Closed minded Hollywood doesn't like gay actors?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

BBC News

Sir Ian McKellen has said openly gay US actors are prevented from having successful Hollywood careers.

"It is very, very, very difficult for an American actor who wants a film career to be open about his sexuality," the gay British actor said.

"And even more difficult for a woman if she's lesbian. It's very distressing to me that that should be the case."

The Lord of the Rings star added: "The film industry is very old fashioned in California."


Uh...WHAT? Is this guy serious? It isn't April 1st yet is it? This guys been in some of the highest grossing movies of the last decade (LOTH Trilogy, X-Men 1 & 2), and he's complaining about how "old fashion" Hollywood is about gay actors. Am I missing something here, this may have carried a little more weight if a unknown out of work gay actor had said this, I mean come on.

Does anyone know of a list of gay actors (highly inappropriate, but possibly exists in this crazy world)? I would like to see how bad they really have it. Maybe this guy's getting less work because of his age and he just assumes it's because he gay?



mod edit:

Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)



[edit on 14-2-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Right, well the last time I checked, Hollywod was more...Liberal than conservative, I think your right with the age thing Yadboy.

If this guy is going by how many gay actors he knows of, well, there are some problems with that,
1. He wont know all openly gay actors.
2. Some actors whom are gay, would prefer it stay in there private life.

But anyways, definately agree that it's prolly the age thing.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
What do your guys consider "openly gay?" I have no problem with who people have relations with so long as that person is of consentable age. I do however have an issue with who I consider openly gay.

I consider openly gay men the ones who are sterotypically really, really, really gay. You guys know what I mean. The guys who act like queens, dress like they are starting a cult, and speak with rediculously thick lisps. And then the typical short-haired, militant, man-hating, lesbos. Can't you screw the same sex without advertisement?

I prefer the opposite sex. I dont advertise it. I dont change my appearance or actions in any way to advertise that I enjoy the opposite sex. Why do certain homosexuals feel the need to create this weird subculture? They only serve to divide an already existing population.

I also want to say that I have no problems at all with homosexuals. I have a good friend who for two years never let on that he was gay. I finally asked him why he never introduced himself to the girls that were eyeing him in the bar and he told me he was gay. We are still good friends. I liked it much better when homosexuality wasnt flaunted in front of society with shows on tv and displays in the public eye. Cant we keep sexual preferences on a need-to-know basis?

[edit on 14-2-2006 by DaFunk13]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
To me openly gay doesn't necessarily mean "flaming", which is the definition I would attach to the extremely gay people you're talking about. Granted "flaming" is a slang term for a stereotype, but I don't think it's considered an insult (and not meant as such by me).

To me someone who is openly gay is someone who doesn't try to hide the fact that they are gay. I'm sure there are quite a few male actors in Hollywood that are gay, but would never openly admit it. In that respect I agree w/ Mr. McKellen. But I really don't think that any gay American actors would be denied work because of their sexual orientation. At least I don't think it would be a widespread occurance.

There's been rumors about Tom Cruise being gay for a long time. If he did decide to come out (IF it were in fact true), would he stop getting work? I seriously doubt it. Women would still find him sexy and he would still be a great action hero. Would some folks have a problem with it? Sure, but someone would have a problem w/ anything he says or does, people are weird like that when it comes to celebs.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
What is making only 10 mil a movie,discrimination!???



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Ok, before I say this, I'm gay, just so no one thinks I'm insulting gay people when I say queer, though I do dislike that word.


I consider openly gay to be any gay person who does'nt lie about there sexuality, and is out of the closet basically.

I consider the gay guys that wear a ton of make-up and talk all weird and are what some call "flaming", to be queer.

Now, to tell you the truth "queer" guys sorta bother me, and I'm not above telling them to F off if I ask them nicely to leave me alone, or show that I'm not interested.

Anyways, thats really starting to go off topic, so I'll go back on to the topic.


I really think this guy is over dramaticising this, he needs to just be quiet and be enjoy the large amount of money he has obtained already as an actor.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I agree completely iori. Flaming, or queer is a better word for the "type" of gays I am talking about.

There is nothing wrong with being "out of the closet." It is shameful for anyone to hide who they are. At the same time, I think it is shameful to act fruity to advertise sexual orintation



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Well to me it sounds like we're all describing Isaac Mizrahi!


