchett or any defender of the system is making it.

Oh yes, and the fact that Kevin Spacey is on that list as our only currently living out gay actor to have won an Oscar is a problem, not the least because he did it rabidly insisting he was not gay.

And the fact that Lucas Hedges is on the list when he is parsing his words so carefully and so problematically is a problem:

""In the early stages of my life, some of the people I was most infatuated with were my closest male friends. That was the case through high school, and I think I was always aware that while for the most part I was attracted to women, I existed on a spectrum," also adding that he exists "on that spectrum: Not totally straight, but also not gay and not necessarily bisexual."

Okay "NOT NECESSARILY bisexual"? So bisexual? But not gay? Most infatuated with men? but also attracted to women? So not necessarily bisexual probably because he is more attracted to men than women but not gay because he was or is attracted to women. We get it. The label is the problem for your career. But he's gunning for an Oscar playing a gay kid who is trying to have the gayness expunged from him. For reparative therapy? Come on!

Here's the source of the quote. And his defense.

"People expect you as an actor to have a voice that’s set in some way, and that’s really not what I am,” he says. “I’m very much within the conflict and confusion of my own life, still, and I definitely feel a pressure to step up in a way. I prefer to step up in my art, and I don’t entirely know how to in my life.”

[quote]That's speculation, not based on any fact

True, but I think it's clear that most gay actors are terrified of being typecast and so I assume that most of them would avoid gay characters if they had a choice, particularly early on in their careers. The only gay actor I can think of who has routinely played gay characters and did so right at the beginning of his career is Ben Whishaw.

[quote]And THIS is what we're dealing with.

Wiki is run by a bunch of tedious hall monitors, I don't think we can take that page as anything substantive. To be honest, I'm surprised they've left Cary Grant and James Dean on there, given how persnickety they are. I'm pretty sure they refuse to mention Tyrone Power's bisexuality on his page, for example.

The poster(s) on this thread ragging on really talented actors like Bomer and Quinto and saying they're not good enough for real stardom, when they clearly are, are fucking sickening. You sound both stupid and self-hating.

r196 They're just not, hun. They really, really aren't good enough for stardom x

r195, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I still am leery of saying "most" gay actors don't accept gay roles because they don't want to be typecast. If you look at how many gay roles there are, quite many are played by gay actors. On stage, there are plenty of out actors and audiences don't care. Ben Whishaw, Cherry Jones and so on are loved on stage because their talent is what people care about. We're talking about film and TV actors who dream of being stars and are not focused on the work – that's a small group of actors who are given a shot at the big time and hide in the closet. TheHollywood machine is behind it, convinced that America and much of the gay-friendly world won't buy a gay actor in a straight role.

So I'm not going to blame "most" gay actors for this.

I do, however, have no problem shaming straight actors for trying to portray themselves as progressive and brave for playing a gay character. If the outgrowth of this current argument is to shame straight actors out of taking roles for this reason, great. I'd prefer it if casting agents were more accepting of gay actors.

And to that end, I will go see the new Mary Poppins, just because Ben Whishaw is in it.

Matt Bomer is beautiful and Quinto is a decent actor. The problem is multilevel. Bomer should get cast more as the good looking romantic guy. I thought he did well in White Collar and was believable. I don't know if he wants to play too many gay roles and same might go for other gay actors.

Hollywood is leery about casting gay actors bc of worries they won't help box office. They might be right but same thing happens to black actors.

Gay producers and film makers should push for more gay actors for gay and straight roles. We do have successful gay actors on tv, maybe a push to cast for net flix or cable if Hollywood isn't forthcoming with film roles. It's just sad all around but it's a slight improvement from decades past.

R195, Wikipedia is not DL. Wikipedia demands a factual source not gossip.

[quote] The problem is that the film industry, particularly Hollywood, wants to cast "stars".

The film industry is a business backed by investors who want to make a profit. They don’t make films for charity.

[quote]Wikipedia is not DL. Wikipedia demands a factual source not gossip.

