-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Disney casts their first openly gay character, is played by a straight man, will be a stereotype
- Thread starter Razmos
- Start date
So much truth in these posts.
The question I have, is why is the role a "camp act" to begin with? Why is that the story they want to tell in the first place? And the most likely answer to that question is, whether they realize it themselves or not, is because that's what the large chunk of gay roles in the media amount to, even now: either characters just thrown in the background and if you blink you'll miss them, or the effeminate, flamboyant, campy stereotype. And because of that, straight people, who largely depend on media representation for what their mental image or a gay person is, when they try to envision one, that stereotype pops up in their heads. Because most straight people, being exposed to that all their lives and that being all they have to go on, even if they fully realize not ALL gay people like that, figure that it must at least be more common or make up the majority of gay people or whatever, because why else would that make up so many of the depictions then? That simply must be what they're like! It must, it must, because it's everywhere!
And that's why actual gay representation, having actual gay voices involved matters so much. Because yeah, some gay people like that are like that, sure. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! That's a fine way to be! But just like with straight people, just like with heterosexual individuals, we have such tremendous, tremendous diversity in personalities, hobbies, interests, just like with anyone else. But from media, you wouldn't know that. You'd think we ARE different from everyone else, in some way other than just who we love. And that's why gay people need to be involved in stuff like this, to make sure that their voices and perspectives are heard so that those kind of pitfalls can be avoided. Because this is the type of thing that say straight white men don't have to worry about at all. They're the majority. They're the default. How they're depicted in film doesn't affect anything, because they're not underrepresented, they're not the minority, and they know that doesn't mean anything. But with minorities, it's different. This type of thing, whether we like it or not, does affect how people see us. It does affect how people think about us. And that's why representation matters so much.
And of course, it's easy to say that things have gotten better particularly in recent years, with people pointing to particular examples like Moonlight and stuff and that's great to see. Indeed it is. But at the same time, if that's indeed the case, if thing have truly gotten better, if things have truly changed on that front, then why is it then when Disney goes to cast their first openly gay character in a major role, they apparently are not only NOT casting an actual gay person for that role, but go back back to that tried-and-true stereotype? Why does that happen? If straight people have TRULY realized that's not the sum and total of all that we are, that we're so much more than that and just as diverse as anyone else, then why, in their first openly gay role of all things, not only not cast an actual gay actor for that role, but go back to a straight person doing a gay stereotype of all things?
Because there's ultimately no way around the fact that to many straight people, who have never talked to so much as one single gay person in their lives or perhaps only just ever have had the one gay friend, that IS all we are to them. That IS what they think of when they see the words "gay" or "homosexual" because they, like everyone else, could only rely on media to fill in the blanks for what a gay person "is" or "isn't" and that is the answer media gave them and so, of course, without actually talking to any gay people themselves, that's the same image they'd regurgitate themselves.
And so what will happen if this film does release like this, with nothing changed? Well, we're right back to where we started. Because, particularly with it being such a big premier role, with it being THE first openly major role for a gay character in a Disney film, that will only influence more people to see gay people in that exact same light all over again. That that is all we "are." Because after all, if that's not the case, why are their so many roles like that? And not only so many roles, but THE role as well? THE first openly gay role in a Disney film, of all things? They simply MUST be all like that, or if not all them, at least most of them, because why else would that have happened right? That simply must be a thing, it just doesn't make sense otherwise.
But of course that's all gibberish and hogwash because we're so much more than that and just as diverse as anyone else. But whether straight people realize it or not, whether they accept it or not, stuff like this does affect how we're seen and how people treat us. Because regardless of how stupid it is, regardless of how nonsensical it all is, those kind of media representations are how most people form their image of what it means to be gay and of other minorities, not being that likely to encounter such individuals in their personal lives or anything.
