This is a legally defined question. It is illegal discrimination if an employer treats someone less favourably on the ground of a protected characteristic unless they can demonstrate either "occupational requirements" or "positive action". Occupational requirements has REALLY high standards, you will get away with "the character is male so the actor must be" but will have a hard time with "likely to be better-suited" because of a protected characteristic. You MAY be able to make the case under "positive action", but there are quite a few hoops to jump through to ensure this is legal, that are going to be tricky in this case.Saying straight people should be favoured for the same roles is what, then? Not discrimination? Because someone is ultimately going to be favoured, for whatever reasonThe entire point is "the best person for the role". If someone is gay (and good at their job) they're likely to be better-suited for a gay role than someone who isn't. That's just life experience.
Actors playing characters with which they do not share characteristics
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
I'm simply describing it in terms of talent. The (unwarranted, completely invented) scenario of an unqualified actor getting the part of a gay character solely because they're gay was what I was arguing against. Which, incidentally, is also defeated by your point here (in that it literally wouldn't happen). My argument is - like Davies - that a gay person playing a gay person increases authenticity and raises the strength of the performance on the whole. It's not just better representation (which isn't even Davies' argument), it's the fact that it lends itself to a superior performance. You can't say it's because they are gay, but you can say "this is the person I want because they auditioned the best". No? Else how would anyone decide who a good fit for any role is?
For example, there's absolutely no way (or at least a vanishingly small chance) that Davies wouldn't be aware of such. He's gay himself! He's definitely going to be familiar with protected characteristics in hiring. There's so much in this thread that is just invented drama (not your fault, not because of your OP).
Obviously a gay person is free to audition for a gay role. I'm sure this was possible since forever so one has to assume at times gay people auditioning just weren't regarded as the best for the role.
There's also the issue of treating homosexuals as if they are some monolithic entity and they'd fit every role which is about a homosexual.
Akka
Moody old mage.
When did I said that straight people should be favoured ? I'm the one being consistent and saying actors should be selected because of how they can fit the role, remember ?
Where didn't I own this argument ?
Okay, that's nitpicking but technically correct. I stand corrected, you didn't said "only gay actors should play gay characters", you said "gay actors should be favoured on account of their sexual orientation over straight people to play gay characters".
Now, what does it change about the core point that it's discrimination because you're favouring people on the basis of their sexual orientation ?
Because it seems to me that's still exactly the same fundamental problem and you're just playing a lot the wounded dignity to pretend it is moving the goalposts.
I first thought of writing "for decades now", but then again no one prevented not-openly gay homosexuals from aditioning even before that (although afaik in the past it was risky to play a homosexual in the first place, so a-listers would not be attracted easily).
Also, I don't think they should try using "the strength of their gayness" (
). They are professional actors, so I suppose they wouldn't even want to do that in the first place.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Even closeted gay actors had a tough time getting work if there were rumors, as did many straight actors that were false accused of being gay.
It was like the late 2000's before openly gay actors had a shot and I till don't see a lot of gay leading men and women leading movies.
It was like the late 2000's before openly gay actors had a shot and I till don't see a lot of gay leading men and women leading movies.
I doubt they'd want to be typecasted though, as the go-to person for homosexual roles. From the (granted, limited) experience I have of what homosexuals are like, I have seen vastly different personalities so it would be unlikely that any specific role would fit a homosexual more.
If it was a documentary, sure. But that's a different project altogether.
If it was a documentary, sure. But that's a different project altogether.
Because you seem to be arguing that LGBTQ people shouldn't be favoured. But somebody is, ultimately, favoured. We favour actors because they're famous, or because we think they're good, or whatever. Being LGBTQ affects how well someone can fit the role, right? Sure, we can't measure it, but what I'm saying is worlds apart from hiring LGBTQ folk for the sake of hiring them. Right?
I've tried to cover the myth of meritocracy many times now. The hiring process is rarely / never an idealist world where the best person a) applies b) is accepted for audition or interview, c) has a good audition or interview and d) is accepted (pending scheduling conflicts). There are multiple human elements at any point in the process. The assumption driving backlash to this thread is the notion that people who aren't the best fit for the role would be hired. It's an assumption I've been trying to push back on. It's more about expanding the net cast for such auditions, to push past inherent bias in the process that could otherwise exclude people.
We've covered it with the corrections - I take it back.
Except, like I said to Samson, that wasn't what I was talking about. I'm saying - like Davies said in the article in the OP - that it lends an authenticity to the role. Nothing more than that. Nothing about firing people, heck, nothing even about hiring people.