The errors and falsehoods on wiki are legion. Besides, there's no factual source about Cary Grant or James Dean, yet there they are. There's just as much gossip about Tyrone Power, yet not a single mention of that gossip anywhere on his page.

This is a classic example of wiki's "demands for factual sources":

Gay actor Guy Madison:

[quote]He had an affair with Gia Scala and, before her death, she made him the beneficiary to her portion of the Screen Actors Pension Fund.[7][8][9]

The source is a biography of Scala, which is taken at face value by whoever it was on wiki that let it pass. But the book in question never even mentions Madison once. The actor she had an affair with, according to that book, was Guy WILLIAMS.

[quote] Race and sexuality and not the same thing.

It is when you get off your high horse and manage to bond with others over the fact that it doesn't feel nice to be rejected or discriminated against for either being black or a member of the LGBT Community.

I am sometimes so sick of this "My suffering trumps your suffering. I win, you lose!". Like "who is the alpha in the suffer olympics?" is really worth fighting over?

r201 has it. R200 is out to lunch.

If Wikipedia demanded facts, most of the nominations for actors listed there are for "bisexual" men based on speculation. The wiki page lists 26 best actor nominations for LGBT actors. Grant, Dean and Harvey are based solely on gossip. Brando is on the list solely because he said he had "homosexual experiences" and a rumour that he had a relationship with Wally Cox, not fact. Lots of straight men have "homosexual experiences" whether that makes them bisexual is open to debate.

Taking them out of the equation we're down from 26 to 14. In that 14, we have Wooley and Clifton Webb are based on slight second-hand confirmations, and Alan Bates who vehemently denied it. And then, of course, we have the loathsome Kevin Spacey who got his two trophies as said above while condemning the idea that he might be thought of as gay or bisexual at the time and only came out as his defence to the sexual harassment he perpetrated. So the number 14 may be based on facts, but as said above it's a more complicated picture.

[quote]It is when you get off your high horse and manage to bond with others over the fact that it doesn't feel nice to be rejected or discriminated against for either being black or a member of the LGBT Community.

Race and sexuality are not the same thing R202. The discrimination facing both aspects of being are similar, or as you put it, "it doesn't feel nice to be rejected or discriminated against," but [italic]very[/italic] different.

It isn't about one's suffering being better or worse than another person's. They're just not the same.

One can lead an actor to the closet where they hide who they are in order to continue to get work.

The other is not something most people can hide.

As for being a person of color AND gay: good luck to them because it is a doozy of a problem for Hollywood.

R192, before you start cherry-picking facts about Kushner and Prior Walter, let’s not forget that out actor Stephen Spinella originated and won Tonys for the role. Clearly Kushner takes no issue with out gay men playing the part.

R196, Quinto is decent? Decent??? Oh my sides! Quinto’s performance in Menagerie was Tom I’ve ever seen, and that shit gets revived A LOT. His work in Angels in America at Signature was also superb. Fucking superb. His Harold this past summer wasn’t too shabby either.

I have that about this a lot and I think she comes across as entitled and self absorbed. She is clueless abou,t gays or lesbians and apparently wants to stay that way, despite working with power Lea, Sandra Bullock. She is digging her own grave playing witches in Thor and that stupid clocks movie. Every movie actress who played witches in their 40's is cursed. Anjelica, Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, etc.

Thought about, power Lez. Forgive my typos.

Is Cate a lesbian?

It's quite clear she's not interested in men and I'm not sure she ever has been. She seems so obviously butch-bull-dyke since her early days.

r192, I am not cherry-picking facts about Kushner. We'll get to that in a bit. I also didn't write that Kushner has a problem with gay men in gay roles. What an absurd thing to claim. Of course, Broadway had no problem with it either and Kushner benefited from gay actors in launching the play.

