Actors playing characters with which they do not share characteristics

[Arwon]

If straight actors shouldn't play gay roles, then gay actors shouldnt play straight roles, right?

That doesn't strictly map because the authenticity gap being noted in this thread doesn't cut both ways equally. Queer folk know a lot more about straight culture and straight-passing than the reverse, because it's in their face all the time and can even be necessary for safety. The reverse isn't really true. So it's a lot more likely that queer actors know how to play straight than the reverse.

This is similar to why people from minority cultures tend to be able to code-switch into the standard dialect of their society on demand, whereas people from outside those minority backgrounds don't tend to be able to convincingly do the reverse. For example in the US, many AAVE speakers are perfectly capable of switching to General American English because being able to talk like the hegemonic culture is useful or even necessary for survival... but there's not many people who can convincingly switch into an AAVE they didn't naturally grow up with.

 

[Ferocitus]

“They call me Mister Thornton Witherspoon III.”

I only view “authenticity” through the lens of good or bad acting; if an actor is good, then they should be able to suspend my disbelief. I know Tom Cruise isn’t really a rookie lawyer and Jack Nicholson isn’t really a warped Marine sergeant. But in order to make a good movie, it just takes a few good men.

Nicholson has played many different roles, ranging from a young Jack N., to an aged Jack N., and others in between.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

To the OP:

I couldn't care less whether an actor portraying a gay character is gay or not. What interests me is the skill and craft of the performance. A good actor should be able to pull it off, gay or straight. I have seen some examples of obvious "You get the part because you are in a minority/disadvantaged group" and they have turned out horribly. There have been examples of actors portraying a person against type which have really worked and resonated with audiences. A case in point is Felicity Huffman in Trans America. She played a man struggling to make the transition to a woman. The movie had all of the things you might expect, but Huffman's performance was stellar. About five minutes into the movie, I forgot that the "man" was being played by a woman. Huffman even got an Oscar nod for the movie (and was robbed by the no-talent Reese Witherspoon). Of course, there was the obligatory hue and cry from affected communities that a "trans" actor should have played the part. Perhaps some tried out, but they would not have had the star power of Huffman, and the movie might have gone unnoticed without a good actor as the center piece. Studios go with what they know.

And what about Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry? She did a brilliant job. Could another actor have done as well? Maybe. But did you believe the story? Her acting chops made the movie. Why use a potentially less skilled actor in a movie if you have someone of that calibre?

My bottom line is that it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of an actor is. A good actor should be able to play anyone. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for Philadelphia. He did a wonderful job of it and portrayed a gay man with sensitivity, class and grace. I really don't see what the problem is.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am not sure. I think that Harvey - Two-face - Dent should be played by someone who has half his face burned, eg a victim of vitriol. And please, professor Xavier shouldn't promote ableism anymore.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I really don't at all.

That said, the way I see it, comparing something like someone being LGBTQ to someone's eye colour is a relatively shallow comparison. The point why this topic is even a thing is because of the marginalisation inherent in the industry in question. Not because of their eye colour, or like others tried to claim, because they're British or not.

They are all things the actor was born with, or had no initial control over.

Let's go to a "non-shallow" place, shall we? I'm diabetic, and that means there are certain things that are now part of my life that weren't, two years ago (it's been nearly two years to the day that I nearly died, was diagnosed, hospitalized, treated, and taught what to expect in the future, and how to manage situations like yesterday, when I had a bad hypoglycemic event - I have to know how to handle these things myself, because some hospitals are death traps nowadays).

Should I scream and rant at film studios to only cast diabetic actors in roles where the character is diabetic, to make sure they actually know how to do certain things, and how to convey what certain situations feel like? Or someone with mobility issues? Yeah, someone who is able-bodied has no idea what it's like to experience these things themselves, but if they can learn to portray it convincingly, fine. Let them. They'll learn something along the way, and might even decide to become an advocate for the marginalized demographic in question. That's not a bad thing. All I ask is that they don't play it for laughs or mockery.

If a gay actor can convincingly play a character who isn't gay, cool. If the reverse is true, cool. Get on with the show and let the actor earn a living. This further subdividing according to who is and isn't gay is just going to result in people having to declare their sexuality on their resume whether they're okay with it or not, and be forever shut out of specific roles due to who they love, who they marry, who they sleep with, etc. And that goes for all the sides involved in this issue.

 

[Chicken Pizza]

How do you know you're not getting the best actor for the role, though?

Like I said, it's 2020. There are plenty of publicly-out LGBTQ actors and actresses. And that's not counting breakout stars.

I feel that you're saying: I, or other people, have problems with minorities, and the way to solve that is not to start treating them like anyome else, which would be the natural thing to do, but rather pity them by giving them jobs that they aren't qualified for, so you don't feel threatened by them. But that's in my head.

The actor's empathy and walking in someone else's shoes, is what impresses me, and it doesn't have to be much at all. For some reason I like Jon Woight, I don't know why, but I'd rather see him than Robin Williams playing any role.

