Share your unpopular opinions here!

i hate how Marvel, esp the Russos treat Loki. He deserves better 😡

You needed them out of your life!

I don't like the fact that natural, good singing is not allowed in musicalfilms anymore, such as Olivia Newton John did in Grease, Julie Andrews did in the Sound of Music and Lea Salonga did in Aladdin.

We all know that people walked out of the cinema because they couldn't handle it. Luckily they changed it up, this era will go down in history with Amanda Seyfried, Emily Blunt, Russel Crowe, who speak their songs or the screamers like Idina Menzel and Naomi Scott. Now the shine, subtlety, naturalness and radiance is removed from singing, they are on the right track.

*sarcasm off*

The current vogue for saying that LGBT roles should only go to openly gay actors puts closeted actors - or even just ones who want to keep their sexuality low-profile - in a really awkward position.

See: Taron Egerton and Richard Madden, in Rocketman. Taron Egerton says he is straight (pretty convincingly - he's quite honest in the latest issue of Attitude about having questioned his sexuality as a teenager), and is being asked to justify the fact that he is playing Elton John rather than a gay actor getting the part. Richard Madden has not, thus far, been asked the same question about playing Elton's boyfriend. He has recently been seen out and about with, and is currently living with, Brandon Flynn, and many people are assuming they are a couple from the way they behave around each other and the amount of time they are spending together. He has not officially commented on the pictures/rumours, and he has not come out.

Do journalists continue to assume he is straight - in which case, the question is apparently fair game? Do they assume that he is actually in a same sex relationship and assume the question doesn't apply? Do they have to ask him to confirm if he is straight, bisexual or gay - at least off-the-record - before figuring out if it's ok to ask him the same question as they are asking his co-star?

Maybe we should focus less on asking straight actors to justify themselves and more on making it easier for gay and bisexual actors to be out and successful in a whole range of roles?

I don't know that it's even about gay actors being able to bring a certain 'something', to be honest. For most other experiences we expect actors to do their research when it differs from their own, or to use their imaginative ability to find ways to relate it to their own experiences.  

I think it's more important that the people with the actual power to determine what's in the film - the directors, producers, and studios - are committed to portraying gay experiences honestly and authentically. Because it doesn't much matter what the actor is bringing in terms of performance if what they do ends up on the cutting room floor, or the script limits what can be shown to start with, or the producers decide they need to emphasise a straight love story over a gay one in order to not frighten away straight audiences, or to be able to sell the film in China. (*cough cough* Bohemian Rhapsody *cough cough*)

Actors are usually a lot more photogenic, entertaining, and charismatic than producers and studio heads, so they're the ones normally doing the press tour, and it's wonderful to have openly gay actors like Ian McKellen who can be outspoken and help change the public dialogue, but they usually have very little actual power to change how the industry works. They're the wrong people to bearing the brunt of the issue, because most of the time they're at the mercy of the system themselves.




 

It's like in so many other discussions - when we reach that point in the future where the previously-marginalised are afforded the same opportunities as those who are playing the game of life on easy mode, it'll be a non-question. But even now, actors are still staying close-lipped about their sexualities because rightly or wrongly a queer actor can so easily find themselves being pigeon-holed while a straight actor can receive plaudits for their bravery in playing a queer role. I don't want to see cisgender actors being praised for playing transgender characters while transgender actors can't get in the audition room. I don't want to see able-bodied actors playing disabled characters when there's no narrative reason not to cast a disabled actor in the first place. It's not about whether the queer experience is unique (though as Emily rightly points out, we all experience the world in different ways depending on who we are, and even the smallest things can affect you in a way that the easy mode player wouldn't even think of. Look at Dominique Apollon and his plaster for instance), it's about whether right now queer actors are being afforded fair opportunity. And I don't believe we're there yet.

Indeed and to take it back to the political importance, The Boys in the Band on Broadway made a song and dance about an all gay cast, because those men are still the exception- highly paid sitcom stars, movie stars who are out and getting offered a pick of roles. However, I'm sure all of the 'big three' in that one (Parsons, Quinto and Bomer) have spoken about the concern over being 'out'.

It is as much about 'unless you let gay actors play all the parts don't give the gay parts you pigeonhole them in to straight (usually) white actors who can play literally any other part'. Again if the right fit is the right fit I'm not SO hardline on it, but that's the principle.

Similarly, Pose is another great example. It shouldn't be SO groundbreaking that Trans actors are getting work, being showcased front and centre and yet, and yet.

But it is a simple fact to me that someone who has lived a thing, can do a better job of conveying that thing to an audience. Not that someone who hasn't is incapable, but someone who has an inherent understanding of that experience will of course bring that experience to a role.

I think flaccid middle aged (male) heterosexuals have been doing pretty much that for centuries.

Also the 5 or so above posts show how it's entierly possible to have reasonable disagreement on a topic and still make it a conversation.

I mean it was a pithy/sarcastic comment made at someone being deliberately obtuse about it. 


(and not to put too fine a point on it, I do know my gay history having erm made something of an unpaid living out of writing and teaching about it for a while)  

My opinion on this matter is that someone's personal sexual preference should not matter at all in casting. This is called acting for a reason. An actor has to play characters with different interests and different preferences and different worldviews than their own every day.

It would be a bizarre world if you would have to come out of the closet on a casting or that casting directors and producers ask you what you like in bed in order to be able to give you a role. Aside from that being very disrespectful and invasive (and people could say things just to get a role), why on earth should actors only be allowed to play preferences, desires or characters that resemble them in real life? Should murderers only be played by real murderers? Should blind people only be played by blind people? Should people with autism only be played by people with autism? Some people have a sexual preference for old people only. When a role is written like that, do you then have to prove that that matches your personal preference? If you play a bisexual role, do you have to prove you are sexually attracted to both sexes?

All actors should be able to play all roles. In principle this should be a 1 way street. That is equality and not using any minority status to get or demand roles. Fact is that it is definitely not necessary to have lived what you play in order to make it believable. What is important in casting is how believable it looks.

This is where the difference comes in for me, if we speak about the subject of being a gay actor. There are gay actors who can play straight very convincingly. Good. They can play both straight and gay roles. There are also gay actors who will never come across as straight. No matter how they try. For straight roles, where a man and a woman fall in love, in order to make the scenes convincing, this is not very helpful. So that limits the amount of roles for a certain amount of gay actors because they just don't come across as straight and therefore not as the right type. That does not mean they are somehow more entitled to demand all the gay roles. I would even go further and say that the gay community in general prefers to have gay roles played in a way that is normal/neutral/more straight looking, to show the world that not all gay people are stereotypes. So straight actors could play both straight roles and gay roles, and gay actors could play both straight and gay roles as long as it's 100% believable. That's all that counts. Straight actors just have the luck that "not noticing someone is gay" is often preferred in both cases.

This may not be what some people want to hear, but if you are gay and people can't tell you are, it gives you more role opportunities. That has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with casting and being more believable for a bigger group of people. That is how the world works.

I haven't read the full discussion on the actors and being gay thing, mainly because too many words and I'm hungover and it's too much for my soul.

But my personal opinion in terms of sexuality, is that anyone can play any role as long as they themselves are comfortable and they can perform that specific role convincingly and don't attempt to water down or change anything in the process.

I think anyway we're all missing a very important point: Richard Madden is (potentially) a gay, and if that's not proof that God likes the gays I don't know what is. Also clearly time for @ryan to introduce himself and become the first Mr Madden