On actors who are too gay to be in the Musicals

This piece was hilarious.

Cabaret would have been a lot better if Fosse had made Joel Grey straighten up! (And don't get me started on the multi-lingual thing!)

Setoodeh has crafted the kind of nonsensical argument that's so obtuse I don't know where to start countering it. He has put so little thought into forming and expressing his own opinions that I'd have a hard time mustering up the effort to respond. So kudos Jim, for dismantling the silliness a piece at a time.

I didn't know anyone needed additional incentive to not read Newsweek

That's a great line.

Since perception, for instance, who's sleeping with who, seems to affect the believability of a performance for Mr. Setoodeh then Tom Cruise shouldn't have a career. Cruise may or may not be gay, and if he is or isn't is beside the point because the fact is, many people think he is and still he's had a stunningly successful career. South Park built a whole episode around the central joke that he and John Travolta were in the closet and wouldn't come out (the Scientology episode). Most people do believe they're both gay whether they are or not, and yet, they have successful careers and have often successfully played romantic leads.

"...it is not wise to invoke the gayest movie in Hollywood history, "Top Gun," in support of the argument..."

Haha! Priceless...just that volleyball scene alone debunks the Newsweek article -- it's impossible to tell who's straight playing gay and who's gay playing straight...

And now the media is up-in-arms about the 1st Lady's "nude" dress.

Good Lord, somebody give the press something to talk about.

This stuff is so absurd it writes itself as satire.

Hold on, Jim. Are you quite sure "300" isn't the gayest movie in Hollywood history?

It at least gives "Top Gun" a run for its money.

I think you meant that Kelly McGillis starred with Tom Cruise in "Top Gun," not Kelly Lynch.

Don't forget that Clint also sang the first verse of the song for "Gran Torino" (which was much, much better than the movie).

I have become accustomed to people using the annoying verbal concoction of "gayest" to mean "stupidest." So accustomed that when Mr. Ebert uses it in such an apparently literal manner, it throws me for a loop.

I take it that here, by "gayest," he means "contains the most homosexual undertones." It's been a long time since I've seen Top Gun, but is he, perhaps, suggesting that the love triangle in that movie was quite possibly an isosceles triangle, if you catch my drift?

If that's the case, I completely understand Eli's comment about the volleyball scene, even if I don't remember the scene itself.

Anyway, just the mere fact that a famous person -- even a non-actor -- can be closeted for decades should be proof that a GOOD actor can convince an audience of the same. Gay should be able to play straight and vice-versa. If you can't even imagine that much, then you don't have much imagination to begin with! Good bye, willing suspension of disbelief.

Side note: I've seen Niel Patrick Harris play a straight male in both Glee and Dr. Horrible. As a straight male who loves musicals, I say he does well in both roles, especially the latter.

You might need to move Laurence Olivier to the "rented space" section of the Gay ghetto, as his sexuality was always more mysterious than, say, Gielgud's. Unless by "gay actor" you meant "Gay Actor" in which case I completely agree.

Neil Patrick Harris has been playing another straight horndog on How I Met Your Mother with no apparent problems since he came out. I wonder if the writer would have the same problem if a notorious lothario such as Nicholson or Warren Beatty had ever played a gay character. Would they be considered too straight to pull it off? Why not extend the argument further? How can I believe James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano if he's never really strangled a man to death? The author is an idiot.

The real problem here is that Setoodeh actually HAS A JOB WRITING, and that writing such errant and offensive nonsense will not hurt his career; rather, he will be feted and promoted and praised for being SUCH A CONTRARIAN.

Gak.

Jim, your tacit assumption, all too common among people of 40 and up, that participating in musicals is inherently gay for men (but strangely, and damningly, especially for you, not for women) is extremely disappointing. It is especially ironic that you are so ghettoizing of people - or at least men - who enjoy, value, nurture, and participate in musical performance and theater, in a piece that is intended to be a critique of someone else's ghettoizing. I am going to go out on a limb and assume you have never been in musical theater - or else, if you are gay and you HAVE been in musical theater, that you thought the two must have something to do with each other.