The issue that this thread is about is gay actors, by not being cast in straight or gay parts, don't get the credits that they need to build up a resume in FILMS especially, as well as TV, NOT plays. And this brings us to the facts: All five of the male roles in the film version of Angels of America identify as straight. Let's repeat it: ALL FIVE STRAIGHT MEN – NO GAY MEN. Justin Kirk, in fact, let it be known so clearly that he identified as straight that the Times took pains to point out that Kirk was "avowedly straight" (as if to say he is rumoured to be gay but insists he isn't). And all five were Emmy nominated for the film.

And don't tell me it's because all five of those actors were the best actors for the roles. Jeffrey Wright was fabulous on stage and film. I've seen five different productions and Wright was still the best. But Ben Shenkman? Really? No gay actor could've played Louis better than Ben Shenkman? Kirk was the best actor they could've gotten for Prior? Please. Nor could you claim that Shenkman, Kirk and even Jefferey Wright or Patrick Wilson were stars and that HBO must have demanded that someone of their "stature" should be cast. And no one seems to have said, "hmmm, is it not weird that we only have straight actors in these iconic parts and not ONE gay male actor, who might benefit from a chance to work with Al Pacino, Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson on this prominent piece of work"? If I were Kushner, I would've said something.

And given that Kushner had a lot of control in maintaining the integrity of the play and producing the film version of it, I would have assumed if he said something, something would've been done. In that light, shat I wrote was that Kushner's politics are about gay men's dedication to other gay men and equality - righteously so, especially IN Angels in America, where Joe Pitt gets what's coming to him, lectured on this very point for taking the easy way out when doing the RIGHT thing that could have changed the lives of gay men. Kushner could've made a difference here. He didn't.

Sorry that should've been directed at R205.

[quote] The discrimination facing both aspects of being are similar, or as you put it, "it doesn't feel nice to be rejected or discriminated against," but very different.

No they are not. Discrimination is discrimination. There is no "a little bit discrimination" vs. " a big discrimination" like there is no "a little bit pregnant".

As stated this is just a desperate attemt of establishing a superior vs. inferior hierarchy structure of suffering. Which is total bullshit and only results in discriminated groups arguing and fighting over who suffers the most while the ones who are doing the discriminating can sit back and watch and be entertained.

[quote] It isn't about one's suffering being better or worse than another person's. They're just not the same.

What do you gain from making that distinction?

r212 Presumably, the same thing you gain from all distinctions: clarity, context and perspective.

[quote] r212 Presumably, the same thing you gain from all distinctions: clarity, context and perspective.

Which leads to what conclusion in this particular case?

R211 You're sounding rather doctrinaire.

Decisions on casting is made for a number of reasons.

r214 I think r204 already laid out his conclusions very succinctly.

FWIW saying "discrimination is discrimination" and that it's all the same and equally bad is false. Particularly in a debate about casting. The very act of casting a role is an exercise in (often ruthless) discrimination. That's all it is.

R216 Brecht ran a Communist Theatre Company in Berlin and alienated its audiences.

Brecht's ideas heavily influenced Britain's National Theatre in the 60s and 70s and it was a very DREARY place indeed!

[quote] Decisions on casting is made for a number of reasons.

True. But what matters more: The reasons / circumstances or the end result?

I'm sorry R218. I can't reply because this thread is getting rather pointless for me because I'm not employed in the casting business.

Another entitled straight whitey who refuses to be told "no" about anything. And they're always so fucking self-righteous about it too. I wouldn't see another one of that vacant cunt's movies if my life depended on it.

Yes R220 Cate is self-righteous

Cate Blankett is self-righteous, over-exposed and appears in too much trash.

And she hasn't even purchased any African babies like Mia, Madonna and that fish-woman.

Love Cate.

Everyone knows she's a bull-dyke in real life.

Why is it that gays are the only group that repeatedly gets told to take a backseat to literally everyone else in terms of media representation, and why are we the only ones being told to settle for stereotypes instead of fighting for more realistic depictions? Furthermore, why are we the only minority group being told to let others play us in movies and on TV?

