Richard E Grant says straight people should not play gay characters

Interesting article/idea.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/movies/richard-e-grant-wants-gay-actors-to-play-gay-characters/ar-BBXXWWB?ocid=spartanntp

What is your opinion on this?

Would the same go in reverse?

Would it be acceptable to tell gay people that they should play straight characters?

I personally think it is a ridiculous idea.

An actor is an actor. Hired to portray something he is not.

Should only murderers get to play murderers?

Should Tim Robbins' role in Shawshank gone to someone who has been in prison?

This is virtue signalling at it's peak.

suicide_circus

he played a piss artist in withnail & i and he's a tea totaller. moronic suggestion.

Seamai

What a load of rubbish, though he is a bit of a ponce so it would be like second nature to him.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Would it be acceptable to tell gay people that they should play straight characters?

It would reduce the potential casting list anyway.

An actor is an actor. Hired to portray something he is not.

Probably Grant's most well known performance was of a drink and drug addled individual and Grant doesn't drink or take drugs. But yep, exactly. That's an actor's job, to pretend to be someone else entirely and the best do it very well.

This is virtue signalling at it's peak.

More about actor says daft things without the benefit of a script and channelling whatever is currently culturally in. That channelling thing seems to be a part of the type of person who is an actor, that need/ability to absorb and regurgitate and they've long been at it. To reflect what's around them. Back in the American McCarthy days enough of them were out looking for reds under the bed.

Plus asking people famous for doing one thing well and assuming they've any clue beyond that is a bit daft. Like any group some are clever, some are thick as two short planks and most are average. Though it's something our culture does too often, particularly with performers.

Wibbs

Seamai wrote: »

What a load of rubbish, though he is a bit of a ponce so it would be like second nature to him.

"Perfumed ponce"*...








*apt film reference.

gmisk

This is daft, his last big role which he was Oscar nominated for he was playing a gay man (can you ever forgive me?).
So he definitely isn't practising what he is preaching...

LineOfBeauty

Seamai wrote: »

What a load of rubbish, though he is a bit of a ponce so it would be like second nature to him.

Wow....

On the topic I don't think you can discriminate in that way, if a straight actor better fits the description of a character, if you think a big name straight actor can draw a large box office then it's justifiable.

That being said, I would like to see gay actors being given a greater opportunity to play gay roles. You go through a list of the greatest LGBTQ films ever made and I wonder how many of the actors in those films identify as the characters they are playing? It isn't about "only murderers should play murderers" but it is about representation and if gay actors aren't cast as straight characters (which historically in Hollywood has been a huge issue for out gay actors) then it does leave a sour taste that gay actors can't even be cast in films that represent their lifestyle.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

That being said, I would like to see gay actors being given a greater opportunity to play gay roles. You go through a list of the greatest LGBTQ films ever made and I wonder how many of the actors in those films identify as the characters they are playing? It isn't about "only murderers should play murderers" but it is about representation and if gay actors aren't cast as straight characters (which historically in Hollywood has been a huge issue for out gay actors) then it does leave a sour taste that gay actors can't even be cast in films that represent their lifestyle.

How do you think gay people should be given a greater opportunity? Can they not audition like every other person of any given sexual preference?

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you think gay people should be given a greater opportunity? Can they not audition like every other person of any given sexual preference?

I'm not saying they shouldn't audition. I am saying that roles for gay actors, particularly lead roles, are in extremely short supply. I'm not sure what the solution is, maybe some form of "Rooney Rule." Though I will say as someone who watches a lot of LGBTQ cinema, some of the best films of the genre and some of the very best performances have come from actors who identify as LGBTQ.

El Weirdo

Go with it. It's society's crime, not ours.

splinter65

A has been desperate for attention, jumping on a bandwagon, virtue signalling....any combination of these 3.

gmisk

splinter65 wrote: »

A has been desperate for attention, jumping on a bandwagon, virtue signalling....any combination of these 3.

Your considered a has been when you got an Oscar nomination last year.....tough crowd.

I don't agree with him but he is in no way a has been...

splinter65

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Wow....