And that's why gay people need to be involved in projects like this, to give their input and criticism and feedback if nothing else. To avoid issues like that. Because stuff like this shouldn't be an issue. But that Disney's apparently making this decision can only indicate to me that they haven't done their homework at all on this. Because for their first openly gay character of all things? Not only not casting an actual gay actor, but seemingly going back to the tried-and-true gay stereotype of all things? HOW does that happen to begin with? WHY is that the "role" to begin with? Why would that be what they think of when they think up a gay character? WHY would that be the description of all things, when we're so much more diverse than that? When there's so much more to us that that? Why go back to that and make that the role of all things? And as outlined, I can think of no good reason for that. And regardless, the effects will be the same--it just causes more people to see us THAT way and be surprised and confused and taken off guard when they learn their's more to us than that, every single time. And I'd rather not go through that hullabaloo and just have better representation and decisions made regarding this type of thing, but alas, the more things change I guess... The more things change...
On one hand... people complained that an openly gay woman wasn't gay 'enough' to play Batwoman.
In this day and age there's a backlash against everything.
On the disney shit... has no-one ever seen a disney film?
The always go for the stereotype when building characters, you can't be surprised by that shit anymore.
In this day and age there's a backlash against everything.
On the disney shit... has no-one ever seen a disney film?
The always go for the stereotype when building characters, you can't be surprised by that shit anymore.
This guy (Miguel Angel Silvestre) acted as gay in sense 8 and it was pretty legit. He even also acted as a Mexican when he's from Spain.
And yeah, he's straight. I don't see the problem here.
You don't see the problem with Disney going "THIS IS OUR FIRST OPENLY GAY CHARACTER LOOK AT HOW PROGRESSIVE WE ARE!" and then making that person both a stereotype and someone who isn't gay?
Do you think that a gay actor would portrait better the role in this movie just because he's gay? I don't know about that.
You know, every gay person has different personalities too just like another person in this world.
How utterly convenient that apparently apparently that there is not a single gay actor that could do the role better than a C list British actor.
I would be the first person in criticize this movie if the actor is not good or his acting is bad.
Yeah I agree that this actor seems pretty bad. Probably there is better options out there.
This guy (Miguel Angel Silvestre) acted as gay in sense 8 and it was pretty legit. He even also acted as a Mexican when he's from Spain.
And yeah, he's straight. I don't see the problem here.
Cause you're seeing but not listening. Wrong sense mate
I have no problem with gay actors playing straight people and vice-versa, but if Disney is going to make a point about it's first gay character maybe they could've chosen someone who is not a c-list celebrity that is know for being camp?
OP
OP
Sense 8 also had LGBT writers, producers and directors who helped to make the role authentic.This guy (Miguel Angel Silvestre) acted as gay in sense 8 and it was pretty legit. He even also acted as a Mexican when he's from Spain.
And yeah, he's straight. I don't see the problem here.
Acting always has been about being or playing another person. I think you can be gay and still act as an hetero character and the other way around.
It sounds like a slippery slope to me if actors can only play characters if they are share the characters thoughts and preferences. But hey, that's just my opinion and it's okay if you dont agree.
It sounds like a slippery slope to me if actors can only play characters if they are share the characters thoughts and preferences. But hey, that's just my opinion and it's okay if you dont agree.
I did like Michael C Hall in Six Feet Under as a gay man.
I know the show is old. But I liked his casting quite a bit.
But who knows.. an actual gay person could have made a big break by being cast into that role for a major network.
I know the show is old. But I liked his casting quite a bit.
But who knows.. an actual gay person could have made a big break by being cast into that role for a major network.
Nope.
The actor is just the mouthpiece; if Whitehall plays the part well, I don't see any problem with this. He's a funny guy, and easy on the eyes too...I hope this is a breakout role for him.
Exactly, as if you'd be able to find a camp gay man in Hollywood. It's no wonder they had to widen the net to grab those upper middle class British comedians.
But let's not forget his star power. He's appeared on panel shows on BBC2 and Channel 4! Just think of the worldwide audience that he'd bring to an obscure no-name studio like Disney.
