I like the thoughtful way the article addresses the issue, but I wonder whether the same objection applies to a gay actor playing a straight role. Is that idea that actors should play on roles that match their sexual orientation? That seems unduly restrictive — they are, after all, *acting*, and if a gay actor can deliver a credible performance in a straight role (cf. Rock Hudson in the Doris Day comedies), I don't think the actor should be denied the part simply because of a mismatch between the actor's sexuality and that of the character.
Yes, it seems that part of the argument some people are making is that straight actors should be able to play gay roles and gay actors should be able to play straight roles, though it seems the latter is still slightly harder for people to wrap their heads aroud.
The generalized question seems easier to answer: Is it required that an actor's sexuality match that of the character being played? I think not. One problem that would then arise is then casting directors would become intrusive in matters some deem private and might think irrelevant to their performance. It's also interesting that some actors play roles whose character is a different sex — Mary Martin as Peter Pan is a famous example, but also Glenda Jackson played Lear, and Tilda Swinton can play any role they want.
If straight actors should not play gay roles, they gay actors should not play straight roles. That seems equitable. But in fact, what the show needs and what the audience wants is a creditable performance, and whether the actor is in real life gay or straight, courageous or a coward, warm and loving or cold and distant is beside the point. it's the *character* and the credibility of the character that is the point.
Fantastic article. Feels like the *brand* of queer audiences are used to is successfully executed by straight actors but the nuance is frightening since the public would have to identify with and empathize with (outside of tragedy) a queer person who is a lot like them. I almost believe that if there were space for more queer actors to have the luxury of “suspending disbelief”, we’d be forced to start having the same respect for queer sexuality we do for straight people.
I like the thoughtful way the article addresses the issue, but I wonder whether the same objection applies to a gay actor playing a straight role. Is that idea that actors should play on roles that match their sexual orientation? That seems unduly restrictive — they are, after all, *acting*, and if a gay actor can deliver a credible performance in a straight role (cf. Rock Hudson in the Doris Day comedies), I don't think the actor should be denied the part simply because of a mismatch between the actor's sexuality and that of the character.
Yes, it seems that part of the argument some people are making is that straight actors should be able to play gay roles and gay actors should be able to play straight roles, though it seems the latter is still slightly harder for people to wrap their heads aroud.
The generalized question seems easier to answer: Is it required that an actor's sexuality match that of the character being played? I think not. One problem that would then arise is then casting directors would become intrusive in matters some deem private and might think irrelevant to their performance. It's also interesting that some actors play roles whose character is a different sex — Mary Martin as Peter Pan is a famous example, but also Glenda Jackson played Lear, and Tilda Swinton can play any role they want.
If straight actors should not play gay roles, they gay actors should not play straight roles. That seems equitable. But in fact, what the show needs and what the audience wants is a creditable performance, and whether the actor is in real life gay or straight, courageous or a coward, warm and loving or cold and distant is beside the point. it's the *character* and the credibility of the character that is the point.
Fantastic article. Feels like the *brand* of queer audiences are used to is successfully executed by straight actors but the nuance is frightening since the public would have to identify with and empathize with (outside of tragedy) a queer person who is a lot like them. I almost believe that if there were space for more queer actors to have the luxury of “suspending disbelief”, we’d be forced to start having the same respect for queer sexuality we do for straight people.
great point!