I have news for you, and for all the other narrow-minded men and women of your generation (which is not so much older than mine - but it seems that growing up in the nineties may have made all the difference): expressing yourself in song is NOT an indicator of gayness. As wrong as it is to assume that all the heroic figures on stage and screen must necessarily be straight (and thank god we're all disabused of that notion - and you are, right?), it is also wrong to assume that all the men on stage and screen who break into song are gay, or even that their love of singing and those talents have anything to do with their sexuality or any little part of them that may secretly crave a man. Seriously - that's just pathetic. What a stupid trope to propagate - you should be as ashamed of yourself as I hope Mr. Setoodeh is. I do not believe I will be reading you again - you have proven for the last time to be too sheltered to be of much use.

And by the way, you should have asked Mr. Ebert what the appropriate interpretation of the phrase "when you know the likes of his true bedmates" is. It is not referring to the preferences of said bedmates.

Thanks for reminding us that it's really all about the actor's performance, not about the actor personally. Setoodeh's argument really breaks down to "You should just play whatever you are," so we can take that a little further:

*Gwyneth Paltrow is not British, but she was convincing enough in "Shakespeare in Love" to pull down an Oscar.

*Al Pacino is not Cuban, but Tony Montana is such an iconic creation that it landed "Scarface" in Ebert's "Great Movies" files.

*John Cho is neither gay nor Japanese-American (he's of Korean descent), but he pulled off the character of Sulu in the recent "Star Trek" reboot.

On the flip side:

*Jude Law is British and Nicole Kidman is Australian and "Cold Mountain" was a train wreck of mangled Southern drawl.

*Kevin Costner is not even remotely close to British and absolutely murdered his performance of Robin Hood in "Prince of Thieves."

Yes, there are rare occasions when an actor's offscreen baggage will influence our perception of their performance ("Mission: Impossible III" is largely considered to have flopped because of Tom Cruise's oversell of his love for Katie Holmes, while all that we know about Mickey Rourke elevated "The Wrestler" to grander heights), but by and large, what's on the screen is what's on the screen. That's what we should be entertained by, shouldn't it?

This post is such a brilliantly funny takedown that I would love to address your points further, but I am laughing too hard. And besides you had, just HAD to bring up Paint Your Wagon, didn't you--source of my favorite NY Times TV capsule of all time: "Clint sings like a moose." He did, too.

The problem with the article was that it was trying to argue two entirely different points (and it was apparently not really trying to argue either of these, but actually a third, different point, according to Setoodeh in interviews)

Firstly, he claims that gay actors just cannot play straight parts, it's just too unbelievable. Which is obvious completely false. Gay people have been playing straight people successfully for years, sometimes even in films/tv/plays.

Secondly, he claims that the reason they can't is because audiences won't believe it if they know they're really gay. Which, whilst equally stupid, is an opinion shared by many people in the industry who encourage gay actors to stay in the closet. This, despite the fact that such knowledge apparently doesn't work the opposite way.

But in interviews, he claims he was trying to debate this second issue, and discuss why it is that so many audience members refuse to accept gay actors as straight. The problem with this is that firstly, that's based on an assumption that's not true, according to the limited evidence available (audiences have no trouble with NPH on HIMYM, Groff on Glee and many other gay actors in straight roles) but *even if* that was the point he was arguing, the article was definitely not a discursive article, it was clearly stating an opinion. If he was intending it to be a balanced discussion, then it simply implies that he doesn't have the skills as a writer to get his point across, and Newsweek doesn't have editors either willing or capable of spotting an article isn't fulfilling it's stated purpose.

Nevertheless, Setoodeh has a history of writing anti-gay articles, this is one of the least negative. After Laurence King was killed, he wrote an article claiming that King should just have butched it up and he'd be fine. I don't even know why anyone is listening to him anymore.

I agree with feminist Rita Mae Brown when she said: "I don't believe in straight or gay. I really don't. I think we're all degrees of bisexual."

I think there is sometimes a distraction by a certain familiarity with actors (through past performances, fame etc.) that might not allow one to be as absorbed in their performances had they been an unknown actor, which shouldn't have anything to do with one's bulgy-eyed, mouth-foaming, groan-mumbling, tongue-hanging, panting heat packings.

