|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Aug 19, 2018 17:48:39 GMT 10
Many members of the LGBTI community have been vocal in their dismay against a straight actor being cast as the first openly gay character in a Disney film. Jack Whitehall is a British comedian and is heterosexual. There have been growing calls on social media for Disney to consider re-casting the role. What is your opinion on this? Do you think the role should have only been offered to a member of the LGBTI community?
While I can understand why the LGBTI community would want a homosexual or transgender actor to play such a role of importance (it is the role of the first openly gay character in a Disney film, after all), I personally think the criticism directed at Disney is unfounded and ridiculous. You can't deny someone a chance to play a role just because of their sexual preference. If Jack Whitehall was deemed to be the most suitable actor, he has every right to be cast for the role.
Honestly, I think the criticism leveled against Disney is very hypocritical. It isn't a case of misrepresentation. Members of the LGBTI community have played straight characters in movies and television series. For instance, Neil Patrick Harris played the role of "Barney Stinson" on How I Met Your Mother, a playboy character who had many one-night stands with women. I think some people have forgotten what an "actor" is; someone whose profession is acting on film, stage or on television.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
0 |
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2018 1:15:30 GMT 10
Actors act, that is their job. Ergo they portray whatever role they are suitable for. A good actor should be able to portray any role. I have no problem with straights portraying gays or gays portraying straights, it's just a role.
In 'Prisoner Cell Block H' (you'll no doubt be familiar with that, Shark!), there were a few gay characters yet their actors weren't gay in real life. Betty Bobbitt who portrayed 'Judy Bryant' for instance, is a married mother of 2. And it also featured gay actors portraying straights. Trevor Kent, who portrayed a rapist and who lusted after women, was a gay actor who died of AIDS.
SharksFan99 and al like this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Aug 20, 2018 10:47:06 GMT 10
Actors act, that is their job. Ergo they portray whatever role they are suitable for. A good actor should be able to portray any role. I have no problem with straights portraying gays or gays portraying straights, it's just a role. In 'Prisoner Cell Block H' (you'll no doubt be familiar with that, Shark!), there were a few gay characters yet their actors weren't gay in real life. Betty Bobbitt who portrayed 'Judy Bryant' for instance, is a married mother of 2. And it also featured gay actors portraying straights. Trevor Kent, who portrayed a rapist and who lusted after women, was a gay actor who died of AIDS. I agree. I feel as though this debate has simply been blown out of proportions. Jack Whitehall has every right to play the character he has been cast as.
|
|
|
|
Post by #Infinity on Aug 21, 2018 16:49:08 GMT 10
The problem is that there's always a divide between purists who feel LGBTQ+ rules belong to LGBTQ+ people only, as well as others, such as myself, who feel that people are simply people, regardless of their sexuality, and should be allowed to portray a character based on their intrinsic qualities and not their sexual preference alone.
That said, I can sympathize with the detractors in this particular case because this is going to be such a landmark role for Disney, and so it would only be most intuitive to cast somebody who has actually experienced his life as a gay man to channel his understanding into the role, as opposed to a straight person being forced to learn from an outside perspective. Disney's decision here makes it look like they're not going all the way with what should be the bold and groundbreaking start of a new era for them.
Down the road, I feel that any fuss over LGBTQ+ characters not being portrayed by LGBTQ+ actors is ridiculous before the performance itself is revealed, especially considering how regularly LGBTQ+ actors have portrayed heterosexual characters throughout history.