On the topic I don't think you can discriminate in that way, if a straight actor better fits the description of a character, if you think a big name straight actor can draw a large box office then it's justifiable.

That being said, I would like to see gay actors being given a greater opportunity to play gay roles. You go through a list of the greatest LGBTQ films ever made and I wonder how many of the actors in those films identify as the characters they are playing? It isn't about "only murderers should play murderers" but it is about representation and if gay actors aren't cast as straight characters (which historically in Hollywood has been a huge issue for out gay actors) then it does leave a sour taste that gay actors can't even be cast in films that represent their lifestyle.

If I was a gay actor I’d only want to get the role because i did the best audition, not because I was gay. I’d assume every actor feels the same?

LineOfBeauty

splinter65 wrote: »

If I was a gay actor I’d only want to get the role because i did the best audition, not because I was gay. I’d assume every actor feels the same?

I agree, not saying the best actor or most appropriate actor shouldn't get the role. Rather I think a higher percentage of gay actors should be considered for gay roles. Whether that means putting in a minimum quota of gay actors that should be considered for roles I'm not sure.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not saying they shouldn't audition. I am saying that roles for gay actors, particularly lead roles, are in extremely short supply. I'm not sure what the solution is, maybe some form of "Rooney Rule." Though I will say as someone who watches a lot of LGBTQ cinema, some of the best films of the genre and some of the very best performances have come from actors who identify as LGBTQ.

I still don't see what you are proposing though?

Gay people and straight people get to audition for a role as it stands.

To enforce that a gay person MUST be auditioned or that more gay people should be seen for a role is absurd in my opinion.

The best person should get the job.

How would a Rooney Rule enhance a persons chances when the chance already exists?

splinter65

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I agree, not saying the best actor or most appropriate actor shouldn't get the role. Rather I think a higher percentage of gay actors should be considered for gay roles. Whether that means putting in a minimum quota of gay actors that should be considered for roles I'm not sure.

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that if 35 actors are to be auditioned for a gay role that a % must be gay? What if the right actor for the role doesn’t make the 35 cut because a gay actor whose not suitable at all has to be included?

Large bottle small glass

Wibbs wrote: »

"Perfumed ponce"*...








*apt film reference.

What fcuker said that?

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

I still don't see what you are proposing though?

Gay people and straight people get to audition for a role as it stands.

To enforce that a gay person MUST be auditioned or that more gay people should be seen for a role is absurd in my opinion.

The best person should get the job.

How would a Rooney Rule enhance a persons chances when the chance already exists?

I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying I think Grant has something of a point in that gay actors do get a bit of a raw deal from straight and gay films and that is unfortunate.

I'm not saying a Rooney Rule solves everything, it's just an idea. It does seem to have improved representation for black coaches in the NFL, is it perfect? No. But an improvement on the current situation is better than nothing.

Representation is important for minority groups, and having actors being given opportunities to ply their craft is important too and, too often, we only see gay actors relegated to the roles of sidekicks or we don't see them at all.

LineOfBeauty

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that if 35 actors are to be auditioned for a gay role that a % must be gay? What if the right actor for the role doesn’t make the 35 cut because a gay actor whose not suitable at all has to be included?

I'm not particularly advocating for that, just that it is an idea that might improve things. And I do think if you're having a casting session for an LGBTQ film with a list of 35 actors for a role and none of them are LGBTQ then I would say yes, there is something fundamentally wrong about that.

seamus

There is logic in what he's putting forward. This is not a new argument.

It sounds absurd to suggest that an actor can't pretend to be someone else. Because it is absurd. But at the same time, all of the best performances come from the actor having a strong connection to the character, a deep personal understanding of them.

The point is that gay (and trans, disabled, black, etc) actors are discriminated against more than their straight colleagues. They have a more difficult time getting called for auditions, they are less likely to be cast for a role when they do audition, and they are likely to be offered less money.

So when an a role comes up which is one of these marginalised groups, it's a double kick in the teeth when a straight actor is cast in the role.