R225, I don’t know what you’re talking about, but LGBTQ characters are EVERYWHERE on TV. We are super well represented on the small screen. Think of every broadcast network TV show this season that has an LGBTQ character...it’s a lot. (Movies are another thing, but TV is way better than film nowadays anyway!)

I said gays, R226, and no one else.

Gay representation is part of queer representation, so yes it’s all the same thing. So many characters are sexually fluid now...we really have made a lot of progress that can not be minimized.

R228, you are a homophobe. Stop calling gays q***r. It is hate speech.

The Jews reclaiming the k-word wouldn't have deterred the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, either.

Queer is not hate speech. Maybe you should work through your feelings of self-loathing. I will get back to Supergirl and all the positive queer representation on the show (followed by Charmed).

Q***r means abnormal or disordered. Calling gays that means you think being gay is not normal. You are a homophobe.

And after Berlanti sold us out, I threw away my Blu-ray of [italic]Love, Simon[/italic].

What are you talking about? Berlanti has done more for queer representation than anyone in Hollywood except for maybe Ryan Murphy or Shonda. How can you claim someone who basically refuses to make a show without LGBTQ character has sold us out?

Stop calling gays that vile word, you homophobic piece of shit, and don't you dare cite another sellout hack like Ryan Murphy as anything other than the antithesis of progress. Stop projecting your abnormality onto gay people, and stop defending Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas who sell us out.

Gays are still forced to sell out in order to be accepted by Hollywood. And now we're supposed to either be complicit in the genocide of the next generation of gay people or be ostracized. No dice, Hollywood.

I'm not asking you to stop, homophobe R233. I'm telling you.

R69 I hate bringing stereotypes into this but I think part of Evans' success comes from him not reading as gay immediately as he comes on screen. Unlike, say, Bomer. Nothing wrong with that, but it's like with anything else like looking super Jewish or nerdy, etc, you get typecast.

You have yet to give even one concrete example of Berlanti (or Murphy) are sellouts. Neither is a hack by any stretch.

Here’s what is a fact: they bring LGBTQ characters into living rooms all across America every week. Since Berlanti basically runs the CW, that means a lot of teens and young adults will have plenty of role models to look up to too. In fact, I think Supernatural is the only show on the CW without a queer character and most of the shows have multiple representatives of the community.

And this is a bad thing, how exactly?

And btw, I am anything but homophobic. I am an out and very proud gay/queer man.

Trans is gay erasure. Murphy and Berlanti are Uncle Toms, hacks, and sellouts for pushing it in addition to being generally lousy directors to begin with.

Q***r is a slur. Gay men and lesbians who do not hate themselves do not use that word.

The word is a slur. No amount of word games will make it anything else.

The more you call gays q***r, the more I will call breeders "breeders."

R174 Cumming is bisexual. He said that way too many times to keep misidentifying him.

With a name like that, he couldn't possibly be heterosexual.

R235 So basically it comes down to the author hating being told that sexual fluidity is a thing. Figures.

You mean because the author hates being lied to by sexist homophobes?

R240 "Middle-aged man standing in a snowstorm clutching a polystyrene cup"

Cate filmed Carol in my hometown of Cincinnati and her antics - ordering limo drivers through fast food restaurants - were a riot. She became obsessed with our chili and made several forays through a Skyline Chili ordering cheese coneys, chocolate malts and 4 way chili - that's beans, onions, cheese and spaghetti. She also loved Frisch's Big Boy - she would order three big boys at a sitting and load up on french fries.

Love her!

This is a complicated issue. On the one hand, Cate Blanchette is correct that actors should have the right to play characters different from themselves. On the other hand, out LGBT actors have a more difficult time getting work. There must be a systemic way to help LGBT actors get more work without placing a full ban on straights playing gay roles.

No one is saying no to Cate, r220.

R107 is 100% right.

Also, this made me like Cate Blanchett a lot less. I’m beyond tired of straight people.