Pierce Brosnan in Mama Mia? There's a case for reverse logic. I also have a suppressed memory of John Wayne singing and dancing. Might or might not have happened. Lee Marvin? Seriously...I need to lie down now.

I'd love to know more about the Olivier "Marathon Man" quote. Any details or URL to the story?

Just in passing, I'm not sure why you suggest that "Mr. Ebert" should clarify a comment here. The writer being quoted is Ramin Setoodeh, not Roger Ebert.

While I wish your rant were actually true, Setoodeh is right. When most gay actors out themselves, their careers tank. There are some exceptions, Neil Patrick Harris for example, but as a whole we (the American public) don't like gay actors in straight parts.

This doesn't make it right or desirable, but it is true.

Almost all of the actors you mention were not known to be gay when they played their straight roles.

So while your musings are believable, they are factually incorrect. Setoodeh has it right, which is a sad, sad state of affairs.

Good article. You essentially made the same point that Aaron Sorkin did, which is how ridiculous it is to let what you know - or think you know - about someone's personal life influence what you think of his or her acting.

Two things though - people both gay and straight use the term "gay community" all the time. Also, just out of curiosity, have you ever watched "Glee"? I ask because you didn't seem to know if the Madonna episode had aired yet (it has, several weeks back).

Jim,
I'm neither a troll nor a person who failed to read your piece - those are weird suppositions to make after what I wrote. But I am obviously curious enough to come back and see that you have tried to walk back what you have said. Your numbers 2) and 4) are full of what I'm talking about.

"Where would the Musical be without the participation of gay actors? The movie version of "Paint Your Wagon" -- that's where. You Musical fans want to spend the rest of your lives watching and listening to Clint Eastwood singing "I Talk to the Trees"?" All right, that first sentence could be taken in isolation to be a simple acknowledgment that gay people have figured prominently in the history of musical theater. But then you indicate that you think that the ONLY reason any musical transcends the mediocrity of Clint Eastwood in "Paint Your Wagon" is that gay people are involved. Your meaning is clear enough, especially to anyone who's "on the fence" as to whether performing will affect their fragile sexual identity.

In #4, you say "Generic conventions demand a certain suspension of disbelief when characters are required to burst flamboyantly into full-throated song at the drop of a hat." Absolutely - but what does this have to do with being gay? Your discussion of Streisand, Madonna, and Bea Arthur could be sensible if what you are talking about is a HISTORICAL connection between gay people and their audiences - but by sandwiching it around that statement about conventions, you make it clear that you are referring to inherent AESTHETIC characteristics of musical theater and their connection to gay people.

And to clarify for the commenter: the word "ghettoizing" means to confine a group of people, either literally or figuratively, in a very narrow set of experiences or environments. The original use of the word "ghetto" referred to the neighborhoods in Italian cities where Jews were forced to live. American society only later, much later, cruelly started using it to describe the areas where poor people had to live in U.S. cities. So that's the connection between the ghetto - an area where people are forced to live because they are vigorously discouraged from living anywhere else - and the common identification of musicals with being gay, which makes straight men feel like there is something wrong with expressing themselves. It's stifling - not to the same degree, of course, as many other ways we in society have prevented people from realizing their full potential, but it is stifling nonetheless.

As for my generational distinction, my point was that in the more recent generations we are much more likely to recognize that a love of, and a gift at, musical or theatrical performance does not have anything to do with sexuality. Without arguing any further, I would just ask that you read what you wrote as if you were a 17-year-old guy who's wondering if he should audition for a musical, and think about what that 17-year-old might take from it.

We were just talking about running Julia Sweeney for Ms/Mr. America as "Pat." And now, this!

Where we live now is too sparse to have a gay community, so we're importing Christopher Lowell up here to straighten things out. Should I call Newsweek?

I've heard the term Gay Community many times, but it does sound very odd. Why would you say it? I've also heard Black Community. But don't we all live together? It's not like we're segregated. No one says White Community or Little Person Community or even the Female and Male Gender Communities. I don't understand it.

