Sotiris wrote:
Fflewduur wrote:What *is* the point? Because there's nothing but speculation and supposition to suggest this is a real-world problem.
It is a real-world problem regardless if you acknowledge it or not. If you even bothered to look into the matter instead of arrogantly dismissing it, you would know that there is plenty of evidence that gay actors are in fact still
discriminated in Hollywood and that a lot of gay actors are
afraid to come out because of that and that openly gay actors do get
typecasted because of their sexuality.
Fflewduur wrote:I get offended by people with opinions that aren't grounded in reality
Then you must get offended by yourself a lot.
The national average (from the same institute that published the earlier cited SAG/AFTRA survey):
3 out of 4 LGB US workers feel the need to be closeted in the workplace. But actors?
Almost 19 out of 20 queer Equity members make no effort hide their orientation among co-workers, and and more than 4 out of 5 self-identify as just plain “out.”
Discrimination?
16% of SAG/AFTRA L/G respondents complained of discrimination—about 3 in 20.
The national average for queer workers in the US is almost 38%, more than 1 in 3, and the reportage for *harassment* is half a point higher.
Gayfolks in acting are more than 3x as likely as the average worker to be comfortable being out in a professional context and less than half as likely to suffer discrimination because of it.
More than 7 out of 10 out SAG/AFTRA respondents say that being openly queer has had no effect on their careers. How do you suppose that would measure up against doctors, cops, teachers, retail workers--workers in practically any other industry?
Half the US population believes homosexuality to be immoral or sinful. There is no federal protection for anti-gay discrimination. No, I don’t see discrimination as a serious problem in the acting world because that world is—and has been—
*way* ahead of the curve on tolerance and acceptance, as the statistics attest. The anti-gay segregation laws that have been popping up in Kansas, Arizona, Mississippi, and Idaho—that, to me, is what a *real* problem looks like.
Of course my perspective is bound to be a bit different from most of the readers on this forum. I was in college when the percentage of the US population in support for same-sex marriage broke into double digits for the first time (1988). I live on the buckle of the Bible Belt, in a Southern city that’s home to the only ABC affiliate in the country that refused to air
Ellen’s coming-out episode. I’ve worked professionally as an actor, director, and stage manager; I’ve worked with and around actors for 25 years. And my personal experience, anecdotal though it is, reflects what the statistics say: the performing arts are a haven of acceptance in contrast to the outside world.
As for gay actors having trouble getting considered for straight roles…
If you’re an actor with a high enough public profile public profile is high enough—and your private life closely enough associated with it—that producers or directors feel the need to consider an *audience’s* reaction to being cast against your orientation, that belongs under #celebrityproblems. Maybe you need a different agent, or better image management; maybe your work isn’t as good as you think, or your range as broad; maybe you’re just not lucky enough. Consideration of public opinion doesn’t even begin to enter into the conversation for the vast majority of the 70,000-plus actors in the US because the vast majority of working actors are people whose names we don’t know and who work on projects most of the public will never see or hear about.
Whether or not a director or casting director or producer thinks a particular gay actor can pull off a given straight role is another issue. I’ve seen gay actors playing straight in my community. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. The same can be said for straight actors in straight roles, or gay actors playing gay. A really good actor can still put in a bad performance. One actor in particular, an acquaintance of mine, does a lot of community theatre, has also worked professionally. I’ve seen him play straight several times, and he does good, solid work--except on one occasion in which sexual chemistry and tension onstage was an absolute necessity, and there was none. Maybe he just didn’t have the range. Maybe it was a chemistry issue between the scene partners. Maybe it could have been fixed with more specific direction. But the end result was disappointing because the show relied so heavily on sexuality and power dynamics between the characters that the lack in that particular relationship undercut the whole production—in what otherwise would have been one of the best nights in the theatre I’ve had in town.
That’s the kind of experience that gives pause to people with the power of casting. It was on my mind a year and a half later when my company was casting a show—as SM, I was part of the casting discussion. An actor had read for the part of a (straight) Chicago cop. I’d only worked with him once before, but it had been on a months-long touring production, and an incredibly hard tour…showbiz ain’t glamorous for working actors, folks, not when you’ve got two shows a day at 8 and 11 am and (as happened more than once) 1000 miles to drive to get to the next booking. More than once, actors threatened to quit and go home; once I had to threaten to fire an actor for drinking beer before an 8 am show. People let their hair down under those circumstances, and this particular actor got to be a nelly diva queen when under stress. So when we were talking about casting I told the director and producer (in this case, also one of the lead actors) that yeah, he’s really good, my only concern would be that he might come off as gay. They didn’t see it, I admitted my concerns could well be unfounded, and he got cast. And he was really, really good in the role. And several months later he was even better in a subsequent production of ours, playing the straight romantic lead.
Like it or not, there are grounds for concern whether a gay actor can successfully play a straight role. There are grounds for concern whether *any* actor can successfully play *any* given role. Is it a problem that gay actors have a hard time getting consideration for straight roles? Sure. File that under #actorproblems. “I can’t get considered for the roles I want” said Every Actor Ever.
The casting process is not a democracy. It’s only in part a meritocracy. What it *is* is an oligarchy. It’s the ultimate buyers’ market. “Not what I’m looking for” is the only reason needed to deny an actor a role—nothing more articulate or specific than that. This is why simple things like changing haircut or color or gaining or losing five pounds take on huge significance and require serious consideration. As a working actor you might be denied a role because you’re an inch too short or your nose is too small or your voice isn’t deep enough—none of which you can do anything about. You might be out of luck before you even walk through the door, and you’re not even entitled to know why.
Buddy of mine from college went on to get his MFA in acting, went out to LA, did really well for a newbie for the first couple years—some film work, a regular gig on a soap opera for a season, appearances on
Ally McBeal, Chicago Hope, ER, NYPD Blue. Then he decided he was tired of being the bald fat guy he’d been since he was 20, lost more than 50 pounds, and couldn’t get work for the next two years. He took steps to have a longer and higher-quality life, and it cost him his livelihood…till he gave up and let himself get fat again.
If a hiring process that’s fair and just is important to you, don’t bother going into acting.