Why are some of you talking about "LGBT" actors as though they are all the same thing? Trans would object loudly to gay actors playing a trans role, as they did with Matt Bomer.

Justin Trudeau wouldn't say no to Cate . . . but he would have a little weep while doing so.

So, basically, we should do away with acting altogether and just have people playing themselves. How very interesting!

R245 You mean anyone who is neither straight nor gay are lying to themselves and need to pick their lane? So 1518.

t Cate Blanchett blames reality television for backlash against straight actors playing LGBT roles

closet Cate speaks

R173 Paulson was the best thing in Carol

[quote]So who are the incredibly talented, openly gay A-list-potential actors who are currently being cruelly ignored?

Ben Whishaw, Andrew Scott, Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris, Matt Bomer, Kristen Stewart (bi), Sarah Paulson, Ellen Page and many more

She's right. We as a society have gone to far.

Of course. If a straight actor can pull off gay, then do it. If a gay actor can pull of straight, then do it. Blanchett is versatile and can pull off a lot. She has been great cast as a lesbian and I bet she would make a fascinating gay man. I’m sorry, but I am all for the most convincing and engaging performer being cast in any role. That should expand roles for LGBT people and women alike.

R260 Very True. Just look at Rock Hudson, played straight all his life and was totally believably. Watch Rock's films and he is convincingly straight in everyone of them. It's called acting. Ditto Tab Hunter and many others.

R107 is a moron. Black actors had to create their own films and award shows because Hollywood was not giving them work unless it was as a pimp, prostitute, druggie, maid, butler or Gang Member #1. That black cinema has finally come into its own with recent films like Get Out, Black Panther and yes, even the ridiculous Tyler Perry movies (which make $$$) is a testament to the hard work that the Spike Lees and the John Singletons laid out, and more importantly their predecessors like Melvin Van Peebles, Gordon Parks Jr., etc.

Same goes for gay media representation. Gay showrunners and directors finally grew a spine and put gay characters front and center in their shows and movies and hired members of the LGBTQ Community.

That didn't happen overnight.

Would Brokeback have been more effective had the actors playing Ennis and Jack been gay in real life?

[quote] Very True. Just look at Rock Hudson, played straight all his life and was totally believably.

LOL. That's not how it works. It's all about perception.

Hollywood and media sold Hudson as straight and therefore was perceived as straight, because there was no additional information available to the masses that contradicted the narrative Hollywood and the media sold. Hollywood had total control over Hudson's image and there were no private sex tapes leaked or pictures of his all-male pool parties and reports of him being caught in gay bars (during a gay bar raid) or arrested in a gay sting operation were killed before they could get published. Sure, there was sordid gossip, but most people dismissed that as gossip to hold on to the image they wanted to believe in.

Of course it's a lot harder these days to control a celebrity's public image (aka how a celebrity is being perceived by the general public) since there are so much more additional (social) media sources where gossip can establish itself as common knowledge. And if you are eager to affirm you belief system, and perception of someone, you look for every little thing that affirms your belief. And then you end up with the most masculine, "straight acting" gay guy out there and people still go "Yeah, that dude is totally gay! I can totally see it in the way he acts and speaks" and you get the whole suspension of disbelief issue where people simply can't buy a gay guy playing straight thanks to their (narrow minded) perception.

r225 nails it.

R265 True that is it perspective. But one can watch Rock Hudson's films today and none of his performances scream 'gay' in the slightest. But it is a very different world as you say.

she's not straight

R264 Would Brokeback have been more effective had the actors playing Ennis and Jack been gay in real life?

both Gyllenhaal and Ledger are gay

Ledger was in relationship with lesbian Michelle Williams and Nicole Kidman's wife Naomi Watts

R174 The issue is that the studio wants someone who can open a film. They're looking about profitability.

like Flopbender, Floplenhaal andNicole Flopman?

R192 from the Wiki list who was out when nominated? only McKellen and former false bisexual Jolie

*Jolie is not bi she's a closeted lesbian