Gorbles, if you'd get your wish, you'd only see that studios would avoid it in the future - cause studios aren't pc with their own money.
Anyway, I personally see no merit in claiming "authenticity" would even be there, since homosexuals are not a block and don't fit a role (of a specific homosexual) just because they are homosexual. It's like expecting to get "authenticity" by hiring a random greek actor in the role of a (notable; usually movies include interesting people) greek, whether historical or fictional. And if you only limit this to the "elite" actors, then the number of choices becomes very small so can't be sustainable if we are talking about more than a few movies.
Anyway, I personally see no merit in claiming "authenticity" would even be there, since homosexuals are not a block and don't fit a role (of a specific homosexual) just because they are homosexual. It's like expecting to get "authenticity" by hiring a random greek actor in the role of a (notable; usually movies include interesting people) greek, whether historical or fictional. And if you only limit this to the "elite" actors, then the number of choices becomes very small so can't be sustainable if we are talking about more than a few movies.
Another prediction of an invented future
Akka
Moody old mage.
More specifically, I mean that people should be all treated consistently. So if people should not be discriminated about their sexual preferences, then it should work the same for everyone.
I'll take a parallel.
I need to hire some people for whatever work, and an essential component of this work is that the person should be at least 1,7 m tall. Now, we agree that on average, women tend to be noticeably smaller than men.
Does that mean I should favour men over women when I hire people ?
Or does that mean I should measure each people who come, and then hire them on the relevant aspect relative to the work (i.e. their size) ?
Doing the latter will obviously mean I will statistically recruit more men than women, but the important aspect is that I will not actually take the gender of the person into account, only their ability to fit the work requirements.
Can't speak for other, but I think it's pretty clear that my backlash is absolutely not about the result, and entirely about the method.
It's not about "the person hired wouldn't be the best fit", it's about "if you can't discriminate against population X about criterium A, then you can't discriminate against population Y about criterium B". I think it's pretty clear in all my post history that I dislike double-standards first and foremost.
Strikes me that there will be some disproportionate statistics. In the general population, straight people outnumber queer people. Therefore, you'd expect disproportionate representation in any role if the skills were equal. If being queer gave a competitive edge, then you'd expect a bump in representation. And then on top of those two numbers, we factor in discrimination or deliberate representation.
In my life, there have been some essential queer representation to fit the role. Well, that happened after famous actors actually agreed to play important queer characters, which was its own heavy lifting.
Probably the most standout for me was Bryan Batt in Mad Men, where he had a subtly to his performance that I don't know could have been mimicked. Maybe it was because of my delight for 'figuring out' that his character was closeted so early. Maybe it was him trumpeting a siren that would be obvious today.
In my life, there have been some essential queer representation to fit the role. Well, that happened after famous actors actually agreed to play important queer characters, which was its own heavy lifting.
Probably the most standout for me was Bryan Batt in Mad Men, where he had a subtly to his performance that I don't know could have been mimicked. Maybe it was because of my delight for 'figuring out' that his character was closeted so early. Maybe it was him trumpeting a siren that would be obvious today.
Last edited:
Chicken Pizza
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2020
- Messages
- 212
Sorry for misquoting you, but how do you get good at being gay?
"their job" in that sentence is 'acting'.
Chicken Pizza
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2020
- Messages
- 212
I know, it just struck me as funny
but if a gay actor should be favoured, you probably have to define that.
warpus
In pork I trust
So I'm obviously jumping into the middle of an elaborate conversation..
IMO a good actor will be take on any sort of role and make it shine. That's what these people excel at - convincing the audience that they are somebody who they are not. Otherwise hollywood would be in an awkward situation where they have to hire killers and rapists to play the various roles on the Sopranos, etc.
Only hiring straight actors to play straight roles seems like a stupid idea to me. If the actor is good, they'll be able to play that role well regardless.
Neil Patrick Harris basically re-invented his favored role into his current fame.
Ah, you were deliberately misinterpreting the post with a wry grin. Your pre-emptive apology makes more sense nowI know, it just struck me as funny
Chicken Pizza
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2020
- Messages
- 212
I tried to follow the heavy discussion, found the quote, then realized that if gay people should be considered being better suited, you have to define what's considered being good at being gay. No more than that.
Kyriakios probably said the same thing, but better.
I don't mean to bash on anybody. I'm fat, haven't been to a public bath in 20 years and feel uncomfortable wearing only a t-shirt in the summer.
But anyone can imagine that and put theirselfes in my place, probably better than me.
Zkribbler
Deity
Similar threads
