In the New Yorker...

[serious crayons]

that´s a pretty bold statment

How so? I think of it as a simple statement of fact: Keanu usually plays heterosexuals.

I guess I can think of one role in which, as I recall, Keanu played a gay man (My Own Private Idaho), so if you were thinking of that one, or some other role in which he's gay that I'm not thinking of, or maybe even some role in which his sexual orientation is not specified, then my statement was simply incorrect. Still not particularly bold, though.

The larger point I was making is, unless you've spent time with Keanu outside of his movies, you haven't seen what he's really like, so how would he set off your gaydar or not? And as I said earlier, I don't see much about Keanu outside of his movies -- haven't seen him on talk shows or red-carpet interviews or things like that. But maybe you watch different shows than I do and you have seen him as himself.

[Monika]

How so? I think of it as a simple statement of fact: Keanu usually plays heterosexuals.

I guess I can think of one role in which, as I recall, Keanu played a gay man (My Own Private Idaho), so if you were thinking of that one, or some other role in which he's gay that I'm not thinking of, or maybe even some role in which his sexual orientation is not specified, then my statement was simply incorrect. Still not particularly bold, though.

The larger point I was making is, unless you've spent time with Keanu outside of his movies, you haven't seen what he's really like, so how would he set off your gaydar or not? And as I said earlier, I don't see much about Keanu outside of his movies -- haven't seen him on talk shows or red-carpet interviews or things like that. But maybe you watch different shows than I do and you have seen him as himself.

Uhm...of course I don´t personally know Keanue Reeves. If I had, you´d definately know by now....

I have as much to go on as you do when you say you think he might be in the closet.

I thought by playing "the heterosexual role" you implied something more than just characters he portrays on screen. If an actor portrays a heteresexual man on-screen it doesn´t neccessery impact my thoughts on the person´s sexual orientation. I have a recent example - I have just started watching an old favorite tv-show of mine again - The Pretender - that I haven´t watched in more than 10 years. I used to be ADDICTED to it in the late 90´s. I´m delighted that I still love it. Back then - in the late 90´s - I wasn´t very aware of the chance that I guy I liked might be gay. It was simply never on my mind.  This time around though - more than 10 years - and many experiences - later - my gaydar was set off instantly regarding the very good-looking male lead - Michael T Weiss. A quick google search later and yes - indeed he´s gay. And I might add that, on the show, he portrays a heterosexual man. It´s difficult to know what exactly sets the gaydar off, but it usually works.
So no, Keanue Reeves doesn´t show up on my gaydar. Simple as that. But might he still be gay? Of course.


Michael T Weiss. The eyes...they eyes.....mmmmm

[Jeff Wrangler]

The larger point I was making is, unless you've spent time with Keanu outside of his movies, you haven't seen what he's really like, so how would he set off your gaydar or not?

I think gaydar doesn't necessarily work that way. Everyone's gaydar seems to have its own way of functioning.

Neil Patrick Harris set off mine years before I learned that he actually is. 

[serious crayons]

I think gaydar doesn't necessarily work that way. Everyone's gaydar seems to have its own way of functioning.

Neil Patrick Harris set off mine years before I learned that he actually is. 

That's a point. Plus, I would guess that gaydar functions best for people or in situations where it's useful or important to distinguish whether someone is gay or not. In most cases, for me, it doesn't affect my life in any way, so maybe it's not as strong. When it does go off, it's like noticing a person's ethnicity or age -- an interesting characteristic, but not a significant factor in most situations.

[Front-Ranger]

Something I hardly ever do is to read ahead electronically rather than waiting for my print copy to arrive. But I just had to read what David Denby said about "Life of Pi." I'll wait until Thursday to read about David Petraeus.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Jill Lepore is another author I always read when she has an article in the magazine. Her article on the history of taxation in the Nov. 26 issue is amazing.

[serious crayons]

Slightly OT, but I mysteriously started getting New York magazine in the mail for some reason. I must have received a magazine subscription with something I purchased, but I swear I don't remember ordering it.

I love New York too --- compared to the New Yorker, it's a little edgier and more risk-taking, though not generally as deep, and of course more pop-culture focused. Either way, though, there's a whole nother pile of weekly magazines to accumulate.

[Jeff Wrangler]

For some reason, probably the fault of the postal service, I got the December 10 issue before the December 3 issue. 

[serious crayons]

I spent an hour this afternoon in the company of Calvin Trillin! He was in town to promote his latest book, and he stopped by the paper and talked to reporters, mostly about the New Yorker, where he became a staff writer in 1963. He talked a lot about his "U.S. Journal" series, which he wrote every three weeks, from the late '60s to the mid-'80s. He'd go through newspapers and find an interesting story somewhere in the country, travel to the place and spend a week there talking to folks, then return to NY and write a 3,000 word evocative charming memorable piece. Of course, that's not how he described them. He was low key, mild-mannered, non-assuming and pretty funny.

He name-dropped William Shawn and John McPhee, the latter of whom he said had a really elaborate writing system that involved bringing home his draft (typed on paper, in those days) and stuffing it into some niche in his house that he felt was unlikely to succumb in case of fire. "Is that neurotic?" McPhee asked Trillin. "Nah," Trillin told him. Not if that's what works for him.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I spent an hour this afternoon in the company of Calvin Trillin! He was in town to promote his latest book, and he stopped by the paper and talked to reporters, mostly about the New Yorker, where he became a staff writer in 1963. He talked a lot about his "U.S. Journal" series, which he wrote every three weeks, from the late '60s to the mid-'80s. He'd go through newspapers and find an interesting story somewhere in the country, travel to the place and spend a week there talking to folks, then return to NY and write a 3,000 word evocative charming memorable piece. Of course, that's not how he described them. He was low key, mild-mannered, non-assuming and pretty funny.

He name-dropped William Shawn and John McPhee, the latter of whom he said had a really elaborate writing system that involved bringing home his draft (typed on paper, in those days) and stuffing it into some niche in his house that he felt was unlikely to succumb in case of fire. "Is that neurotic?" McPhee asked Trillin. "Nah," Trillin told him. Not if that's what works for him.

Wow! Lucky you! 

Of course, I spent some time with him yesterday, too--reading his piece on food in Oaxaca (sp?).