Actors playing characters with which they do not share characteristics

[Gorbles]

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.

Right. Where in the article linked in the OP is Davies discriminating? He believes that LGBTQ people (or at least, gay people) can do better playing a gay person. That's not discrimination. That's just saying "they do the role better". You can obviously disagree, but I don't see the lack of treating people consistently. Davies has worked with (and willingly cast) plenty of straight dudes for some of his best-known TV work (in recent years).

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.

Again, see above. It's not "gay people are automatically better". It's "we should give more chances" (the article even notes how the casting was luck and circumstance more than anything else) as to create a richer and better TV show (or film) as a consequence. I mean, look at how the thread's gone. We've spent more time discussing how it's potentially discriminatory against straight people than we have the current homophobia (that yes, still exists) in Hollywood and elsewhere that impacts LGBTQ folks in casting right now. There are going to be LGBTQ people that, as a result, push for better and more consistent representation. And advocating that they play roles that they themselves embody is obviously an easier (marketing, plus anything else) sell compared to casting them as a hetero person (typically involving a love interest because most films and shows include them as a matter of course).

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.

This is getting onto another topic (the greater subject of social justice), so I don't expect you to agree. But assuming the default is to cast a non-LGBTQ actor or actress for an LGBTQ role, that is already unintentionally discriminatory. It's not a matter of the best fit for the role (see: nonexistent meritocracy). It's about cultural assumptions and value judgements. About playing the crowd. Like how bowing to pressure from the Chinese market introduces all sorts of hang-ups in movies, the reality is that a lot of the Western world has regressive, or outright bigoted, reactions to LGBTQ representation. The market plays to that.

This is why I dislike the assumption that the best actor always gets the role. It's far more complicated than that. And bearing that in mind, how else does anyone advance LGBTQ representation without getting accused of discrimination? If the mere act of getting more roles for LGBTQ actors is seen as that kind of attack? Even if they're suited for the role!

How would you solve that?

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.

A good actor absolutely should. But not every show has such an actor. For capitalism alone, it makes sense to maximise the authenticity fitting the role will bring to a show. How this is done can be done in a variety of ways, but getting actors and actresses who resonate with the role should be a no-brainer. Like I said, this is not a "under the pain of death thou shalt not break this rule" kind of thing. It all came out of an interview with a gay guy who personally saw benefit to bringing something extra to a role.

Also, if we could not compare casting serial killers to the cause of LGBTQ representation (however innocently), that would probably help the thread

 

[warpus]

A good actor absolutely should. But not every show has such an actor. For capitalism alone, it makes sense to maximise the authenticity fitting the role will bring to a show. How this is done can be done in a variety of ways, but getting actors and actresses who resonate with the role should be a no-brainer. Like I said, this is not a "under the pain of death thou shalt not break this rule" kind of thing. It all came out of an interview with a gay guy who personally saw benefit to bringing something extra to a role.

In that context that makes perfect sense. If a role calls for someone who has gone through a miscarriage.. (for instance).. and you happen to have an actress right there who who has gone through that. Maybe giving her that role makes sense in that situation? I mean, there's more factors at play, but that makes sense to me. "I saw that this character in the script went through such and such life experience - I happen to have gone through that exact thing, so in that sense I have a leg up over the other candidates", etc.

It seems that this sort of thing would be rather rare though. It seems to me that it's probably not legal to ask an actor's sexual orientation during the interview/process or including such a qualification on a job posting. So you'd have to rely on the actor/actress telling you this directly, so you couldn't really use that as a hiring strategy ahead of time, unless it naturally came up.

These days female actresses are taking on traditionally male roles, African-American actors are taking some traditionally white roles, etc. These are professional actors, they are able to do all this, be flexible in what sort of characters they are able to protray, etc.. it's a part of their job.. So.. in the grand scheme of things, this sort of thing shouldn't really be an issue, IMO. If you get lucky and the casting call for a gay character leads to a talented gay actor trying out for the part, who seems like a good fit for it otherwise.. Yeah, why not hire him then? But like I said, it seems that this would be somewhat rare. I wouldn't dare to guess who's gay and who isn't, especially when you are hiring people for a job. It seems that it would just not come up, unless the actor/actress decided to voice that themselves.

