Neil Patrick Harris makes it look easy: Our exclusive interview

Danny Roberts

AE: I agree with you up until the point where if that person, whether it be Anderson Cooper or anybody else, if they draw a clear line and say this is what I talk about and this is what I don’t, then that’s completely fine. But if you do things such as write an autobiography and do talk about other personal stuff, don’t you sort of open the door to those types of questions?
NPH: I don’t think so. I think writing a biography is subjective and you write about what you find important in your own life at that time. I think it’s separate from inviting Barbara Walters into your bedroom. They’re different situations. I find the community very interesting in who it opts to criticize. Because I think the people that take the most heat often don’t deserve it.

AE: I think it’s a difficult catch-22 situation. Being a celebrity sometimes seems like a really difficult life. You get great rewards, but on the flip side you end up being publicly criticized for almost everything and people constantly poke around in your private life.
NPH: It is difficult. It’s not a complaint, but please hear me: I’m not crying over spilt milk or anything. You just have to reveal what you are comfortable revealing at times that you deem it necessary. And you can’t really follow the public’s desire for information because that’s kind of unquenchable, that thirst, you know? So you live your life as best you can.

AE: It seems especially unquenchable when you have the gay community so starved for representations of themselves that when somebody finally does put themselves up there, all the community’s attention is so intently focused on them and what they do.
NPH: That’s a great thing, but on the flip side, I don’t think it’s a bad thing [not to do it]. I guess that’s where we can agree to disagree, because if you in turn don’t want to do that, there’s nothing wrong with that either.

Anderson Cooper

AE: I agree. I usually don’t criticize Anderson or anyone for making that decision. But the topic in general is something we comment on and observe here. That’s or job to look at the media and how we’re represented. Yet I can’t imagine walking in those shoes. That’s why we don’t out people, or generally don’t discuss whether someone might be gay unless it’s already being discussed in the media in a really high profile way. Coming out is a very personal decision that we’re not going to make for anybody.
NPH: I think that’s impressive. Unfortunately, you’re on a site that asks for a lot of feedback and comments and those people who talk are relatively ruthless, so it’s an interesting dynamic. I mean I love the site and read it often, but you get a lot of voracious opinions.

AE: Speaking of some of those "voracious opinions" you might be referring to, when you did the Out interview, you also talked about representing “normal” gays and I use normal in quotes. There were people in the blogosphere who really objected to that word choice. We posted about it saying we thought some folks were really taking it out of context, as if you were putting down folks who aren’t “normal” when that wasn’t really your point. I wonder if you want to clarify that statement in any way?
NPH: Yes, it’s so tricky to make statements ... individual sentences are taken out of context. I was asked about how I dealt with being a role model whether I liked it or not. That was sort of the implication in the question posed to me. And I don’t really feel like I’m a wildly effective role model for a lot of people because my life is relatively simple and kind of boring, as far as my social life is concerned.

So when I said I strived to represent normalcy that was sort of what I was grasping at — an explanation for what my social life is like. I don’t seek out lots of crazy parties and I mainly spend time with David at home, cooking meals and watching TiVo. So I was being asked sort of how I would define what I would represent if I did represent anyone and that’s kind of how I sort of see myself. It was not at all a veiled criticism towards anyone.

My favorite group that I ever got to hang out with was a wild Bohemian ensemble of characters in Rent when we were in La Jolla and they were eccentric and I loved it and they were every element of every spectrum sexually, ethnically and otherwise, and it was fantastic. I would never mean to demean anyone in what they do. The whole thing with [Out] was strange because they came to me. I thought it was a good idea timing-wise, but then you want to make sure that everything goes well. You want to make sure that you’re not asked potentially slanderous questions that you’re going to be misquoted from, and they were very accommodating with that.

You don’t want the photo shoot to be super avant-garde and oiled up because I’m on sort of a mainstream sitcom at the moment, so … the photo editors came to us with this great Steve McQueen idea and they sent pictures back and forth of what it was based off of, and I thought that was a pretty cool idea. And then at the end of the day they put, “A Man’s Man” on the cover. And that’s something you don’t have control over. It almost makes it seem like the point of my doing the article and the layout was to represent myself in that way. And it was just a photo shoot. I don’t own a motorcycle and I don’t pretend that pictures that I take in a photo shoot represent me in my off time. And so it’s all . . . I don’t know. You take it with a grain of salt. I hope no one was offended by it. I’m a big fan of the community.