Straight actors should be more aware of this, of when they're being cast in a role that there would be definitely be someone more suitable (like whatsherface American woman playing a Japanese manga character), and should be more vocal about speaking out and supporting actors who are members of marginalised groups.

This started happening for women actors in the nineties, when their male co-stars started insisting on equal representation for them. There's no good reason why the same respect shouldn't be extended across the specturm.

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not particularly advocating for that, just that it is an idea that might improve things. And I do think if you're having a casting session for an LGBTQ film with a list of 35 actors for a role and none of them are LGBTQ then I would say yes, there is something fundamentally wrong about that.

Improve things for whom though is what I’m wondering. Improve things for individual actors who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or if they’re black there’s a whole other set of terminology that has to be considered if the idea is representation for representations sake as opposed to producing and directing films that portray a narrative that people will want to watch, and will therefore convert into revenue for investors. Outside of Indie films I can’t think of too many films where the idea of representation would amount to anything other than tokenism tbh.

It doesn’t mean that actors who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex shouldn’t be considered for roles in film and television and I can think of dozens of actors who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, not many who are transgender tbh, but what I’m saying is that in any film, it’s the story being told and how it’s told, is more important than the actors gender or sexual orientation which makes up it’s parts.

Films such as “Boys Don’t Cry”, “Brokeback Mountain”, “Dallas Buyers Club” wouldn’t have attracted any investment or been as successful as they were if there had been previously unknown actors playing the same roles. What was important was the story and how it was told. But in order to have that story told, they had to attract investment, and the only way to do that was to use already established actors. That’s the best kind of representation there is - a great actor who inspires people, as opposed to just hiring a great actor on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation to play a role in a film because the story is about being either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. It’s limiting actors more than it’s liberating them to be able to immerse themselves in the role, as that’s what makes an actor great - is their ability to convince an audience they’re something they aren’t.

Effects

splinter65 wrote: »

If I was a gay actor I’d only want to get the role because i did the best audition, not because I was gay. I’d assume every actor feels the same?

I think a lot of actors are happy to get the job no matter what. What's wrong with having an extra hand in the process. It happens in lots of different job sectors.

Donnielighto

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not particularly advocating for that, just that it is an idea that might improve things. And I do think if you're having a casting session for an LGBTQ film with a list of 35 actors for a role and none of them are LGBTQ then I would say yes, there is something fundamentally wrong about that.

You had a go at the industry and then when asked about details there's this hand waving oh I didn't suggest that. Youre in the same virtue signalling not thought through boat granted is paddling in.

Fair enough. But only straight actors should play straight roles.

And only a transgender woman should play Mrs Doubtfire.

Only mentally disturbed should play Joker like characters.

And this is a must, and I'll not back down, only dead actors should play historical figures.

buried

'A trained actor reduced to the status of a bum'

CrabRevolution

seamus wrote: »

There is logic in what he's putting forward. This is not a new argument.

It sounds absurd to suggest that an actor can't pretend to be someone else. Because it is absurd. But at the same time, all of the best performances come from the actor having a strong connection to the character, a deep personal understanding of them.

The point is that gay (and trans, disabled, black, etc) actors are discriminated against more than their straight colleagues. They have a more difficult time getting called for auditions, they are less likely to be cast for a role when they do audition, and they are likely to be offered less money.

So when an a role comes up which is one of these marginalised groups, it's a double kick in the teeth when a straight actor is cast in the role.

Straight actors should be more aware of this, of when they're being cast in a role that there would be definitely be someone more suitable (like whatsherface American woman playing a Japanese manga character), and should be more vocal about speaking out and supporting actors who are members of marginalised groups.

This started happening for women actors in the nineties, when their male co-stars started insisting on equal representation for them. There's no good reason why the same respect shouldn't be extended across the specturm.

I'm sure it's true in some cases, but I don't agree with this.

Nobody can personally relate to what happens in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, yet there's great acting performances there.

The best actor oscar has gone to plenty of people who had nothing to do with their roles. Matthew McConaughey wasn't an AIDS patient in the 80s so wasn't acting out his experience in Dallas Buyers Club. Russell crow had no personal connection to Roman gladiators and won for Gladiator. Did Forrest Whitaker identify with Idi Amin? Did DiCaprio live the experience of a 19th century hunter?