I have no problem w/ gay people, I've had both male and female friends that were gay, but that guy gets on my nerves. I just don't understand why he's popular at all. My wife thinks he too cool. I just have to leave the room when she's watching his show. And it's not just because he's flaming either...it's got more to do with a feeling I get from him. Like he's fake flaming just to get attention. I really don't like fakers!



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
What rock has this guy been under?

100 years ago, boarders, landlords, and the like hated renting to actors, even had signs saying NO ACTORS. Why? Because they were considered to be a pretty immoral bunch. My landlady said that happened--she'll be 101 in May, so she remembers a lot about that time.

Their behavior hasn't changed over the past century. Everyone else has become tolerant--that's the only change. Now it's nothing new when some "celebrity" or other goes to rehab.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
It is shameful for anyone to hide who they are.


Except, of course, if they're a flaming queer, then they should hide it, right?



At the same time, I think it is shameful to act fruity to advertise sexual orintation


How about acting macho to advertise their (straight) sexual orientation? Is that shameful, too?

It's ok for people to be gay as long as you can't tell?


On topic, there are many gay celebrities, Sir Ian McKellan apparently hasn't seen this page:

Gay Celebrities

Anderson Cooper??



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I am afraid you misunderstood my tone. I cant convey it in text like I wish I could. I dont mean it like you interpreted it. Its a lame defense, I know.

I think anyone who acts "macho", as we perceive it, is a sexist ass...for lack of a better phrase. I dont, however, think its fine for a man or woman to purposely act "gay." You can be in touch with you feminine side, or viseverse, without making a spectacle out of it. There needn't be a "gay pride" anymore. It is socially recognised, and fairly respected now. They are just people with a new dynamic. A new culture, a new group. I embrace this. I am rooting for our pot-head, Bob Marley, One Love Utopia here. Dont take me as being hateful.

I think it boils down to a decay of principals for me. Not that it is wrong to be gay...thats a fair and natural choice, but we shouldn't advertise such things around a world that is already surrounded with hate, violence, sex, and all kinds of stuff I would rather we raised our children without.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I apologize if I misunderstood you.


Originally posted by DaFunk13
I dont, however, think its fine for a man or woman to purposely act "gay."


In the interest of understanding better, can you tell me... What would this look like? What does 'acting gay' mean? What does a woman do when she's 'acting gay'?

For a man, it seems to be the lisping, the limp wrist, the classic flaming queer attributes. How does this hurt anyone? If it's who they are, why should they suppress it? If it's part of their personality, why are you uncomfortable with it?

I advertise who I am every day, by the car I drive, by the way I fix my hair, by the clothes I wear, by the things I do, by what I say and how I say it. And so do you. Why shouldn't they?



Not that it is wrong to be gay...thats a fair and natural choice, but we shouldn't advertise such things around a world that is already surrounded with hate, violence, sex, and all kinds of stuff I would rather we raised our children without.


Let me see if I understand. You don't think it's wrong to be gay, you just don't want it advertised to your children until maybe they are old enough to understand?

To me, hate and violence are very different things than having sex and being gay. Hate and violence are never appropriate. Sex is actually a wonderful thing, as long as it's between 2 consenting adults. And being gay, well, they're not having sex in front of your children, are they? What's to keep your kids sheltered from? Lisping?

Being gay isn't all about sex, you know? Any more than being straight is. I hold my husband's hand. Is that 'acting straight'. Some women wear make-up to attract men. Is that 'acting straight'? Do you shelter your children from that?

I don't think I misunderstood you, but I could be wrong. I hope you will explain to me so that I do understand.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I am speaking more of the limp-wristed, makeup wearing crowd. I have yet to meet any lesbians that were overly advertising their sexuality. Holding hands is not counting here, I held hands with my grandmother.

So on to the "flaming queer attributes"; It is not part of their personality...it is an act. I think there is a difference. Just like all the little thug, ghetto wanna-be kids that are becomming popular today, this flaming queer personality seems to be gaining steam. It is an act. It is how they want the world to view them. It is a conscious decision, not an ingrained behavior. It would be no different than me walking around acting as macho as I could, just to make sure that everyone in the room is well aware I like boobies. It is silly.

As a form of protest I can understand, but as I said before, this is no longer necessary. Popularity of shows like Will & Grace, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy proves that the gay rights struggle is not stuck in 1920 anymore. They dont need to advertise their sexuality any more than I need to advertise mine.

IMO, being gay should be about sexual preference, not advertising it.