First off, let me say Setoodeh's notion that openly gay actors are unconvincing in straight roles--on its face--is ridiculous. I love musicals--both on film and in live theatre--and when they're done well they are transcendent. My sexual orientation or that of the actors has nothing to do with that (not that it matters, but for the record I am straight).

However, I have noticed that some musical theatre seems to trade in this dichotomy of orientation for its ironic camp value. Setoodeh remarks that Hayes' performance in "Promises, Promises" "devolves into unintentional camp"--perhaps it wasn't completely unintentional? "Glee" is obviously a comedy about musical theatre, but it's also one that winks at us regarding a particular caricature of gay interests.

Let me be clear: It's not that I find such performances too "gay", but too arch. Setoodeh thinks this problem occurs because we know the real sexual orientation of the actors, but I wonder if this isn't just another casualty of the age of irony.

Jim,
This is either too hilarious or too depressing, I'm not sure which. Your jokes don't read well as jokes, and the Paint your Wagon joke would more likely be read as a joke by people who, in the words of Homer Simpson, think "It's funny because it's true." (Was your comment about who actually uses the words "the gay community" a joke, too? If not, you need to get out more. And actually watch a few episodes of Glee while you're at it. And The Incredibles - good lord, man.) What's more, it's possible that your tortured sense of comedy has you oblivious to the fact that the commenter was NOT joking.

I think I may just have to give you a pass for having to read too many things in too little time. You're missing my point: I agree with your basic critique of Ramin Setoodeh - it is ridiculous to have a problem with gay performers playing straight roles. And Mr. Setoodeh continues to display a remarkable penchant for displaying his paranoia about gays in entertainment in print - a paranoia which it is obvious you do not share. But I think that you are so used to reading comments by people whose understanding of musical theater is shaded by sexuality, you aren't used to reading something from somebody who refuses to get sucked into that misconception.

Mark Harris does of course say what you are saying, and better, because he doesn't make statements that, even in tortured jest, suggest that without a gay man's touch, musical theater would be nothing but mundane wailing and stomping. I think you "get it" as far as the full range of potential for gay performers goes - I just wish you would extend that favor to the straight performers as well.

And as for that "certain logic" that's being lampooned? Please - don't condescend. I've read enough of Mr. Setoodeh and others like him that I recognize the logic - it's the lampooning that was unrecognizable. But again, you're the one with the deadline, and not me. I will chalk it up to a busy day on your end.

I think knowing an actor is/was gay can sometimes add an interesting layer to their performance in the context of the movie, like Anthony Perkins in "Friendly Persuasion."

Actually, I think what Jim Emerson was saying is not that "gayness", as Ricky Bobby would put it, is essential to the success of musical theatre, but that the history and success of musical theatre was built, to a very large degree, by gay men and women. The same can be said, obviously, of just about anything else besides musical theatre. But I would agree with you that he expressed himself poorly.

On the other hand, you seem to be stubbornly refusing to actually acknowledge what he's saying. Case in point: the generation thing. Jim effectively refuted your argument there, but you refused to see it.

Personally, I find that your opinion of generational views of the relation between musicals and gay people doesn't fit the history of musical theatre and cinema as a mainstream genre and of the development of the "musicals are gay" pop culture clichè. I'd say that someone brought up in the 80's or later on would be much more likely to do that sort of connection than someone who remembers the days when Disney musicals were the equivalent of today's CGI blockbusters.

I think Gay actors can play straight. I have no idea if Sean Hayes can, but the actor on Glee? Sorry, nope. Both I and my two teen daughters looked at one another within minutes of this new "romantic lead" appearing on screen and my 13 year old said "Is he, like, supposed to be gay?" When an actor seems gay and show has openly gay characters, the natural assumption is that this character is going to figure into it. Until I read the actor was gay, we assumed he was a straight actor playing gay as a plot device (he's really in love with Kurt, the openly gay character, was our guess). That is a HUGE problem if the actor was inadvertently taking us in this direction.

When an actor SEEMS gay? Seriously? You should have challenged your daughter's (swift) use of stereotypes! It's time for the gender police to retire!