Richard E Grant says straight people should not play gay characters

[Deleted User] · 09-12-2019 11:27am #1

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 · 09-12-2019 11:31am

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

Seamai · 09-12-2019 11:34am

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

Wibbs · 09-12-2019 11:35am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:36am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:39am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:41am

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.

[Deleted User] · 09-12-2019 11:46am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:50am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:51am

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

splinter65 · 09-12-2019 11:51am

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

gmisk · 09-12-2019 11:53am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:53am

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 · 09-12-2019 11:56am

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.

[Deleted User] · 09-12-2019 11:56am

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 · 09-12-2019 12:01pm

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 · 09-12-2019 12:05pm

Wibbs wrote: »

"Perfumed ponce"*...

*apt film reference.

What fcuker said that?

LineOfBeauty · 09-12-2019 12:12pm

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 · 09-12-2019 12:14pm

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 · 09-12-2019 12:24pm

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 · 09-12-2019 12:41pm

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 · 09-12-2019 12:59pm

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 · 09-12-2019 1:08pm

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.

[Deleted User] · 09-12-2019 1:09pm

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 · 09-12-2019 1:10pm

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

CrabRevolution · 09-12-2019 1:12pm

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 · 09-12-2019 1:21pm

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 · 09-12-2019 1:27pm

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 · 09-12-2019 2:40pm

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?

[Deleted User] · 09-12-2019 2:54pm

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 · 09-12-2019 3:29pm

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

Richard E Grant says straight people should not play gay characters

Comments