"Better Off Ted" star Jonathan Slavin on Hollywood's internalized homophobia

IMDB's content is mainly user-generated, so they don't change things themselves generally, though they do review changes made by users. So anyone can fix the profile page. I just submitted a correction anyway.

"I have actively sought after some gay roles that I haven’t even been able to get seen for because they’ve said, "It’s not that kind of gay; we want Brokeback Mountain gay, so we’re only seeing straight guys."

^ "not that kind of gay?" what does brokeback mountain gay mean? something dramatic and heartbreaking? oh, hollywood...tsk.

"because we tend not to care if a straight guy plays a gay character as long as they’re cute."

^ oh man, this really reminds me of when the cop who is gay on southland was revealed. people were upset that he wasn't hot.

in general, i think it's not even the gay community that is the problem. i mean, hollywood in general usually has good looking stars, whether gay or straight.

they're gonna play all sorts of roles. Hollywood practically banks on their looks. you're cute, people love you, go see your movies, cha-ching! Jonathan does has a point, but i think when it comes to roles and casting, that isn't up to a whole community. whether the person is good looking or not...we don't cast them. there are always gonna be people who think so and so isn't hot, but there are those who DO find them hot.

pretty sure i explained that horribly. it's hard explaining stuff on the internet.

I also applaud his candor.  However, a lot of what he says is quite silly.  The idea that only a gay person should play a gay person, for example.  He talks about choosing "abs over politics", but casting is an area where politics doesn't belong.  Casting a movie is about choosing someone who can best bring the role to life, not about making a political statement.  The production makes the statement, as with "Milk", not the casting.

Remember, virtually every role is a situation of someone portraying someone else, i.e., someone DIFFERENT from themselves in various ways, usually in many ways.  In a context where the goal is to produce the best work of art possible, the only consideration of the casting should be to enhance as much as possible that goal. 

If you say that only a gay actor should play a gay person, then shouldn't you say that only a deaf actor should play a deaf character, only a blind actor should play a blind character, only a Slovakian actor should play a Slovakian character, only an American actor should play an American character, etc?  Just think of all the incredible performances we'd have missed.  To take the first example that pops into my head, Viggo Mortensen playing a Russian in Eastern Promises was one of the best examples of an actor losing himself in a role that I've ever seen.  And then of course there's Sean Penn in "Milk".  And Heath and Jake in BBM.  And most of Meryl Streep's career! 

Coming at it from another angle, if straight people can't play gay, then gay people can't play straight for the same reason.  Do we want to tell Neil Patrick Harris or the many other gay actors that they can't play straight roles? 

So if you consider the reality of what acting is, and then consider the goal of casting, the only reason to insist on gay actors for gay roles is to elevate political considerations above all other considerations.  That seems artistically unwise.  And it also further ghetto-izes gay actors, and by extension the whole gay community.  I for one don't want to go down that path.

I think our goals as they relate to actors should be two-fold:  1.  to create an artistic environment where sexual orientation has nothing to do with casting, so that gay actors have no roadblocks to employment for any role that they can properly perform; 2.  to create an overall environment gay friendly enough to entice all gay actors out of the closet.  When that happens the only thing that will matter when casting is done is who can best play the role in question.  And that's as it should be.

I *kind* of see what he's saying, and I think his heart is in the right place.  But he loses me with the talk of "schlubby gay guys" fetishizing straight actors.  I am SURE that does happen sometimes, but I highly doubt it's as often as he makes it seem.

That, to me, sounds a bit like sour grapes.  I might be wrong, or interpreting it wrong, but he sounds like he's bitter that he didn't get better parts in his career.  Which is a shame because he's a very memorable character actor and there's nothing at all wrong with just being that.

Heck, it's more than a lot of actors can say.

Well there are very few out big gay stars, isn't there? So straight guys are really the only option until people (aka. Tom Cruise) come out of the closet! :p

I've never heard him say that ONLY gay people should play gay people.

1) But the reality is that Out Gay Actors Are Discriminated Against regardless of what parts they are auditioning for.

"2) Being gay is one aspect of experience that an actor can bring to a roll just like being working class or being tall or being part of an ethnic group.

There is nothing wrong with actual blind casting but there is no such thing in Hollywood as actual blind casting.

So if out gay guys can't get hired to play straight characters if they are openly gay and gay guys can't get hired to play gay characters because we expect all gay characters to look, act and speak exactly like straight characters, only CERTAIN gay actors are going to be hired.

That is the part that is unfair and ignorant.

Just because an actress is black doesn't mean she's had the same experiences of the character she's playing and her experience of being black could be radically different than the part she's been asked to play.

However, being a black woman is a value-added element if an actress is called to portray a black woman because it gives her some insight into the character that a white actress wouldn't have.

Me and my girlfriends call it the Halle Berry syndrome.

Most African American women  who are not biracial don't look like Halle Berry (and I don't mean in terms of beauty but in terms of hair texture, skin tone and bone structure)

But for the longest time, every black female part was played by women who were biracial such that the idea of what a black woman looked like in films became skewed and it made it really difficult for black women who were not biracial  or who had dark skin, kinky/curly hair and broader features to get parts playing black female characters.

It matters not just because of what the actress looks like but also because of the experience she can bring to the part and how it reflects the culture in which we live.

