A few thoughts about the Newsweek article fiasco and gay actors playing straight roles
So I read the Newsweek article by Ramin Setoodeh in which he, a gay journalist, poses the question: are gay actors believable in straight roles the way straight actors are in gay roles? In the brief article, he also answers the question for us: no, they aren't.
There's been a lot of uproar and outrage about this article - hundreds of bloggers, media celebrities and industry giants have all piped in. Kristin Chenoweth was quite vehement in her critique, calling out Setoodeh as a homophobe, which is understandable, seeing as her show on Broadway, Promises, Promises, was the cautionary tale in the article about the dangers of casting an actor that is "too queeny" in a heterosexual role. (The actor in question is Sean Hayes, who is openly gay.)
Dustin Lance Black got closer to what's actually problematic about the article, pointing out that between the lines of impartial analysis, there is a slightly out-of-touch and myopic journalist who buys into gender sexism ("too queeny", after all, means "too much like a woman"), and concludes that the article reveals some seriously unexamined ideas about representations of masculinity and femininity.
Aaron Sorkin got even closer by posing the question: "What does it EVEN MEAN to act convincingly straight?" And I got kind of excited because I thought someone finally got what was wrong with this whole discussion. But then Sorkin went on some ranty draconian tangent about how we live in an age of information overshare and that basically gossip blogs and Twitter are what is to blame for why gay actors can't play straight roles. By knowing that they're gay, we know too much about them to allow ourselves to freely make that artistic connection between actor and audience, Sorkin says.
I think that's probably partly true. There are plenty of people who can't get past what they know about an actor enough to become immersed in a film, and that's not necessarily exclusive to sexual orientation. There are plenty of people, for example, who are uncomfortable watching Tom Cruise movies because of the couch-jumping, or who can't buy Russell Crowe as a sensitive poet because they know he's punched out photographers in a fit of rage, or what have you. There's no curing that except the desensitization that comes with time and repeated exposure, I guess.
But I also think that, as Black points out in his analysis, the problem with the article is that it presumes that we know what it looks like when an excellently nuanced A-list actor, who is openly gay, plays a straight role. And that's just never happened, because there is no such thing as an openly gay A-list actor. To assume that it hasn't happened yet means that it's impossible that it will ever happen is a massive logic!fail on Setoodeh's part. It's pure killjoy speculation at this point. But I think we do have some inklings as to how it might play out.
While he's not really A-list, I think it's safe to say that most of us have no problem buying Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother as a heterosexual lothario. It has nothing to do with whether he's straight or gay and everything to do with the fact that Neil Patrick Harris is a superb and highly nuanced comedian. And I think that's where the rub lays: if as an actor, you can't convince me that you're really committed to pursuing XYZ love interest, regardless of the gender of that love interest, then you're just not a very good actor. And I don't say this to disparage Sean Hayes' work, because I enjoyed his character on Will and Grace - there's no question he's a brilliant slapstick comedian - and I've liked him in several independent films, and while he's never been what I would call conventionally masculine, he definitely has a range and he can bring it up or down as the role requires, so I'm not trying to imply that he's One-Note Johnny, with that note being "gay!"
But if it is the case as Setoodeh says, that he stinks up the whole theater in his show - I'm giving Setoodeh the benefit of the doubt as a theater critic, as I haven't seen the show myself - perhaps it is then the case that Hayes was miscast in Promises, Promises (as, I should add, many critics also felt Chenoweth was in her role as wel). Not because he's gay, but because the role requires nuance that is outside the scope of Hayes' ability as an actor to step outside himself enough to be convincing in the part. It happens.
The article also is working off two HUGE unspoken assumptions: 1. that straight actors in gay roles are always totally convincing, and 2. that straight actors in straight romantic roles are always are always totally convincing. That's not true in EITHER case; we can all name horrible examples of both. Heck, tune into, I don't know, Gossip Girl on the CW or something, and you're likely to see horrible examples of both on the same show! Sometimes, actors, even ordinarily good actors, aren't good in a particular given role. Gay, straight, whatever - if 99% of everything is crud, then acting is no different.
I think logistically it doesn't matter how "queeny" or butch an actor is in real life. What matters is how s/he comes across in his performance. The best actors experience complete physical and psychological transformations in each role: Meryl Streep, Christian Bale, Robert Downey, Jr., Angela Bassett, etc. and I think it's true that Sean Hayes isn't that caliber of an actor. Right now, there is no one at that level with regards to both status AND ability who is also willing to come out as gay or lesbian, so there is just no point of reference about whether there could ever be an openly gay or lesbian A-list actor.
It's a moot point, pure speculation, and if Setoodeh's article was deserving of the torrent of criticism it's gotten, it's because his naysaying at this point is really just premature doomsaying. And, well, nobody likes a Debbie Downer.