This is a free country. I believe that people should be able to behave any way they see fit that doesnt disturb, or harm another. At the same time I have a hard time bleeding for anyone who acts outright different, for no other purpose than looking different. We need unity. If gays want to be accepted they should just be themselves. I refuse to believe that feeling for the same sex automatically makes you act "flaming queer." Whether it is an act of protest, or just for attention, I think it is no different than rich white kids acting, dressing, and talking like a gangster. If you try so hard to manipulate public opinion, you shouldnt be surprised when they dont accept you so quickly.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
So on to the "flaming queer attributes"; It is not part of their personality...it is an act.


So, what I get from what you're saying is that you don't like it when people 'act' in a way that you determine is not genuine to them. An affectation. And you have determined that the "flaming queer" behavior is an affectation. You could be right. And I'm sure in some cases it is. I just don't have a problem with it, I guess. To me, it's the same as these other archetypes:

The pretty, blond girl who bats her eyelashes and 'acts' innocent or dumb in order to get attention.

Or the suave, good-looking, Humphrey Bogart-type who always wears a hat and speaks out of one side of his mouth while balancing a cigar in the other.

Or the teenage kid with the dyed black 6-inch-long mohawk who wears black eyeliner and fingernail polish, 3 nose rings and wears all black with chains and grunts in lieu of speech.

Or the hippie-girl who speaks of love, not war and wears Birkenstocks and long skirts, and is always flowing about, wide-eyed and saying 'meaningful' things.

Or the Jewish Mother type who wears TONS of makeup, has big red hair and is always trying to overfeed people and speaks only in questions.

Or the long, lean cowboy who wouldn't be caught in anything other than Wranglers, boots and a denim shirt, and speaks with a Texas drawl, even though he's from Minnesota.

Is the flaming queer affectation the same as these for you? Do you have the same distaste for all of them?


Originally posted by DaFunk13
It is how they want the world to view them.


Don't we all portray ourselves in the way we want the world to view us?



As a form of protest I can understand, but as I said before, this is no longer necessary. Popularity of shows like Will & Grace, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy proves that the gay rights struggle is not stuck in 1920 anymore.


Well, it may not be in the 20s, but it's not 100% either. Until they have equal rights I don't see them sitting back on the great accomplishments of the movement toward that.



IMO, being gay should be about sexual preference, not advertising it.


Whether you (a straight man, I'm assuming?) think it should be or not, being gay isn't just about sexual preference. Believe it or not, most gay men are actually quite different than straight men, and not just who they love. Most gay men I've known love to shop, have long conversations, cry at the drop of a hat and are very emotional and, in essence, make great 'girl' friends. Not all, but many. Being gay isn't just about sex.



This is a free country. I believe that people should be able to behave any way they see fit that doesnt disturb, or harm another.


Does the flaming queer thing disturb or harm anyone?



At the same time I have a hard time bleeding for anyone who acts outright different, for no other purpose than looking different.


I don't believe anyone is asking you to bleed for them... In fact, I'm certain that they wouldn't wawnt you to.



We need unity.


Does that mean we all need to act the same?



If gays want to be accepted they should just be themselves.


I guess I believe they are being themselves. Are they acting with affectation? Yes. Are they expressing themselves? Yes. Is it part of who they are? Yes.

In my opinion, affectations and archetypes make for a colorful and interesting world. I submit that either you are not nearly as accepting of gay people as you say you are, or else there are a lot of people in this world that you are intolerant of. (See the list above - there are thousands)

Have you seen the movie The Birdcage? It's a very funny and wonderful movie with an archetypal gay man (played by Nathan Lane, a wonderful gay actor (ooh! I"m on topic!)) who, quite clearly, cannot behave differently. It's ingrained in him and there are some very funny scenes that illustrate this. I highly recommend it.

I'm not trying to rag on you, but sometimes when I hear things like what you've said, I have to speak. I can't help it.
I'm not looking down on you though, just exploring the psychology around it all.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Righto...no offense taken...I can understand you playing shrink.

I never said I dont accept "flaming queers." This is why I overemphasize the fact that we Americans can act however we want. I just dont agree with it. Just as I dont agree with the mohawk kid, or the bogart-types. Its not a gay thing. It is a perception thing. I know a couple gay guys that you would never know were gay.

I cant say anything else to defend my position other than this: I would rather no one be able to detect sexual preference based on appearance. You would meet me and have no idea who I enjoy relations with. You would meet my friend Suzy and not have a clue who she lays down with, or associates with sexually. This would alleviate prejudice. This would help to cure a terrible ail our society has....the problem of profiling.