So I also assume you don't understand what the big deal is about Scarlett Johanson playing someone who is transgender?
LGBT Folks are like one of the only minorities who are systematically locked out from telling their own stories and representing themselves, and where that's treated as normal.
Sean Penn will never play MLK Jr but no one bats an eye when he plays Milk
Eddie Redmayne will never play Queen Victoria but no one bats an eye when he plays Lili Elbe
Cis Straight Hollywood constantly wears our skins, tells our stories, lock us out, pressures us to stay in the closet, and dominant society says y'all should be grateful.
Sean Penn will never play MLK Jr but no one bats an eye when he plays Milk
Eddie Redmayne will never play Queen Victoria but no one bats an eye when he plays Lili Elbe
Cis Straight Hollywood constantly wears our skins, tells our stories, lock us out, pressures us to stay in the closet, and dominant society says y'all should be grateful.
Nope. Nope, nope, nope, nope nope. No slippery slope. Gay people are marginalized and underrepresented, straight people aren't. That's why. That being the case, this is a particular issue with minorities such as homosexuals because our depictions on the silver screen DO affect how the majority see us, whereas depictions of straight white men don't cause people to start believing stereotypes about them, not in the same ways because being the majority, they know it doesn't work that way and apply to them.
Or see these helpful posts:
So what you are saying is that "I don't see the problem!" yet immediately go on the defensive when asked something that has been widely considered a bad move even though they are both the same thing?
The problem is that Disney is propogating this as a big "win" for the LGBT community when they are also shunning the exact group with this casting.
What do they mean by gay? Snogging a big hairy bloke gay or swishing around in a tight sweater giving bitchy fashion tips to his girlfriends gay?
Don't answer that.
Don't answer that.
How many gay actors have the chance to do that, in comparison to the other way around?
You can't half-step progress because the people and systems in place against the disenfranchised group have operated, and continue to operate, at full-step. Promoting this character as Disney's first openly gay character but somehow being unable to find a gay actor to fill the role just feels like an empty platitude, especially if he turns out to be "very camp" like described in the OP.
They are not the same thing, not even remotely.
And as a member of that group that's apparently being shunned here, I don't see a problem. Straight actors like Eric McCormack made my life a hell of a lot easier coming out in high school, so as far as I'm concerned this is a great move on Disney's part.
This is your argument:
So you don't understand, ok, fine, I've tried to explain to you why others have a problem (including those who are gay so don't you dare try to use the "I'm gay therefore I have a monopoly on their opinions") but you still refuse to even consider any other opinion but your own. What's your point? You don't understand therefore this argument is stupid? You don't understand therefore there is no problem? You don't understand therefore shut up and be grateful that this kind straight actor has the mercy to play a gay role? If you are so determined to be ignorant, than the question must ask why are you here to argue your lack of understanding?
How many gay actors applied for the role, or any gay role for that matter versus straight actors?
How many of them were good enough to actually secure the role?
Do you have the figures from each gay role available? Does anyone? Probably not.
Defending this C-tier british actor. Surely there's no gay actor that could've done this better, lmao yeah sure.
Is it? Where you present at casting?
They may have auditioned several LGBT actors but felt Whitehall was the better fit despite not being gay.
Y'know, another thing that I can't help but think of when topics like this and the Scarlett Johansson threads come up is "The Problem with Apu". Which, if people actually took the time to watch that and understand it, they'd realize that while at fist it might seem to not have too much to do with this particular topic, it's actually VERY relevant to it. And that's because among the issues that are discussed, among the effects the character of Apu has is that actual Indian and south-Asian actors get passed up all the time at roles depicting themselves, simply because they can't do the "Apu voice." Because when people like white Americans think of Indian individuals and the like, what often comes to mind for them is the Apu accent. And therefore, if someone can't do that voice, if someone can't do that stupid accent, then even if they are south Asian or Indian they must OBVIOUSLY not be the best person for the role. And so white people who can do that stupid accent get the part over them, because whether you can do that stupid, made-up, fake accent or not has unfortunately become a qualifier to get those kind of roles to many people.