HBTQLFEOI people are worse actors because they haven't even found themselves. If they're supposed to do that while making a movie, be honest with, just like you're honest when laughing at a sad clown getting kicked in the nuts.

One example of when I believe in "quoting in" people though, is black men or women playing the angry or serious person in a comedy.

Maybe it's racist of me, maybe anti-racist, maybe some other reason. I want to think that it's because they do it so good. White people have real problems with being angry or dominant.

 

[Arwon]

To the OP:

I couldn't care less whether an actor portraying a gay character is gay or not. What interests me is the skill and craft of the performance. A good actor should be able to pull it off, gay or straight. I have seen some examples of obvious "You get the part because you are in a minority/disadvantaged group" and they have turned out horribly. There have been examples of actors portraying a person against type which have really worked and resonated with audiences. A case in point is Felicity Huffman in Trans America. She played a man struggling to make the transition to a woman. The movie had all of the things you might expect, but Huffman's performance was stellar. About five minutes into the movie, I forgot that the "man" was being played by a woman. Huffman even got an Oscar nod for the movie (and was robbed by the no-talent Reese Witherspoon). Of course, there was the obligatory hue and cry from affected communities that a "trans" actor should have played the part. Perhaps some tried out, but they would not have had the star power of Huffman, and the movie might have gone unnoticed without a good actor as the center piece. Studios go with what they know.

And what about Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry? She did a brilliant job. Could another actor have done as well? Maybe. But did you believe the story? Her acting chops made the movie. Why use a potentially less skilled actor in a movie if you have someone of that calibre?

My bottom line is that it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of an actor is. A good actor should be able to play anyone. Tom Hanks won an Oscar for Philadelphia. He did a wonderful job of it and portrayed a gay man with sensitivity, class and grace. I really don't see what the problem is.

I reckon if you can get Tom Hanks or Hillary Swank that's one thing, but if the choice is just down to regular kind of okay actors, maybe stick to people's comfort zones a bit more.

 

[Gorbles]

They are all things the actor was born with, or had no initial control over.

Let's go to a "non-shallow" place, shall we? I'm diabetic, and that means there are certain things that are now part of my life that weren't, two years ago (it's been nearly two years to the day that I nearly died, was diagnosed, hospitalized, treated, and taught what to expect in the future, and how to manage situations like yesterday, when I had a bad hypoglycemic event - I have to know how to handle these things myself, because some hospitals are death traps nowadays).

Should I scream and rant at film studios to only cast diabetic actors in roles where the character is diabetic, to make sure they actually know how to do certain things, and how to convey what certain situations feel like? Or someone with mobility issues? Yeah, someone who is able-bodied has no idea what it's like to experience these things themselves, but if they can learn to portray it convincingly, fine. Let them. They'll learn something along the way, and might even decide to become an advocate for the marginalized demographic in question. That's not a bad thing. All I ask is that they don't play it for laughs or mockery.

If a gay actor can convincingly play a character who isn't gay, cool. If the reverse is true, cool. Get on with the show and let the actor earn a living. This further subdividing according to who is and isn't gay is just going to result in people having to declare their sexuality on their resume whether they're okay with it or not, and be forever shut out of specific roles due to who they love, who they marry, who they sleep with, etc. And that goes for all the sides involved in this issue.

Diabetes is a condition that is treated (continuously, with no small annoyance to the person suffering). It is, however, taught behaviour. Therefore it can be taught to anyone (EDIT - obviously not talking about seizures and other dangerous symptoms. But we obviously wouldn't necessarily want people more-than-role-playing that, either).

Disabled people, again, I would say, falls under a disadvantaged minority. If you can get someone, you should try and make the effort.

However, nobody's forcing anything at gunpoint. I don't understand the need for claims about "further subdivision" and whatnot. Nobody is being "forever shut out of specific roles". Why are you making these claims?

I feel that you're saying: I, or other people, have problems with minorities, and the way to solve that is not to start treating them like anyome else, which would be the natural thing to do, but rather pity them by giving them jobs that they aren't qualified for, so you don't feel threatened by them. But that's in my head.

At no point did anyone say "give them jobs they're not qualified for". This is called a strawman.

HBTQLFEOI people are worse actors because they haven't even found themselves. If they're supposed to do that while making a movie, be honest with, just like you're honest when laughing at a sad clown getting kicked in the nuts.

Yikes. This sure is offensive to LGBTQ folks on a number of levels.

Maybe it's racist of me, maybe anti-racist, maybe some other reason. I want to think that it's because they do it so good. White people have real problems with being angry or dominant.

Yikes, and lol at the bolded bit.

 

[Ferocitus]

I reckon if you can get Tom Hanks or Hillary Swank that's one thing, but if the choice is just down to regular kind of okay actors, maybe stick to people's comfort zones a bit more.

And even then that's fraught.
The worst Australian accent I've heard was Matt Frewer's in the series Eureka. Even worse than Streep's: "A dingo stole my baby!"