 

[Chicken Pizza]

There was a commercial for a grocery store, running for many years in Sweden. They hired a CP-guy called Jerry and he was always the clever one, putting the others in their place in the end.

Maybe that's what people need to watch, as a gentle and harmless introduction to dealing with their own intolerance. Maybe it has the opposite effect?

I don't want to watch it because I find it emotionally and intellectually insulting. Maybe I'm no better, or worse, but I doubt it.

The episode of Dharma & Greg when she buys small drinks to the little people couple at the golf course, comes to mind.

 

[Gorbles]

In that context that makes perfect sense. If a role calls for someone who has gone through a miscarriage.. (for instance).. and you happen to have an actress right there who who has gone through that. Maybe giving her that role makes sense in that situation? I mean, there's more factors at play, but that makes sense to me. "I saw that this character in the script went through such and such life experience - I happen to have gone through that exact thing, so in that sense I have a leg up over the other candidates", etc.

It seems that this sort of thing would be rather rare though. It seems to me that it's probably not legal to ask an actor's sexual orientation during the interview/process or including such a qualification on a job posting. So you'd have to rely on the actor/actress telling you this directly, so you couldn't really use that as a hiring strategy ahead of time, unless it naturally came up.

These days female actresses are taking on traditionally male roles, African-American actors are taking some traditionally white roles, etc. These are professional actors, they are able to do all this, be flexible in what sort of characters they are able to protray, etc.. it's a part of their job.. So.. in the grand scheme of things, this sort of thing shouldn't really be an issue, IMO. If you get lucky and the casting call for a gay character leads to a talented gay actor trying out for the part, who seems like a good fit for it otherwise.. Yeah, why not hire him then? But like I said, it seems that this would be somewhat rare. I wouldn't dare to guess who's gay and who isn't, especially when you are hiring people for a job. It seems that it would just not come up, unless the actor/actress decided to voice that themselves.

I've mentioned it before but I appreciate not with you, so just to be clear - I'm not suggesting anyone out themselves. Not in the slightest. So yes, you'd rely on public knowledge, or the like.

The point about subverting roles is interesting for sure - but I see it as distinct. That's a script choice, subverting the original choice or design to tell a subtly-different story. Though it goes back a long while honestly, in my opinion (see: Junior as a now-aging example. Cripes. Mid-90s counts as aging now).

 

[Ferocitus]

I wouldn't dare to guess who's gay and who isn't, especially when you are hiring people for a job. It seems that it would just not come up, unless the actor/actress decided to voice that themselves.

Well said!
The only discrimination should be whether an actor is Kevin Sorbo or not.
If they are, then it is wrong to give them a role in Andromeda.

 

[Ferocitus]

Wally Walpamur, the finest Australian actor of his generation, lost a lot of roles to Russell Crowe, a New Zealander!

 

[warpus]

The point about subverting roles is interesting for sure - but I see it as distinct. That's a script choice, subverting the original choice or design to tell a subtly-different story. Though it goes back a long while honestly, in my opinion (see: Junior as a now-aging example. Cripes. Mid-90s counts as aging now).

I guess I don't necessarily see that as "subverting", but was moreso pointing to.. well, most characters don't need to have a certain ethnic background or gender. We are used to seeing a lot of caucasian actors taking leading roles for instance, but many of these characters don't need to be one race over another. Or gender. I guess it is subverting audience expectations, but hopefully by this point audiences are more or less used to the idea that a character could come in any colour or shape or size or whatever. (as long as they are good looking)

tl;dr: by traditionally male roles I meant roles traditionally given to men, whether the story required it or not. Also did not mean to imply anything about implications about outing people

 

[NovaKart]

I’ve seen some great performances from straight actors as gay characters so I don’t think it should matter at all.

Michael C Hall played a gay character in Six Feet Under and I was surprised to find out he wasn’t gay because he just seemed gay to me but also not very obviously gay. Like it was noticeable but a bit subtle. It seems like a fine detail to be able to demonstrate. Then when he was in Dexter he didn’t seem gay to me.