And that's the type of thing I can't help but think is going on here. That it apparently doesn't matter if you actually are or aren't gay or whatever. What matters is if you can be THAT gay guy. The walking stereotype. Doesn't matter that that doesn't represent all gay guys. Doesn't matter that homosexual men are so much more than that. That's all the people calling the shots think gay people are, and so that becomes the qualifier.
And, just like with Apu, that's why actual representation matters here and it's important that gay individuals are involved and their feedback actually valued and listened to, or else you wind up in that same kind of situation. Those same kind of problems that arise from characters like Apu. Those same kind of stereotypes. That's the power they wield.
But of course, just like with The Problem with Apu, where actual Indian and South Asian voices are ignored because the white male majority think they know better and if they say there's no problems at all, then even if Indians and South Asians say otherwise well they must just not know what they'e talking about at all because there's simply no other possible explanation, I'm already fully bracing and expecting gay voices to be ignored here because obviously we have no clue what we're talking about when it comes to our communities and how this stuff affects us and stuff and obviously straight people would know better than us the kind of impact this stuff does or doesn't have, and since straight people apparently say this isn't the problem, and they're the majority and what they say goes, I guess that's all just that then. I'd like to be surprised and hope Disney actually does listen and take the feedback they're getting into account, but I know way better than to actually expect anything like that happening unfortunately.
And that's the type of thing I can't help but think is going on here. That it apparently doesn't matter if you actually are or aren't gay or whatever. What matters is if you can be THAT gay guy. The walking stereotype. Doesn't matter that that doesn't represent all gay guys. Doesn't matter that homosexual men are so much more than that. That's all the people calling the shots think gay people are, and so that becomes the qualifier.
And, just like with Apu, that's why actual representation matters here and it's important that gay individuals are involved and their feedback actually valued and listened to, or else you wind up in that same kind of situation. Those same kind of problems that arise from characters like Apu. Those same kind of stereotypes. That's the power they wield.
But of course, just like with The Problem with Apu, where actual Indian and South Asian voices are ignored because the white male majority think they know better and if they say there's no problems at all, then even if Indians and South Asians say otherwise well they must just not know what they'e talking about at all because there's simply no other possible explanation, I'm already fully bracing and expecting gay voices to be ignored here because obviously we have no clue what we're talking about when it comes to our communities and how this stuff affects us and stuff and obviously straight people would know better than us the kind of impact this stuff does or doesn't have, and since straight people apparently say this isn't the problem, and they're the majority and what they say goes, I guess that's all just that then. I'd like to be surprised and hope Disney actually does listen and take the feedback they're getting into account, but I know way better than to actually expect anything like that happening unfortunately.
We have plenty of talent in the industry, it's harder for a role to get to a gay actor than to a straight actor, which is the case of any minority in general. I've never heard of that actor that was cast, myself. It's certainly not name recognition, so they could've cast a gay actor if they wanted.
Should a gay actor be in the lead? Well yeah but
End of the day having it's first openly gay character on screen is more important I think.
Don't gay actors play straight people like all the time. The guy who played Gaston, Barney Stinson, Sheldon.
End of the day having it's first openly gay character on screen is more important I think.
Don't gay actors play straight people like all the time. The guy who played Gaston, Barney Stinson, Sheldon.
... Which would mean they intentionally chose a straight person over a gay person.
This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Of course, the idea that the straight person was better at "being" a gay person is ridiculous in itself. There are plenty of fantastic LGBT actors and many that are trying to break out. Hire one of them or make the damn character in the movie straight. It's insulting at this point.
It's about the difficulty in lgbtq people getting work/break out parts because they're lgbtq, and/or having to play straight characters to get work. We know there are good straight actors that can do the job, but that's not really the point.This guy (Miguel Angel Silvestre) acted as gay in sense 8 and it was pretty legit. He even also acted as a Mexican when he's from Spain.
