This essay mentions Brokeback Mountain only in passing, unfortunately, but it explores some fascinating issues.
The Curious Case of Gayface
Should straight actors play gay roles?
By J. Bryan Lowder|Posted Thursday, June 6, 2013, at 10:26 AM
This topic site began with an interesting article posted by serious crayons for people to use as a jumping off place to explore the issues it raised. This might have happened if I had not thrown a bomb into the room (for which I have profusely apologized) and diverted people. The dust has settled; perhaps we can start again.
The main issues the article raises are partly obscured by its confusing structure and the campy rhetoric which is fun to read, but ultimately not helpful. Also, he limits his treatment to Hangover III and Behind the Candelabra, which many people have not seen, and thus cannot bring to the topic.
Lowder wonders about what "gay" actually means in the context of who plays a gay character.. He tries and rejects two definitions: 1. a person sleeping with and perhaps loving another person of the same sex, and 2. a set of behavioural traits that will set off gaydar. Lowder finally does accept 3. that ""gay' is really a specific cultural attitude that one must study and ultimately choose to wear atop ones innate homosexuality." He says that it shouldn't matter one way or the other who plays gay roles since, as "A sort of cultural elaboration on biological same-sex desire, gayness is really a full-time acting gig, and...if you're a straight actor getting paid to do it, you're simply subjecting yourself to the same critical gaze." Lowder concludes that it doesn't matter who does it as long as they do a creditable job.
He then moves on to what he sees as the more interesting question of "what kinds of gay roles are being written for anyone to play in the first place." Gay characters heretofore have been limited to cultural stereotypes, and "it would be nice to see more complex gay roles...if only to allow the gay characters...(to be)...more individual than symbol (i.e. "to serve as a Commentary on the Entire LGBT Community")."
What I have written is by no means a complete summary of Lowder's article and it bears rereading more than once. I only tried to isolate the two main points of his answer to his own question.
Lowder has little to say about his second question--the kinds of roles being written for LGBT characterrs. I believe this is the crux of the matter. I think to answer it, it would be useful to distinguish three kinds of films and TV: first straight ones that do not touch on the gay world at all. These are by far the majority of cases. I don't care whether the actors are gay or straight in real life; the erotic/love elements do not speak to me at all. (I know I am in small company here, but I am writing this about my take on the issue at hand.) Second are "gay-theme" movies and TV. These are the ones that seem to generate all the reaction. These are the ones, although talking about gay subjects, are written, produced starring, aimed at straights and at that portion of the gay 5% of the population that will go to see them hoping against hope that they will portray gay life as it really is. They are usually disappointed. Occasionally a good one will pop up (Maurice is my favourite example), but usually they are, as Lowder writes, "mainly a series of variations on 'the nance'...the tragedy case or the 'post-gay' type who is boringly histrionic in his own 'I'm conflicted about gay culture' way." The vast majority of the straight world has no idea of what being gay is all about. They think that when they see these "gay-theme" movies they are actually seeing something about real gay life. Well, they aren't, I say further that this is the place where homophobic stereotyping is reinforced. In my more paranoid moments I even wonder if this is not an intentional move on the part of the straight movie making industry to warn of the perils of being gay. Don't bother telling me I am being adversarial. The question is not my attitude, but that "res ipsa loquitur"--the thing speaks for itself. Most gay people do not walk away from these films feeling good about themselves, and I suspect most straights walk out thinking "Tsk, tsk. Being gay must really be tough. I hope my children never have to go through it."--And this is the more enlightened part of the straight world. Amongst the right-wing crazies these movies are "suspicions confirmed."
Finally we come to the category of "gay movies." These are films made by gay movie makers, and aimed at the gay world. They range in subject matter across a wide spectrum from mysteries, to comedies, to vampire movies, to love stories, etc., like general release films do. It is the gay romance films that catch my eye because they treat of gay relationships more than do, say, gay vampire movies. I did not say that gay films have gay actors--many are, but many are straight. These films seem to have a lot of actors just starting out, and coming out of stage work in the legitimate theatre, and thus very good actors. When watching films like these you do not notice whether your gaydar is set off, but how good a job they are doing as actors. And the parts themselves, as concerns Lowder, are not cultural stereotype, tortured victims, or gays trying to deny their gayness and melt into the straight background. Nor do the characters try to be symbols of the entire LGBT community; they can be individuals with goodguys and badguys amongst them.
Most, if not all, gay BetterMostian men are acquainted with gay movies, as distinct from gay-theme movies. Where I probably differ from most of them is my unwillingness to look kindly on gay-theme movies that are covered by Lowder's criticism of them. I can only think of three others, besides Maurice, that I will watch: Christopher and His Kind, Milk, and I Love You Philip Morris. (Perhaps you can suggest more?) These do treat gay characters as individuals. Keep away from me Cruising, Boys in the Band, and that old chestnut Tea and Sympathy (young man just needs a real woman to show him he's straight).
I'll end by pointing out two straight actors playing gay characters that endorse Lowder's comments about the issue being acting quality not the gaydar or who they sleep with in real life. The first is Gale Harold playing Brian in QAF. The most noteable part of his performance is when Brian is playing off of Justin, his younger lover (played by Randy Harrison who is gay in real life). Watching them together it is difficult to believe Harrison who said in an interview that the love scenes were in reality not erotic as they were being filmed. Gale Harold can make love, gay love, with just the expression on his face. The second is Hale Appleman playing Josh (Mercutio and Juliet's father) in Private Romeo. Appleman takes a "best friend" role and transforms it into that of an at first jealous, then increasingly embittered, enraged and rejected would-be lover, who goes out of control when he realizes Romeo will never be his. The homoerotic, white-hot energy he brings to the part is astonishing. You certainly do not ask, "Wouldn't it be better if he were really gay?"