Why the hell is Hollywood still so homophobic?!?!?!

[cboy4]

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=83113420&p=83yy37zz&n=83113800&x=

British actor Rupert Everett has launched a bitter attack against Hollywood bosses for denying him romantic roles because he is gay.

The My Best Friends Wedding star, 47, compares himself to leading man Hugh Grant and believes the Notting Hill star has enjoyed more success than him simply because he is heterosexual.

Everett says: "Without doubt gays are discriminated against in show business. The straight one gets to walk down a red carpet with a beautiful girl and everything works out and the gay one has to back-pedal and do independent movies. Yet everything Hugh Grant does, I could be in."


You know, it's about time more actors and actresses start making a fuss about this.

It is beyond outrageous that of all places, Hollywood is soooo homophobic.

You just know there are so many gay people in the business, yet why don't more of them come out of the closet.

Simple, you hear anonymous star after star say they're afraid they won't get parts in movies if they say they're gay.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's just so ridiculous!!!!

[Skittles]

1. agreed

they are ACTORS - they play PARTS - any part should be up for grabs if they meet the physical/age requirements

[cboy4]

2. Exactly. But I remember hearing some movie director whine that if

a gay actor was involved in a love scene with a straight actor, the audience might not like it and that would mean negative publicity/reviews. :eyes:

[Skittles]

6. well I know it would not bother me

I'm a movie buff and I care about good writing and good acting, not sexual orientation. As for everyone else, well the critics said Brokeback Mountain would not play well with regular audiences and they were wrong about that. I think they are doing a lot of assuming.

[cboy4]

8. I know. Well, I've read enough of your post to know that you're an

articulate, smart, decent human being -- so you're take on this doesn't surprise me a bit. :)

[Skittles]

13. AWWWWWWWWWW

so sweet :)

[readmoreoften]

32. Not to mention that Brokeback Mountain was a straight cast and crew.

Written by a straight woman. Directed by a straight man. No openly gay members of the cast. If BBM was from a gay director or had a gay cast/crew it would be relegated to LGBT film festivals no matter the production value. My partner is a director and we both work in film. It is hard for a "gay" film to get play in straight festivals.

[darkmaestro019]

9. Hmmm....

did they ever ASK anyone? Oh, I know..a tiny panel of experts, maybe?

I'm gay, and I absolutely adore Queer as Folk--I know which actors are gay and which are not (FORCES self not to say ANYTHING about Hal Sparks....) and I don't really care. It's still hot. And (coughs Tom Cruise) I don't really care if I see an actor I know is gay in a straight role. Aren't they supposed to, yanno, ACT?

Harrison Ford isn't really a Corellian smuggler OR a college professor and part-time archaeologist, so why'd they let him have those roles?

[cboy4]

11. Yes, excellent example using QAF.

I mean the hottest guy on the show, in a lot of people's opinions (Brian), is straight, and that never bothered me when I was watching him, umm, "act." ;)

[davidinalameda]

27. of course a straight guy can play gay

but a gay guy can't play straight

:sarcasm:

[cboy4]

35. No, it's probably against the bible.

:sarcasm:

[Skittles]

14. yup

I'm guessing they are doing a lot of assuming

[emanymton]

3. Agree, "... it's just so ridiculous.." Sounds Like GOP Victims ...

whining about "them."

"... you hear anonymous star after star say they're afraid they won't get parts in movies if they say they're gay."

Excuse me? Who is "them?" What evidence the situation is as described?

Honestly, had you not mentioned Hollywood, I'd thought you were writing about America hating RW Christian fundnuts and their radio show cohorts.

[cboy4]

5. It's 3:07AM California time - - so I'm a little sleepy and don't know if I

completely understand your response, so forgive mw.

However, are you questioning whether there's any truth that actors will not be cast if they declare that they're gay?

"What evidence the situation is as described?"

"Who is them?"

[emanymton]

7. Good Morning.

The original message makes claims from anonymous people. One cannot address issues in hopes of achieving positive results when talking about assertions made by vague individuals.

[cboy4]

10. Are you saying you DON'T believe there a lot of gay actors who are afraid

to come out of the closet in Hollywood

Your writing is a little too complex here at 3:28AM California time. :)

[emanymton]

12. This Thread Is Getting To Be A Little Out There.

I write a sentence. You ask me what 'I do not mean?'

In Virginia, I am waking and enjoying my morning coffee. (No that does not mean I do not like tea!)



Bush Lied People Died. Media Cheered.

(Bush Lied = does not mean I voted for Hitler.)

(People Died = does not mean I am an appeaser.)

(Media Cheered = does not mean I drink wine.)

