BEHIND THE GLAMOUR – MOVIES, ACTORS AND THE VISIBILITY OF BEING OUT

There are many books that explore the roles of gay characters as portrayed in the medium of film.
Published on: 26 August 2009

Behind the glamour – movies, actors and the visibility of being OUT

There are many books that explore the roles of gay characters as portrayed in the medium of film. However, what are the implications of what these characters represent and how is sexuality treated in this industry? There is something important about seeing LGBT sexuality represented in movies – to represent aspects of our lives which differ from other people. Unfortunately most often in main stream productions the representation of gay people is stereotypical – the flamboyant, feather wearing fop who arranges flowers being an iconic representation of this.

Our world of LGBT imagery is certainly improved though by the existence of movies such as the classic 'Torchsong Trilogy', the recent film 'Milk' and the now iconic series of 'Queer as Folk'. One of the better recent portrayals of non-standard 'Hollywood sexuality' was the movie Brokeback Mountain which centres around 2 bisexual, possibly entirely homosexual, characters. What is interesting to note is that both characters were played by straight actors, namely Jake Gyllenhaal and the late Heath Ledger. This seems to establish an interesting precedent for while it is acceptable for a straight actor to play a gay role the studios and producers feel that audiences reject the reverse – namely a gay actor playing a straight role.

Recently two openly gay directors, Don Roos and Todd Holland, made comments suggesting that gay actors rather remain in the closet to ensure a successful career in Hollywood. Ostensibly they argue that being the industry that it is the public actions of stars have a direct reflection on the roles they are suitable for. Holland later clarified that even as a gay director he'd be hard pressed to select an out gay actor for fear of the choice being vetoed by executives down the line. I wonder if perhaps in a larger context the point these directors were trying to make was rather 'don't be too political' because then you can be hired for anything.

I, for my part, prefer people who are political – or perhaps I would define them as representing their individuality rather than living some acceptable collective image. Perhaps this is something that American culture seems to be hung up on – this chasing of a bland normality. Rupert Everett as an out gay actor seems to have little difficulty in landing roles – though possibly most of those are UK based and one would need to ask him which homophobia he might’ve encountered. I think there is an underlying statement here that in choosing to come out we do not necessarily choose an easy path, one that is a comfortable option.

The reality of the world we live in means that the statements that Roos and Holland made is an accurate representation of the world – that in being courageous and representing yourself as you feel comfortable is something that is not acceptable to most people. This is one of our greatest struggles for if we are mindful and tactful about this we can still operate effectively in this world. We can be a Rupert Everett and manage to balance these two ideas against each other. In addition I believe that in repressing either of these ideas, to be oneself or to be aware of how this is accepted in the world, we make for unhappy and unhealthy people.