SharksFan99, smartboi, and 2 more like this
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksFan99 on Aug 21, 2018 23:35:12 GMT 10
The problem is that there's always a divide between purists who feel LGBTQ+ rules belong to LGBTQ+ people only, as well as others, such as myself, who feel that people are simply people, regardless of their sexuality, and should be allowed to portray a character based on their intrinsic qualities and not their sexual preference alone. That said, I can sympathize with the detractors in this particular case because this is going to be such a landmark role for Disney, and so it would only be most intuitive to cast somebody who has actually experienced his life as a gay man to channel his understanding into the role, as opposed to a straight person being forced to learn from an outside perspective. Disney's decision here makes it look like they're not going all the way with what should be the bold and groundbreaking start of a new era for them. Down the road, I feel that any fuss over LGBTQ+ characters not being portrayed by LGBTQ+ actors is ridiculous before the performance itself is revealed, especially considering how regularly LGBTQ+ actors have portrayed heterosexual characters throughout history. I do agree that it would have been preferable for Disney to cast someone from the LGBTI community for the role. To be honest, i'm surprised that Disney decided to cast a straight actor for the role as well, because the company surely must have known that it would receive heavy backlash from the public over it's decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by al on Aug 22, 2018 13:38:33 GMT 10
Disney should've known better in this climate. But I think the criticism would be more successful if it were instead more focused on the discrimination of out gay actors, which I'm sure still happens. At what point can we stop saying that an actor needs to have had real life experience regarding their role? I don't mean to make light of the topic, but nobody would ever be cast as seventeenth century pirates or twelfth century princesses by that logic. However if a gay actor were not hired due to fear of the public's reaction and potential loss of money, or just flat out homophobia, then yes that would definitely be an issue. One of things that gets in the way of the argument here is that orientation does not affect one's appearance. It is pretty hard to compare to when POC, transgender and disability roles are given to actors who require extensive makeup to fulfill them, meanwhile suitable candidates are not booking jobs, often due to their appearance. This seems to be becoming one of those taboo topics, which either you agree with, don't touch with a ten foot pole, or of course ignorantly fight and risk shame banishment. I can certainly appreciate not wanting to comment when you lack knowledge, but it's not necessarily the best direction for society to be moving in either.
|
|
|
|
Post by #Infinity on Aug 22, 2018 14:45:10 GMT 10
Disney should've known better in this climate. But I think the criticism would be more successful if it were instead more focused on the discrimination of out gay actors, which I'm sure still happens. At what point can we stop saying that an actor needs to have had real life experience regarding their role? I don't mean to make light of the topic, but nobody would ever be cast as seventeenth century pirates or twelfth century princesses by that logic. However if a gay actor were not hired due to fear of the public's reaction and potential loss of money, or just flat out homophobia, then yes that would definitely be an issue. One of things that gets in the way of the argument here is that orientation does not affect one's appearance. It is pretty hard to compare to when POC, transgender and disability roles are given to actors who require extensive makeup to fulfill them, meanwhile suitable candidates are not booking jobs, often due to their appearance. This seems to be becoming one of those taboo topics, which either you agree with, don't touch with a ten foot pole, or of course ignorantly fight and risk shame banishment. I can certainly appreciate not wanting to comment when you lack knowledge, but it's not necessarily the best direction for society to be moving in either. We're paradoxically living in an era that has simultaneously advanced equal rights for minorities while also augmenting cultural separatism, which in many ways clashes with equality, considering it implies somebody is distinguished differently or earns special privileges based on their inert qualities or heritage. Disregarding the baggage and history associated with a particular group of people is disrespectful and condescending, but on the flip side, holding up the pillars of separatism threatens the ability for somebody to carve out their own identity. Coming from experience, it's like people from the lesbian community not really embracing me because I'm not "lesbian" enough, due to my more culturally gay male mannerisms and interests, which has ultimately resulted in me not even identifying as a lesbian but rather just as a woman general, using the Kinsey scale of sexuality as a more intuitive link between myself and women like Rachel Stevens, who proudly calls other women "sexy" despite only having dated men according to public knowledge, and Daisy Lowe, who has casually referred to herself as a "mild lesbian" but more specifically is interested in women on a general level without it being a trichotomous matter of sexual orientation. The nature of cultural heritage can really affect whether one chooses to embrace their minority status or not, regardless of their fear of white patriarchal discrimination.
al likes this
|
|