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I reckon if you can get Tom Hanks or Hillary Swank that's one thing, but if the choice is just down to regular kind of okay actors, maybe stick to people's comfort zones a bit more.

I think that's a given. I mean if you can find an actor who is any good in the little subdivision of humans that 2020 wokeness insists that we use, then by all means, but studios are more interested in bankable stars.

Example: Scarlett Johanssen in Ghost in the Machine - even though there was a plausible explanation why she didn't look Japanese. The studio banked on star power.

As for non gay actors playing gay characters, to expand my earlier point, unless you're filming gay porn, the sexual orientation of the actor is hardly relevant (IMHO). And really, who is to say that actor didn't do a little "research?" I would rather see a capable actor in a role than another less capable actor simply because they fit the pigeon hole that the character belongs to. What happens behind the movie means nothing to me, what is on screen does.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm concerned that this would stop British actors playing German villains in US movies.
OTOH it would prevent Kevin Costner ever working again.

 

[Gorbles]

I think that's a given. I mean if you can find an actor who is any good in the little subdivision of humans that 2020 wokeness insists that we use, then by all means, but studios are more interested in bankable stars.

Example: Scarlett Johanssen in Ghost in the Machine - even though there was a plausible explanation why she didn't look Japanese. The studio banked on star power.

As for non gay actors playing gay characters, to expand my earlier point, unless you're filming gay porn, the sexual orientation of the actor is hardly relevant (IMHO). And really, who is to say that actor didn't do a little "research?" I would rather see a capable actor in a role than another less capable actor simply because they fit the pigeon hole that the character belongs to. What happens behind the movie means nothing to me, what is on screen does.

Why are we assuming that anyone in any "little subdivision" is automatically less qualified, or bound to not put in as good a performance? That seems to be the overriding theoretical scenario people in this thread seem concerned with - but it's only a concern if the gay actor playing the gay role is in some way worse than a straight alternative.

Is the studio preference for a "bankable star" not worth criticising by itself? Because that doesn't even necessarily correlate with talent in the first place.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why are we assuming that anyone in any "little subdivision" is automatically less qualified, or bound to not put in as good a performance? That seems to be the overriding theoretical scenario people in this thread seem concerned with - but it's only a concern if the gay actor playing the gay role is in some way worse than a straight alternative.

Is the studio preference for a "bankable star" not worth criticising by itself? Because that doesn't even necessarily correlate with talent in the first place.

You don't see many med people playing greek or roman people in movies either. One has to assume it is due to the available med actors being far fewer and usually this also means fewer people of high talent.
It's ok as long as doric greeks are played by scots or irish, and ionian greeks by english.

 

[Ferocitus]

^Which reminds me... Ben Kingsley as Gandhi.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm actually curious what data even exists about anticipated success of movies based on casting choices. Obviously having "good" actors vs "bad" actors will make or break most films. But it's not clear to me what beyond "people handle their roles well" can be traced to movie success. Maybe the film industry has aggregated such information and I just haven't seen it.

Either way, good acting isn't enough, the presentation of the story and the story itself have to be good or there's nothing the actors can do.

 

[Kyriakos]

Star power probably is the focal point. Tom Cruise played Jack Reacher (who I am told doesn't look at all like Cruise) cause he was expected to make the movie work due to his fame.
I doubt more people would watch the movie if Reacher was played by that Ivan Drago actor.

Cruise also was to star in the movie version of At the Mountains of Madness. You can be certain that no character by Lovecraft would be similar to Tom Cruise

 

[Ferocitus]

Klaus Kinski would have been an awful choice for Top Gun, but he would have been Ok for some Lovecraft stories.

 

[Kyriakos]

Klaus Kinski would have been an awful choice for Top Gun, but he would have been Ok for some Lovecraft stories.

He would be good as one of the crazy cultists in the bayou alright

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Why are we assuming that anyone in any "little subdivision" is automatically less qualified, or bound to not put in as good a performance? That seems to be the overriding theoretical scenario people in this thread seem concerned with - but it's only a concern if the gay actor playing the gay role is in some way worse than a straight alternative.

Is the studio preference for a "bankable star" not worth criticising by itself? Because that doesn't even necessarily correlate with talent in the first place.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. There are plenty of gay actors who would do a more than capable job in any role. What I am saying is that it should not be a given that a gay actor MUST be the only actor allowed to play a gay character. It's a form of discrimination. What I am also saying is that if there is a more capable/bankable straight actor, why shouldn't they be allowed to play the role? Why should we even care? I couldn't care less who an actor goes home to bed with, what matters to me is the performance. If the actor is gay and the character is gay, well then score one for our team. If the actor is straight so what? It's not worth getting our collective panties in a twist about it.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's neat where we are in this cultural issue. There was a time where getting a bankable star to play a queer character was a bit of a coup.
Movies are one of the the more The Free Market Decides arenas. Investors want a return. Viewers want a face.