And yeah, he's straight. I don't see the problem here.
As a straight white guy I just don't get what's so hard to understand here - or with similar areas such as being asked not to use the N word. Sure, in principle any actor should be able to play any role, and that's fine. Last night I watched Hamilton where black men portrayed white characters for example. Straight guys have played gay characters and vice versa. But c'mon folks context matters. The bigger picture matters.
It's more important that the first fully gay character (openly) in a Disney film is handled responsibly and with care than not. Part of that is considering who portrays that character and how that character is portrayed. Now sure, there's not enough information to know for sure one way or the other at this point: but casting a straight white comedian in what already sounds like a stereotypical role certainly is a cause for initial alarm bells to ring that Disney may not be handling this as well as they could. Because this isn't about the principle of equality but how Disney behave when the reality is one of inequality and lack of representation.
I know that, simply as an accident of birth, my life has been easier due to my sexual orientation and ethnicity. I also know gay friends have struggled or been abused (multiple times) for no other reason than their sexual orientation. I know that historically (perhaps even currently who knows) gay actors have pretended they're straight to protect their careers, that gay characters haven't been well represented vs straight characters. I know in short that there hasn't been fair representation and that the game has been skewed to certain sexual orientations and ethnicity. I know that there's been progress and a lot of improvement, but I know there's still a long way to go. In short the context tells me I shouldn't be grumbling for a principle of fairness vs a reality of unfairness and abuse; that I should listen and accept that the bigger picture may require the principle to be seen as a lower priority; that in this case it would be a better message to have a gay actor portray the first gay Disney character than a straight actor and the fact this looks not to be the case is causing an understandable backlash.
It's more important that the first fully gay character (openly) in a Disney film is handled responsibly and with care than not. Part of that is considering who portrays that character and how that character is portrayed. Now sure, there's not enough information to know for sure one way or the other at this point: but casting a straight white comedian in what already sounds like a stereotypical role certainly is a cause for initial alarm bells to ring that Disney may not be handling this as well as they could. Because this isn't about the principle of equality but how Disney behave when the reality is one of inequality and lack of representation.
I know that, simply as an accident of birth, my life has been easier due to my sexual orientation and ethnicity. I also know gay friends have struggled or been abused (multiple times) for no other reason than their sexual orientation. I know that historically (perhaps even currently who knows) gay actors have pretended they're straight to protect their careers, that gay characters haven't been well represented vs straight characters. I know in short that there hasn't been fair representation and that the game has been skewed to certain sexual orientations and ethnicity. I know that there's been progress and a lot of improvement, but I know there's still a long way to go. In short the context tells me I shouldn't be grumbling for a principle of fairness vs a reality of unfairness and abuse; that I should listen and accept that the bigger picture may require the principle to be seen as a lower priority; that in this case it would be a better message to have a gay actor portray the first gay Disney character than a straight actor and the fact this looks not to be the case is causing an understandable backlash.
User Banned (3 Days): Handwaving concerns over LGBT equality
People nowadays just love to get riled up over nothing, its a film, dudes an actor playing a role nothing more. Just people grabbing their pitchforks as per usual over nothing.
Just my opinion, dont see any issue with it. You're entitled to your own opinion as well.
OP
OP
Fuck off and actually read the thread, there are tons of great posts about why this is important and why people are offended that you have decided to skip over before saying this bullshit.
This is basically a thinly veiled "Damn SJW's!" post
And here's the "getting riled up over nothing" garbage post. Man, it's amazing how samey all these posts are when talking about an issue that affects a non-white heterosexual male.
I understand your argument just fine, I simply don't agree with it.
One day, when you're older and wiser, perhaps you'll understand that people can in fact understand your point of view while simultaneously not agreeing with it. But cool cartoon, bro.
And your opinion is wrong. Not all opinions are equal, some are are unintelligent and bigoted. Yours would fall into this category.
"Just wait until you realize that I interpret frustration as irrationality"