These days a lot of people are identifying as queer which can mean a lot of different things. So maybe you felt a little attracted to the same sex at some point or don’t feel like you’re totally male/female, you can identify as queer. And who’s to say that you’re not? So if someone wants to join the LGBTQ club you can. Maybe people would still call out someone doing so if they felt like that person was coming out opportunistically.

 

[Akka]

Right. Where in the article linked in the OP is Davies discriminating?

Dunno... Right from the start in the VERY BIG TITLE which explicitely says "Straight actors should not play gay characters" maybe ?

Again, see above. It's not "gay people are automatically better". It's "we should give more chances" (the article even notes how the casting was luck and circumstance more than anything else) as to create a richer and better TV show (or film) as a consequence.

Why "should" they be given "more chance" over others ? It's still discrimination based over sexual preferences. They should get exactly the same chances as anyone else.

This is getting onto another topic (the greater subject of social justice), so I don't expect you to agree. But assuming the default is to cast a non-LGBTQ actor or actress for an LGBTQ role, that is already unintentionally discriminatory.

No. It's the default because straight people outnumber gay ten/twenty to one, so obviously you have a much higher chance to cast a straight actor simply due to statistic. It would be discriminatory if the REASON they got the job was because they were straight, and yeah I'm aware it happened for a long time in Hollywood, but I thought the point was precisely to do away with discriminatory practices.

This is why I dislike the assumption that the best actor always gets the role.

There is no assumption that the best actor always gets the role, there is just a common sense (tautological, honestly) point of consistency that if you consider discrimination should not happen, then it should not happen. Not just happen one way or only when it fits your preferences, and be totally unacceptable the other way. You are basically saying "when I do it it's good, when he does it it's bad".

It's far more complicated than that. And bearing that in mind, how else does anyone advance LGBTQ representation without getting accused of discrimination? If the mere act of getting more roles for LGBTQ actors is seen as that kind of attack? Even if they're suited for the role!

How would you solve that?

You're saying that discrimination when it fits your preference is good because it allows to advance your political preferences. That's not really making it look better. Everyone should be treated equally, and if it's acceptable to not treat people equally, then why is there a problem with discrimination to begin with ? You can't complain about discrimination being bad in itself and then uses it for "the greater good", that makes no sense.

 

[Gorbles]

Dunno... Right from the start in the VERY BIG TITLE which explicitely says "Straight actors should not play gay characters" maybe ?

And right underneath, where he compares it to things like putting on blackface? Is it an appropriate comparison? Are you saying that we should cast white actors in black roles and do that horrific thing (for the record, I don't think you are)? Or is he off of the mark there?

Why "should" they be given "more chance" over others ? It's still discrimination based over sexual preferences. They should get exactly the same chances as anyone else.

And yet they don't. Which is why I tried to ask you how you'd solve the problem. We don't have egalitarianism. We don't have a true meritocracy (if one were even possible). I'm asking you how you would redress the current imbalance. A gay producer and writer has given his opinion. What is your opinion? There's no magic button that says "magically solve all discrimination forever". We can't fix that overnight. So how would you tackle the resulting issues in casting?

No. It's the default because straight people outnumber gay ten/twenty to one, so obviously you have a much higher chance to cast a straight actor simply due to statistic. It would be discriminatory if the REASON they got the job was because they were straight, and yeah I'm aware it happened for a long time in Hollywood, but I thought the point was precisely to do away with discriminatory practices.

That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing straight or LGBTQ people in LGBTQ roles. Not casting in general. And yes, discrimination against LGBTQ folk is definitely a factor in why we get LGBTQ characters played by straight folk. "it markets well" is basically "we're marketing straight actors our viewers know are straight". Like how I mentioned the impact of China on the Western market. Neither of these things are good, in my opinion.

There is no assumption that the best actor always gets the role, there is just a common sense (tautological, honestly) point of consistency that if you consider discrimination should not happen, then it should not happen. Not just happen one way or only when it fits your preferences, and be totally unacceptable the other way. You are basically saying "when I do it it's good, when he does it it's bad".

What you call common sense is an assumption. I don't mean that in a degrading way. You're drawing an assumptive link between "no discrimination" and "the best person getting the role". There's a lot more to casting than that (scheduling conflicts, mainly).

