As you probably know by now, representation has been the hot button issue in the entertainment industry for some time now. In particular, the under-representation of the LGBT+ community has attracted no small amount of criticism. Due to a lack of ‘out’ actors playing gay characters, straight actors are frequently cast in gay roles. On the surface, it doesn’t seem like a problem; acting is acting. However, the lack of opportunities for gay actors can be galling. Some argue that it’s simply a role, while others point out that openly LGBT+ actors already have scarce acting opportunities, and even less opportunities to show off their own lived experience in fiction.
Several stars have weighed into the debate. Stanley Tucci, who is known for having played a gay character or two in the past, has commented on the matter more than once, including during a recent interview with Variety. As a straight man and an actor of great caliber, Tucci is of the opinion that sexuality is irrelevant and that actors should play whomever they’d like. Now, I know not many people are going to side with me over Stanley Tucci (come on, it’s Stanley Tucci), but I have to say: this argument misses the point.
Being gay is an invisible trait, it’s true, and a talented enough actor can portray pretty much any life experience that’s not their own. The issue is that, frankly, for an industry that considers itself to be LGBT-friendly, Hollywood has treated its LGBT+ talent – that very people that maintain its existence – like hot garbage.
How many examples can I bring up? How about the lavender marriages that flourished under the early film industry? Entire sham marriages were hastily arranged by studio heads for their gay actors and actresses, so that their audiences would not catch a whiff of ‘deviance.’ There’s the Hays Code, which mandated that any openly or even implied LGBT+ characters (what few there were) had to have a tragic ending to atone for their supposed sins and immorality.
Actors aren’t even allowed to be openly gay LGBT+ these days not unless they plan on being considered ‘niche’. How many leading men do you know that are openly gay? No, Neil Patrick Harris doesn’t count; he’s more of a character actor, anyway. In fact, Kate Winslet has even stated that she personally knows of a few A-list actors that are afraid to come out of the closet, due to the dangers it would present for them. Specifically, she points out the ironic fact that it’s very hard for a gay actor to land a straight role (funnily enough, we don’t see much commentary on that).
It makes sense that the community would be present in large numbers — the arts have long been considered a ‘gay’ field. Actually, it’s more than a little ironic to me that our culture stereotypes the industry as a predominantly LGBT+ space, but we’re still expected to believe there’s no one in the LGBT+ community with A-list talent, charisma, and marketability out there to headline their own film. Sure, if you view gay people like a talentless monolith, you might be able to make that case. But we all know that’s just not true, no matter how much some people would want it to be.
And that’s exactly why I believe openly gay actors should be prioritized for LGBT+ roles. Is there a chance that a straight actor will land the part on the basis of being the best at their audition? Sure — and they should definitely get the role if they are the best suited to it. But if gay actors aren’t the ones being hired for gay roles, then what are they being hired for? You’re telling me James Corden’s star power is necessary to sell a Netflix comedy to the people?
To be clear, I’m not saying that a straight actor can never play gay – although I agree with Natasha Lyonne and think that, all-too-often, the discussion around it devolves into how shocking and daring it is for a straight man to have to kiss another dude for a role, and how difficult that must have been.
I’m not in the business of throwing out an entire movie just because a straight actor is playing a gay character. I’m also not saying it’s okay to harass those playing LGBT+ characters in order to out their sexualities – actors are people and deserve their privacy like anyone else. Everyone deserves to come out on their own terms. As the case of Kit Connor shows, forcing someone out of the closet can do real and biphobic harm to their person — being LGBT+ is not a set experience. Should a person want to stay in the closet, they should be able to do so.
But there’s definitely a case to be made that already-openly LGBT+ people (and this is the caveat, no one should have to come out for a role) should be given more chances and recognition in the industry. Nobody’s potential should be capped just because they’re open about who they are.
The film industry’s reach is massive. It categorically has an effect on how people view the world: actual murders have been carried out in the name of movies. The right blockbuster can make more than one country’s yearly GDP. And there’s a reason why American pop culture has become so pervasive worldwide.
The human capacity for empathy and tribalism means that even our fiction can become important to who we are as people. By putting openly gay actors in more prominent positions, Hollywood can help foster the fight for gay rights worldwide. Increased prominence and visibility has led us to where we are now. It’s helped win some of the equal rights that LGBT+ Americans have needed for so long.
Six openly straight men have won an Oscar for playing gay men. Zero openly gay men can say the same. All I’m saying is that the LGBT+ community deserves far more than what Hollywood is willing to give.