[cboy4]

15. Why don't you just answer my question? If you have a learning disability,

(or you're just plain drunk) let me know, and I'll drop it. :bounce:

[emanymton]

16. I Am Sober. Thank You For Bringing It Up.

No

No

[cboy4]

17. ?????

No

No

:wtf:


Do what you want, but in the future, feel free not to clutter up my posts with obvious writings of provocation, mmm-kay?

Terrific.

[emanymton]

18. Ciao

[sui generis]

42. well despising "victims" is a little weird for posters on this forum

I would probably claim inebriation if it's not too late.

Anyway, up and coming actors can't be "out" without losing mainstream parts. "Out" actors are pigeonholed into indie and gay-genre parts. So the younger guys and gals typically don't make a fuss, at the their agent's insistence, and the older ones who realize they have nothing to lose can make statements like this.

A more sensitive answer would be exactly what Ben Affleck recently said (paraphrased): the more the media gets into your personal life the harder it is to suspend disbelief about the character the actor is supposed to be playing.

We probably don't want our actors to be flagged with any scandalous information, regardless of whether it should be considered scandalous and regardless of what the scandal is.

I can say for certain I will never see another Tom Cruise movie - and knowledgeable money backs these deals, so tabloid "facts" really do influence the backers that will come to a movie deal and who gets approved for the short list.

Perhaps cultivating a little "mystery" is the best thing any actor can do.

[Laughing Mirror]

4. Well, Irish Examiner runs a pic of Hugh Grant under this headline:

Everett slams Hollywood's 'gay discrimination'

.

Wonder why they did that?

[terrya]

19. I agree with you.

Look, the only recognizable openly gay actor in Hollywood who has carved out a reaonably successful career is Sir Ian McKellen. He's a character actor, though. Excepting "Lord of the Rings" and the "X-Men" franchise, he basically does independent films.

Otherwise...exactly as Rupert Everett has said. Gay actors and actresses, largely, are discriminated against.

And I do wish more gay men and women came out of the closet in Hollywood. I think this whole thing about hurting your career if you come out as gay is really a lot of hooey. If you've got talent, you'll be successful. As Sir Ian demoonstrates.

I'll toss out a name. Sean Hayes. I would be absolutely stunned, quite frankly, if this actor was straight. Shocked, amazed, disbeliving. And he has talent. He's a pretty good comedic actor (check out a movie called "Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss" to see his appeal on screen). If one were to assume that Sean Hayes is gay, does anyone really think that his career would be destroyed if he was open about his sexual orientation? It's paranoia that's entirely unjustified today. As it's been wonderfully commented on here, we're talking about ACTING here. Not driving semis for the Teamsters or something.

[dsc]

21. actually Hayes was noted to be gay when the movie you mention came out

it was only when Will and Grace happened that Hayes went in the closet.

[Creideiki]

22. Meanwhile Eric McCormack is straight

And neither Will nor Jack comes close to representing my lifestyle.

This probably comes closest: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00008R9KG?v=glance

[dsc]

24. It would be hypocritical for us to complain that McCormack is straight

while simultaniously complaining that gays aren't allowed to play straight. Neither one is my lifestyle either but heck I don't think many straights live the lifestyles portrayed on TV either. I loved that film even as I am not a fan of Russel Crowe.

[Creideiki]

26. Another chicken and egg situation

Oh, well. :)

[ruggerson]

20. So should the leading men and women

who are gay and are hiding it (and there are some major, major movie stars on this list) be outed in the press?

I know my answer to this one. But, it's an unpopular one here.

[Creideiki]

23. Before we start outing movie stars as role models,

I'd like to see more of the politicians and staffers, as well as sports stars actually come out themselves. Something to shake things up a little more than to say that so-and-so is gay. The culture war is still on and in many respects, we're losing. :(

[ruggerson]

25. The whole outing thing

is a chicken and egg question.

My take on it is that the concept of "outing" is inherently homophobic. We, and the media, should start from the premise that there is nothing wrong with gays and lesbians and that their lives are on fully equal status with heterosexuals. Starting from that premise (which means living and experiencing that as a reality), if the media reports on who Brittney Spears is fucking and whether Angelina Jolie is having sex with Brad Pitt or Kate Hudson is cheating on her husband - then they MUST REPORT the exact same things about gays and lesbians. To do otherwise is to perpetuate a double standard, the underlying premise of which is that gays and lesbians are something so bad that they must be kept secret and hidden.

Of course, all this begs the discussion of the tabloid media to begin with. But the gossip rags have been reporting on the personal lives of celebrities in business, politics and entertainment for more than two hundred years in this country. So, that being a given, it is LONG past due for them to start dealing with gays and lesbians on an equal footing.