This thread has turned into "I'm not saying gay roles should be ringfenced for gay actors, but gay roles should be ringfenced for gay actors"

osarusan

I can understand the idea of more minorities in cinema, but I think it's a hamfisted way of going about it, and possibly, would lead to minority actors being really stereotyped in their roles.


The best actors find the way to identify with and embody their characters, even if they have no original similarities.

Also, films are investments out to make a profit, and will often favour bankable stars over a genuine depiction of a character/quality of a character.

seamus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Nobody can personally relate to what happens in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, yet there's great acting performances there.

They relate to the characters. To the experiences they've been written to have, to their points of view, to their nature. In much the same way that the audiences do.

I'm not saying that straight actors can play straight people better than gay actors can. But they will have direct personal experience that they can bring to the role (and the production as a whole) to enhance it.

For every great performance by someone completely out of their nature, there are ten abominations where the failure to bring in someone with lived experience made the role a complete joke.

This thread has turned into "I'm not saying gay roles should be ringfenced for gay actors, but gay roles should be ringfenced for gay actors"

I haven't actually seen anyone suggest that.

Merely that casting directors should be more aware of their conscious biases. As the man above says; I've you've called 30 people to audition for a gay role and none of them are gay, then something is broken in your process.

Especially given the outrageous overrepresentation of gay men in the business.

batman_oh

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not saying they shouldn't audition. I am saying that roles for gay actors, particularly lead roles, are in extremely short supply. I'm not sure what the solution is, maybe some form of "Rooney Rule." Though I will say as someone who watches a lot of LGBTQ cinema, some of the best films of the genre and some of the very best performances have come from actors who identify as LGBTQ.

They have exactly the same amount of roles that anybody else has. The point of acting is that you act - not that you go in and play yourself
Should we only hire Superman to play Superman?

batman_oh

batman_oh wrote: »

They have exactly the same amount of roles that anybody else has. The point of acting is that you act - not that you go in and play yourself
Should we only hire Superman to play Superman?

I suppose we could expect them to use the method approach to acting, and to, as it were, take one for the team.

Seamai

I wouldn't want him playing me, he wouldn't be butch enough.

facehugger99

The only programme I'm likely to get on is the ****ing news!

LineOfBeauty

Donnielighto wrote: »

You had a go at the industry and then when asked about details there's this hand waving oh I didn't suggest that. Youre in the same virtue signalling not thought through boat granted is paddling in.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I don't know even if there is a right answer to this. What I do know is that it is an issue, and that I think Grant makes some interesting points in the article and that I agree with them. Just because I agree with something doesn't mean I have to find a solution to an issue that has plagued LGBTQ cinema (and Hollywood) for decades.

LineOfBeauty

batman_oh wrote: »

They have exactly the same amount of roles that anybody else has. The point of acting is that you act - not that you go in and play yourself
Should we only hire Superman to play Superman?

That's pure whatabouttery. If films were being made about Supermen and Supermen were a minority group who either get typecasted as minor characters in mainstream films or cant find work at all based on their sexuality then I would say yes, Supermen should only be given Superman roles.

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I don't know even if there is a right answer to this. What I do know is that it is an issue, and that I think Grant makes some interesting points in the article and that I agree with them. Just because I agree with something doesn't mean I have to find a solution to an issue that has plagued LGBTQ cinema (and Hollywood) for decades.

Fair play for that much at least, but I disagree with how Grant is framing the issue as one of a lack of representation in the very small number of films that are made which represent all these various issues. I also disagree with his proposals which are meant as a way of addressing the lack of representation in film of characters who are either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. I would suggest that a better way to address the issue of representation is simply to make better films that people will want to watch and be inspired by.

One that always comes to my mind anyway is the film Predestination, of which Hawkes said of the film -


The lead character was variously described as transgender or intersex in different media articles. Hawke told The Guardian that transgender issues are not the focal point of the film, but rather that the narrative is relevant to all people: "There's something about Predestination that actually does get at identity, for me".