You're saying that discrimination when it fits your preference is good because it allows to advance your political preferences. That's not really making it look better. Everyone should be treated equally, and if it's acceptable to not treat people equally, then why is there a problem with discrimination to begin with ? You can't complain about discrimination being bad in itself and then uses it for "the greater good", that makes no sense.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm explaining how difficult it is to achieve an actual state of non-discrimination because there are problems with society (and thus the TV and film industry) currently, and we're never going to get anywhere if a gay guy expressing his opinion on LGTBQ casting is going to get called "discrimination". People aren't being treated equally. So to go back to the second quote in this post - how would you address this? How can you?

You're the one using this as an ideological gotcha for my political preferences. But the opposite is true also. Your insistence on "all discrimination is bad" fails to account for the current imbalance in society. Which means your preference is that the current state of inequality continues, rather than anything happen to redress that. Because any forcing of the scale back towards actual egalitarianism is going to be perceived, at least on some level, as "reverse discrimination". So what's your solution?

 

[Kyriakos]

And right underneath, where he compares it to things like putting on blackface? Is it an appropriate comparison? Are you saying that we should cast white actors in black roles and do that horrific thing (for the record, I don't think you are)? Or is he off of the mark there?


And yet they don't. Which is why I tried to ask you how you'd solve the problem. We don't have egalitarianism. We don't have a true meritocracy (if one were even possible). I'm asking you how you would redress the current imbalance. A gay producer and writer has given his opinion. What is your opinion? There's no magic button that says "magically solve all discrimination forever". We can't fix that overnight. So how would you tackle the resulting issues in casting?


That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing straight or LGBTQ people in LGBTQ roles. Not casting in general. And yes, discrimination against LGBTQ folk is definitely a factor in why we get LGBTQ characters played by straight folk. "it markets well" is basically "we're marketing straight actors our viewers know are straight". Like how I mentioned the impact of China on the Western market. Neither of these things are good, in my opinion.


What you call common sense is an assumption. I don't mean that in a degrading way. You're drawing an assumptive link between "no discrimination" and "the best person getting the role". There's a lot more to casting than that (scheduling conflicts, mainly).


That's not what I'm saying. I'm explaining how difficult it is to achieve an actual state of non-discrimination because there are problems with society (and thus the TV and film industry) currently, and we're never going to get anywhere if a gay guy expressing his opinion on LGTBQ casting is going to get called "discrimination". People aren't being treated equally. So to go back to the second quote in this post - how would you address this? How can you?

You're the one using this as an ideological gotcha for my political preferences. But the opposite is true also. Your insistence on "all discrimination is bad" fails to account for the current imbalance in society. Which means your preference is that the current state of inequality continues, rather than anything happen to redress that. Because any forcing of the scale back towards actual egalitarianism is going to be perceived, at least on some level, as "reverse discrimination". So what's your solution?

I think this is a non-issue, tbh. If a homosexual actor is famous, they aren't likely to want to be typecasted playing homosexuals in the first place: too few good movies. Btw, there are homosexual actors who play heterosexuals in a rather not very believable way (at least in the following example) - then again, virtually everything in that Gone Girl movie (after the first half hour) was ridiculous and unreal, so it's not like that actor is responsible for the ruin

 

[Gorbles]

I think this is a non-issue, tbh. If a homosexual actor is famous, they aren't likely to want to be typecasted playing homosexuals in the first place

What?

Being gay isn't a choice. It's like saying a straight person doesn't want to be typecast playing a straight person. Or a black person, etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

What?

Being gay isn't a choice. It's like saying a straight person doesn't want to be typecast playing a straight person. Or a black person, etc.

I obviously meant if they are famous and it is known they are homosexual. Why would they want to be typecasted as the go-to person for such roles when those roles (good enough) are very few and far between?
For example, how many homosexual roles has Magneto (not the irish one) played since he came out? Or Professor Xavier.

 

[Gorbles]

I obviously meant if they are famous and it is known they are homosexual. Why would they want to be typecasted as the go-to person for such roles when those roles (good enough) are very few and far between?
For example, how many homosexual roles has Magneto (not the irish one) played since he came out? Or Professor Xavier.