[dsc]

28. It isn't hypocritical to understand that things are different than we want

them to be. It is just plain nuts to argue that it doesn't make a difference if a person is gay in Hollywood. Kevin Spacey probably not, but Tom Cruise it sure would.

[ruggerson]

29. They are different than we want them to be

because we participate in a cycle that perpetuates it.

Breaking the cycle is the first step towards change.

[dsc]

30. and who gets to make that choice

and where does it stop. I actually now work for a district where I would probably be OK if I were outed tomorrow but that wasn't always the case. I know that a simple teacher is quite different from a movie star but there is some element of public figure to my job too. While cowardace is hardly to be celebrated, it isn't our choice to make the gutsy choice for others.

[Creideiki]

33. Personally, I kind of like my status

It's not so much that I'm "straight-acting". It's really that I fly so low under everyone's radar that they never even think about it.

And, yes, I'm in a school district without an anti-discrimination policy, but there are several open gay women--not sure about guys, though. Isn't that another wonderful bit of fun? It's okay to be a gay woman, but not to be a gay man. Sheesh.

[dsc]

34. I am probably in the same boat as you in the passing category

It isn't that I am a straight acting guy but that I am just not that noticible in the sexuality department. My district doesn't have an offical non discrimination policy but they do, under sexual harrassment guidelines forbid negative comments about sexuality. I am presuming that I would be covered there if you can't comment negatively on it you can't really fire me for it either.

[The Brethren]

31. thanks ruggerson

I was kind of thinking alongs the same line. It's also like the chicken and egg theory mentioned earlier -- for gay actors in Hollywood to be taken more seriously, they're expected to come forward that they are gay and not getting roles because of it. Obviously however, if they do that and state they're afraid to be open because they might be black-listed or typecast, then they just outed themselves in doing so. And if they don't, folks will naturally ask "who are they and how many gay actors are there?"

Not sure there are any sure-fire solutions to it. Or at least safe ones for the closeted actors that is. But I do think one way as a community we can help to give our support is through profits including buying tickets to as many movies with gay characters or themes as possible. That's a personal choice, I'm not asking everyone to rent or go to a movie that you don't like just because of this...but if you can give your support in this way I know it will be noticed. Hollywood is about art, story telling and creativity, but it's first and formost a business that is banking on stability and profits. Likewise, for those of us who are out of the closet and are visible as consumers will also make a difference.

[NMMNG]

36. Gay actors can't play straight roles!

They may give their co-stars gay--or worse! :sarcasm:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. Well, that would certainly explain the backstage dynamics of several

plays I've worked on...

[NMMNG]

38. Have you been giving people gay again?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

39. Honestly, it wasn't me.

It was the lead actress. By the end, everyone seemed to have become bisexual for the production. The weird thing is, it wasn't even a musical. Normally, stuff like that happens working on musicals.

[NMMNG]

40. And to think,

Musicals are promoted as wholesome and family oriented. Yay Walt Disney. :rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. As one costume designer I know said...

"everyone in theatre is a little bit gay. You stick them into a musical and they all turn into raging fags."

[L A Woman]

43. Well women his age never get leading roles...

because they are too OLD. boo hoo. life is unfair.

the real reason is NOT that people in this town are homophobes - this town and the business are crawling with gay people and people who love them. the reality is that focus groups of women do not respond well to leading men they know are gay. in a romantic male lead, women want someone they can fantasize about - and a man that on some level they think is a possibility. and while rupert everett is a nice-looking man in the eyes of many women, when given the choice they would much rather see hugh grant - a man they know loves women.

ugly people don't get romantic leads, either. no one wants to go to a movie to see an ugly romantic lead.

it's show business. it's not designed to be fair.

[Creideiki]

44. I'd suggest for you

that you and other women that want to support crappy attitudes that you do the same thing that we do:

Fantasize that they're only pretending to have one sexuality for everyone else's benefit.

That's right.

It's not designed to be fair, but damn, you're about as bitter as they come.

[cboy4]

45. Earth to L A Woman - - Hollywood show business IS very much

homophobic. And it's not fair.

I'm not talking about the citizens of L.A. being homophobic.....I'm talking about the industry.

The focus groups may say that women don't want to watch a gay romantic male lead.

However, those aren't the only parts available.

There should be plenty of out gay and lesbian people in television series and in motion pictures.

Again, not every part is a romantic part.

This is why Hollywood very much screams HOMOPHOBE.