The film wouldn’t have worked as it did if the focus of attention was on the gender or sexual orientation of the two actors playing the one character.

batman_oh

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

That's pure whatabouttery. If films were being made about Supermen and Supermen were a minority group who either get typecasted as minor characters in mainstream films or cant find work at all based on their sexuality then I would say yes, Supermen should only be given Superman roles.

And your point is nonsense. Why can't a gay person play a straight person? They are actors. That's literally the whole point of the job. You have no actual point claiming there are no roles for them.

They are pretty crap actors if they can't pretend to be something they are not - therefore don't deserve the job.

LineOfBeauty

batman_oh wrote: »

And your point is nonsense. Why can't a gay person play a straight person. They are actors. That's the whole point of the job. you literally have no point claiming there are no roles for them

Sure go ahead then, name me some mainstream films in which an openly gay actor is playing straight lead roles?

Then tell me how many straight actors are playing gay roles.

Finally, find me the ridiculously disproportionate number.

I'm not saying I have a solution, but to not acknowledge that it is an issue is to stick one's head in the sand.

WrenBoy

seamus wrote: »

The point is that gay (and trans, disabled, black, etc) actors are discriminated against more than their straight colleagues. They have a more difficult time getting called for auditions, they are less likely to be cast for a role when they do audition, and they are likely to be offered less money.

How are they discriminated against ? How is it easier to get an acting role as a straight person than a gay person ?
Its true that there are more white leading men and women in movies here because thats the majority demographic of the cinema going audience, I would expect African movies to be mostly black actors and Bollywood actors to be mostly Indian.

seamus wrote: »

Straight actors should be more aware of this, of when they're being cast in a role that there would be definitely be someone more suitable (like whatsherface American woman playing a Japanese manga character), and should be more vocal about speaking out and supporting actors who are members of marginalised groups.

Please don't hire me. My dream is to be an actor but unless the role is for a 5'10 straight man from Ireland with dark hair who never had anything too extreme or noteworthy happen to him I wont do it, gosh I hope that part comes along so I can pay rent this month.

tdf7187

Bit ironic as the character he played in The Player was very camp.

Withnail was also a bit camp, though his first and only love was of course the booze.

Effects

Aren't all his characters a bit camp?

ceadaoin.

There arent that many openly gay actors in Hollywood, despite many big names who are rumored to be gay. Maybe the industry should tackle the homophobia problem first that makes gay actors afraid to come out because they will lose out on leading man or love interest roles.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I’m rewatching Six Feet Under currently. I love Michael C. Hall’s and Mathew St. Patrick’s portrayals of gay men. Their real life sexuality (I think they are both straight) isn’t a factor. I just rewatched Call Me By Your Name. Imagine not casting Timothée Chalamet in the role of Elio because he’s straight? That would have been a huge mistake.

LineOfBeauty

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There arent that many openly gay actors in Hollywood, despite many big names who are rumored to be gay. Maybe the industry should tackle the homophobia problem first that makes gay actors afraid to come out because they will lose out on leading man or love interest roles.

Those are 2 things that are very closely linked. Historically big name Hollywood leading men led a secretly gay lifestyle, the choice is you either don't come out or you basically fall off the face of the Earth professionally.

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Sure go ahead then, name me some mainstream films in which an openly gay actor is playing straight lead roles?

Then tell me how many straight actors are playing gay roles.

Finally, find me the ridiculously disproportionate number.

I'm not saying I have a solution, but to not acknowledge that it is an issue is to stick one's head in the sand.

I think you’ll find that there are far more openly gay actors playing straight roles than there are openly straight actors playing gay roles, simply because the number of films where being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender as the central theme of the film, is a reflection of the numbers of people who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender in society.

There simply aren’t that many films where being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is the theme of the film, and so to demand that only lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender actors play those roles is stereotyping as opposed to representation, pigeonholing actors into roles that only exist to give them something to do.

The whole idea simply reeks of political representation as opposed to being able to judge an actor on their suitability for a role.