Being black in America can be a radically different experience (on a day to day basis) if you have light skin, straight hair and less "african" features.  That's just the reality and therefore different black actresses can bring different kinds of experiences to the part.

But if Hollywood only wants black actresses who are ethinically indiscriminate  in appearance (Jennifer Beals, Rashida Jones for instance) to portray black female parts, it allows them to say they are hiring Black actresses without ever having to upset the staus quo in terms of visual representation and it doesn't tap into the rich experience and real diversity that exists amongst women who identify as Black or African-American.

So my point is, I don't think anyone is saying that ONLY gay actors should be hired to play gay parts of the fact that Directors, et al are reluctant to hire out gay actors BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY to play gay parts not only means that they are limiting the number of people who get to have those parts but it also means that the experience of being gay (which is siginificant and meaningful) isn't being brought to the part of gay characters and that is a great loss.

I've seen straight actors peform brilliantly in gay parts but it saddens me tremendously to know how many incredibly tallented gay actors there are who wouldn't even be considered to play those part (even if they were perfectly qualified) because they are openly gay.

I think it is simplistic to say that growing up straight and growing up gay in American culture don't mean very different things for men and that those experiences wouldn't be integral to what the actors brings to a part.

The feeling of being in love may be the same for all people who are in love (within their own heart) but the experience and ramifications of loving someone when you are gay or lesbian are very very different than they are if you are straight and it is a quality that can only be an asset to an actor who is meant to portray a gay character.

People always seem to respond to the kinds of things that Jonathan Slavin is saying with this idealist idea that "all things are equal" but they arent.

It would be lovely if an actor's sexual orientation wasn't even an issue when considering them for a part but we all know that that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)

Yes, we all know that there is discrimination in the industry, but in reality that isn't really important. As long as our stories are being told, regardless of the sexual orientation of the actor, that's all that matters.

I do not care if a gay or straight actor gets a role playing a gay character. I want good actors, gay or straight, to play good roles. Sexual orientation of the actor should not matter. My problem with Hollywood is that it self limits what roles gay actors can play by assuming that the public will not accept them. Maybe that's right or maybe not. We won't know for quite some time. I've seen this actor. He's a good actor who deserves work. That he is gay is irrelevant other than Hollywood using this to discriminate against him. Yes, members of a group (in this case other gays) can sometimes be the biggest bigots. That's true of any group. The harshest discrimination in a job that I can face can sometimes come from other African Americans. I do not think he should define the role as gay or straight, but whether it's a good role. By the same token, I do not think he should get a role for being gay. This is one of those areas in which race is not an applicable analogy. Race is external. Our sexual orientation is not. It's biological, but it is not visible biology. The key element is whether he fits the role. The closer, but imperfect, analogy would be a non-Jewish person playing Jewish. I also know casting can be extremely difficult because you use physical body language and looks to convey who a character is. You play on the audience emotions. If you want a guy who is a geek, you choose someone who looks like he could play a geek. It's unfair. But, that's the nature of the business. The looks issue is another topic, and a more complicated one.

I don't want to be mouth-all-mighty about this but that disconnect does happen for me when casting directors try to be color-blind in casting and wind up with biological impossibilities like The Huxtable Children. 

It was completely distracting every time they were on screen though I'm sure someone meant well and just wanted to convey the "visual diversity" within black family.

Me and all my friends just keep saying, "Who's children are Denise and Sandra?"  Both actresses were biracial but we were meant to just accept that Claire and Cliff were their biological parents even though I don't know any Black folks for whom that rang true.

My point is, White actors playing Black characters isn't really the right analogy because we're not talking specifically about what an actor looks like but about culture and identity and experience (which isn't necesarily something you can see)

I think Italian actors portraying Native American characters is a closer analogy because you're dealing with identity versus appearance (that's why I specificaly brought up ethnic indiscriminance in my example)

Because outwardly, you might think a person could be either but their experience of being Italian and Native American in the US could be radically different and the ability to bring that experience to a role is just part of what an actor has to offer.

A gay man isn't just a man who has sex with men.  A gay man is a man who's lived the experience of having something integral to and inextricably linked to his identity as a man (his sexual desire) criminalized, discriminated against, mocked and ridiculed. 

The degree of that conflict may differ from one man to another but all gay people have that shared experience (though it is different for lesbians)

Even those of us who've been lucky to have a relatively discrimnation-free life still live with that knowledge, that fear, that knowing, that desire to be accepted, that defiance and that need to be very much aware of ourselves and how others receive us.

For me, it isn't about whether or not a straight actor could research the experience of being gay (generically speaking)  it's about whether or not having that experience  as part of your life experience is an asset to playing a specifically gay character.  I think it is.

We as gay people are a minority that exist in a world that for the most part is by, about and for straight folks even to this day.  We have to fight to be seen, heard, considered and we have to constant remind folks that we exist.

We have been inundated with straight representation our whole lives. 

Every aspect of film, television, all cultural media, socialization has been about straight people.

Whether we want to or not, we have a lot more insight into what straight people in general are like or are expected to be like.   

So while we may not have the experience of being straight, we definitely know how to play it (sometimes just for the sake of survival)

That's just the reality.

The reverse isn't necessarily true.

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)