[L A Woman]

47. I am talking about the industry, too...

and you can say it's racist, sexist and homophobic and on the surface you would seem right. But in reality, the industry is about money. There are very few black romantic leads, except in low-budget films with all-black casts. Why? Because Hollywood is racist? NO. Because African-Americans make up too small a percentage of the movie-going public. So while there are plenty of African-American-themed movies and gay-themed movies, etc., they are usually not the mainstream, big-budget Hollywood movies. The prime movie-going audience in America is white, young and very heterosexual. Most movies are made for them. And they do not want openly gay actors playing the leads. They just don't!

It is not Hollywood that is homophobic. It is Joe and Jane Moviegoer. Hollywood is just greedy.

[cboy4]

48. Well, we obviously disagree. You seem to be dwelling on romantic leads . .

Again....not every movie is a love story.

And I don't believe for a minute that mass numbers of these "white, young and very heterosexual" movie-goers you speak about, are going to stay away from the theaters if an openly gay lead character is playing a non-romantic role such as in a comedy or an action picture.

If anything, young people of this generation are more open-minded and care-free about homosexuality than ever.

Yes, Hollywood IS greedy, but that's exactly what makes it homophobic.

Bigots always try to come up with reasons why they're really and truly not a bigot, when the truth is......of course they are.

The bottom line is I will NEVER, EVER approve of bigots, homophobes, racists and other horrible people in this world........especially if they're individuals who behave/think that way because they simply want to make a buck.

You can justify Hollywood's behavior all you want, but I find it shameful.

Sorry.

[L A Woman]

49. Isn't that what Rupert Everett is talking about?

The first line of the article:
-----
British actor Rupert Everett has launched a bitter attack against Hollywood bosses for denying him romantic roles because he is gay.
-----

So yeah, I'm talking about romantic leads, but I still disagree with you. It's the homophobia in mainstream America that needs to be addressed. Hollywood does its part to try to ease them into being more accepting, with shows like Will & Grace and movies like Brokeback Mountain, but these things don't change overnight and movie studios don't want to go out of business trying to force it down the throats of America, so to speak.

Show business is business. If I'm a 60 year-old actress, I can whine and moan until I turn blue that I am not getting romantic lead roles. But that's not sexism, it's business. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT. If a 60 year-old woman doesn't get a job behind the scenes because of her age, THAT is sexism.

[cboy4]

50. Yea, Hollywood would hate to proceed with more failures like Will & Grace

and Brokeback Mountain wouldn't it!!?? LOL

Those are blockbusters for a reason. They and other shows such as Queer Eye, etc., clearly support the existence of a reasonable ideology that there has never been a better time use "out" gay actors/actresses.

I don't understand why you're so quick to defend Hollywood concerning this unproven notion that producing more of this kind of entertainment will be the kiss of financial death.

Who says so? There's no proven track record of failure.

Yes, gay romantic lead roles are what Rupert Everett is talking about.

Fine. But please forget that for a minute.

I'm trying to step away from that single aspect of show business (romance) to argue that there are plenty of other kinds of roles available for gay people..........comedy, action, thrillers, non-romance drama.

Yet all you want to do is talk about romantic parts...

If you have any information (other than Hollywood propaganda) that this hip generation of young people here in the year 2006 will reject non-romantic themed movies or programs involving gay talent, please explain.

Because thus far, all you've done is echoed the same 'ol tired, misguided arguments.

[L A Woman]

51. we're going off on another tangent...

I'm simply explaining why openly gay actors aren't wanted for romantic leads, which is what the original argument was about. I am further explaining that it's not Hollywood that is homophobic - it is mainstream America. It's business. If you own a candle shop and sell ugly candles, you will go out of business. Nobody wants an ugly candle. Hollywood has to sell a product people want and what it wants to sell women is romantic fantasy and women want to see Sean Connery, Brad Pitt, George Clooney and other women-loving men. If George Clooney comes out of the closet tomorrow, there goes the romantic fantasy and there go the ticket sales. Simple as that.

If you want to talk about secondary roles, that's an entirely different argument. But Richard Chamberlain, Ian McKellan, Alan Cumming and others seem to be doing OK. I don't really see any evidence that openly gay actors are being denied other types of roles.

But it's the easiest thing to do, for right wingers and liberals alike, to point at Hollywood and blame the entertainment business for all its ills, rather than looking around you - at Middle America - and maybe trying to educate the simple-minded Americans who think all gay men wear dresses.

I would argue that if it weren't for Hollywood, middle Americans wouldn't have nearly the exposure and understanding of gay issues that they do now. I would argue that Hollywood has helped DECREASE homophobia in this country.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. i am gay and i agree with you somewhat

art is reflecting life, and life is homophobic

and women are treated badly in hollywood