LineOfBeauty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you’ll find that there are far more openly gay actors playing straight roles than there are openly straight actors playing gay roles, simply because the number of films where being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender as the central theme of the film, is a reflection of the numbers of people who are either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender in society.

There simply aren’t that many films where being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is the theme of the film, and so to demand that only lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender actors play those roles is stereotyping as opposed to representation, pigeonholing actors into roles that only exist to give them something to do.

The whole idea simply reeks of political representation as opposed to being able to judge an actor on their suitability for a role.

I'm not being smart but I'm sitting here trying to think of openly gay actors playing lead roles in mainstream films and I'm really coming up short. Obviously there's a far smaller pool of actors to choose from (that being openly gay actors) but there is a far bigger pool of movies with predominately straight leads, so the numbers should balance out if all is fair? Can you give me any examples of gay actors playing lead straight roles? Because I'm fairly certain that of the limited number of LGBTQ films that are made I can give you many examples of straight actors playing lead roles.

Seamai

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m rewatching Six Feet Under currently. I love Michael C. Hall’s and Mathew St. Patrick’s portrayals of gay men. Their real life sexuality (I think they are both straight) isn’t a factor. I just rewatched Call Me By Your Name. Imagine not casting Timothée Chalamet in the role of Elio because he’s straight? That would have been a huge mistake.

You watched Call Me By Your Name" twice? Once was too long for me, I nearly died of stultification, I would say the most overrated film of 2018 for me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Seamai wrote: »

You watched Call Me By Your Name" twice? Once was too long for me, I nearly died of stultification, I would say the most overrated film of 2018 for me.

Yes and I can’t wait to watch it again. I didn’t watch it when it was out and ignored the hype. I watched it for the first time this year and just happened to love it. I didn’t think I would but it has stayed with me. Very few films do.

ceadaoin.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not being smart but I'm sitting here trying to think of openly gay actors playing lead roles in mainstream films and I'm really coming up short. Obviously there's a far smaller pool of actors to choose from (that being openly gay actors) but there is a far bigger pool of movies with predominately straight leads, so the numbers should balance out if all is fair? Can you give me any examples of gay actors playing lead straight roles? Because I'm fairly certain that of the limited number of LGBTQ films that are made I can give you many examples of straight actors playing lead roles.

Not a film, but honestly the only time I can think of that an openly gay actor played a straight character with a female love interest is Matt Bomer in american horror story.

LineOfBeauty

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not a film, but honestly the only time I can think of that an openly gay actor played a straight character with a female love interest is Matt Bomer in american horror story.

I do realise that there really isn't that many out gay actors (which, tbh I think is a symptom of what Grant is saying in a way) but given the endless amount of films made every year with heterosexual characters, can't we get even a few gay actors to play those lead straight roles?

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not being smart but I'm sitting here trying to think of openly gay actors playing lead roles in mainstream films and I'm really coming up short. Obviously there's a far smaller pool of actors to choose from (that being openly gay actors) but there is a far bigger pool of movies with predominately straight leads, so the numbers should balance out if all is fair? Can you give me any examples of gay actors playing lead straight roles? Because I'm fairly certain that of the limited number of LGBTQ films that are made I can give you many examples of straight actors playing lead roles.

I know you’re not being smart but it didn’t take me two minutes on Google, and this list is by no means comprehensive -

Gay actors who play straight characters

I know you can give me many examples of openly straight actors who play lead roles in the small number of films that are made about lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender stories, but that’s because like I said - there just aren’t that many (well-known at least) films made where being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is the theme of the film, simply because the reality is that they don’t put bums on seats - they offer a poor return on their investment.

With streaming media there are no end of low-budget, high-quality films and television series in which the themes centre around sex and sexuality and the roles are played by actors who are either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, but they just aren’t popular enough to offer a good return on investment. They’re of little appeal to a much broader audience, where Hollywood tends to be more concerned with churning out some awful crap that caters to the broadest audience possible.

Have to say though Wonder Woman was an exception

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not a film, but honestly the only time I can think of that an openly gay actor played a straight character with a female love interest is Matt Bomer in american horror story.

TR Knight played a straight character in Grey’s Anatomy.