I dont think we should be sheep either...before you insinuate this. There are things about our cultures and beliefs that make us different. I think we should embrace our differences. But acting "queer" is not a culture, or at least I dont think it should be. It is a behavior that was created and imitated for attention. Attention to sexual preference. Something that should be no ones business, unless they ask.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
first, reread the comments you quoted. he says openly gay US actors. He's british. he's talking about others.

that said, take a look at your biggest american movie stars. they are not openly gay. why? because selling an hout of the cloest actor as an action star or a love interest, to close minded, bible thumping, middle america is no easy task. Tom Cruise has been battling rumors of his sexuality for years. If he was to come out of the closet (not that there's anything wrong with that...) it would mean a loss in his fanbase and that translates into less marketability and less profits. Take a look at what being off his rocker did for his last movie. Now imagine the hearttrob that makes chick's weak kneed coming out and saying he prefers Pitt to Jolie.

So, yes, Sir Ian is being fair and accurate in his comments about American Actors.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   


This would alleviate prejudice.


Not exactly. If someone hates gay people, they're still going to hate them, they just won't be able to tell who they are. That's no kind of solution, to me. The prejudice, the intolerance would still exist. But gay people would be living insincere lives, hiding who they are.

That's not ok with me.

And what about people who are prejudiced against black people. If black people would just wear gloves and a bag over their heads, it would alleviate the appearance of prejudice against them because they couldn't tell they were black...



But acting "queer" is not a culture, or at least I dont think it should be.


It's a culture all right. But I understand that you don't think it should be.



Something that should be no ones business, unless they ask.


So, you prefer a "Don't ask / Don't tell" environment.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I mean it would alleviate prejudice in that....hell, lemme give an example:

A person goes to a resteraunt, and the server is incredibly, outwardly, flamming gay. If this person does simpathize with the gay cause, or recognize gays as part of our "melting pot" they can immediately pick this person out as...whatever they think is wrong with gays. If this same server just acted normal, and no I dont see queer as normal, the prejudice would cease to matter. There would be no negative impact on either life.

Not flaunting sexual preference does not mean hiding it. I see nothing wrong with being gay, or out of the closet. I think it aint for me, but this is not hate. But once again, to act superduper gay is only a cry for attention. I guess the dont ask dont tell thing describes it best. I guess I could have said that earlier, but I feel like I need to explain myself. I really, really dont want to come off as hateful.

To be perfectly honest, I dont really give a #. The world has much bigger fish to fry. It doesnt bother me any more than the ghetto rich kids, or the mohawk punks, or the macho tough-guys. It is a facade for attention. To further draw us apart rather than unite us.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13to act superduper gay is only a cry for attention..


sure it is. as in, see me, I'm gay and I want you to know because I'm not ashamed of who I am.

No different than the girl with the spike thru her nose or the all black clad goth or the (insert stereotype imagery of individual here).

I'm not gay so I'm only explaining how I view the more "open" behavior.

It shouldn't bother you any more than it should bother you when a white kid from a rich suburb wears his rocca wear and acts all gangsta (ok, bad example, that should annoy everyone). it shouldn't bother you more than the girl with the shaved head or the guy with tatoos all over his face or the purple haired old lady.

it's how someone wants the world to see them. it's their own version of how they see themselves. if it bothers you in any way, you should ask yourself why. don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Merely stating that the way someone projects themselves shouldn't annoy, embarrass or scare you.

Never judge a book by it's cover.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
and no I dont see queer as normal, the prejudice would cease to matter. There would be no negative impact on either life.


I think we just disagree. I do see 'queer' as a perfectly normal way of expressing one's self. And if you think that suppressing who you are has no impact on your life, I suggest you try it for a few weeks and see if you still feel the same way.



Not flaunting sexual preference does not mean hiding it.


Being gay is (sometimes) about more than sexual preference.



I think it aint for me, but this is not hate. ... I really, really dont want to come off as hateful.


You're not coming across as hateful, at least not to me. But you don't have to hate to be prejudiced. Prejudice is just "preconceived-judgment or opinion". No hatred necessary.




To be perfectly honest, I dont really give a #.


Well, I do.



The world has much bigger fish to fry.


Like prejudice against Muslims.

I'm not going to tell you what should bother you and what shouldn't bother you. In fact, I think I'd better leave you alone before you do start to feel hatred toward someone! Me!
Just kidding.

Take it easy.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join