Patrick Stewart isn't gay, so I have no idea lol.

Funny you should mention Ian McKellen though. I don't think his problem is with being typecast

 

[Kyriakos]

Patrick Stewart isn't gay, so I have no idea lol.

I wasn't sure.
But can one ever be?

 

[warpus]

I really don't think any of this should matter. Hire the best actors for the roles you have and don't even think about sexual orientation unless you really have to. Yeah, if you're making a movie about the struggles of being gay in the modern world or some sort of historical movie about the same subject.. That sort of movie would probably benefit from having actors (& others) working on it that have gone through these trials themselves. Or if it's a movie for a gay movie festival or something, maybe that sort of thing would inspire more gay actors to apply for the role? And a director/producer/whoever hires actors might see that as big plus at the time?

Otherwise, why would you care? Maybe if your budget isn't very high and you don't have the $$ to hire actors who can convince he audience they are gay (or a commando or a ninja or what have you). In that case I could see you opting for actors who have lived these subjects themselves - since you can't hire the best actors, you might as well go for authenticity.

Something like Star Trek: Discovery or Six Feet Under though.. I have no idea who is or who isn't gay who played these gay characters.. but.. for a role like that, it seems you just need a good actor, whether they are gay, straight, asexual, or something else.

My friends went to school with this guy who moved to hollywood in his early 20s and ended up becoming a decent enough actor. You'd probably remember him from some of the things he's been in, although I can't remember his name at all (It was Luke _____ I think). This guy is gay, but from what I've seen he just plays a wild assortment of roles. i.e. it's just a job and he's a professional, so his sexual orientation usually doesn't come into play.

This sort of discussion makes a lot more sense wrt ethnic background, which you just can't hide. Why would a white guy play Gengis Khan? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a movie like that at some point, because hollywood seems a bit stupid in that regard, but if the actors match the historical characters visually then that really helps with the story, especially if it's a character everybody knows is supposed to be ________. Sexual orientation is not visible like that at all, so I see it as being a very different consideration (or lackthereof) when you are looking for actors to fill your roles. Besides, like I said, nobody will want to risk asking applicants what their sexual orientation is, so most of the time this just shouldn't come up.. but if a black guy comes in to play Donald Trump, you might just have to tell him that unfortunately they are looking for somebody white or orange.

 

[NovaKart]

John Wayne as Genghis Khan is a pretty extreme example. Some people could physically look like an ethnic group they don’t belong to. Like some people with European ancestry can pass as Middle Eastern or from Latin America.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, if it works visually, it works visually. I'm sure Charles Bronson could pass as Gengis Khan for instance and might actually have some Mongolian in him (like many Poles and Lithuanians do to some extent). John Wayne though? Has that happened? Looking at his photos, I don't see it working very well, but of course a great actor might be able to pull it off nevertheless, given enough makeup and so on. Seems excessive in this case - why not just hire an actor of Asian descent? Would make it a lot more believable (and save you on makeup). Plus Asian actors don't get hired enough as it is

I could also see somebody like Cleopatra being played by people of various races, since many people do not know that she was actually of Greek descent, and not Egyptian or African. We also don't quite know what she looked like, so..

 

[NovaKart]

Yeah John Wayne was Genghis Khan in a 1950s movie. I just looked it up and according to Wikipedia John Wayne lobbied for the role and was at a high point in his career. It’s also considered one of the worst movies ever. I’ve never seen it. I bet there were not as many Asian actors in the 1950s but he still seems like he was badly miscast.

 

[Zkribbler]

I could also see somebody like Cleopatra being played by people of various races, since many people do not know that she was actually of Greek descent, and not Egyptian or African. We also don't quite know what she looked like, so..

Cleopatra VII at 3:33:

Yeah John Wayne was Genghis Khan in a 1950s movie. I just looked it up and according to Wikipedia John Wayne lobbied for the role and was at a high point in his career. It’s also considered one of the worst movies ever. I’ve never seen it. I bet there were not as many Asian actors in the 1950s but he still seems like he was badly miscast.

The Conqueror. I've seen it. It is bad. The site where it was shot is a former open-air nuclear testing site. Most people who worked on it died of cancer.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049092/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_3