Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
The Mary Sue: In a Time magazine interview, Ellen Page shook off the descriptor “brave” when she discussed her upcoming role in Freeheld. “Maybe this is a bad thing to say, but I have a hard time when people call actors brave,” she said. “I don’t really get that, because our job is to read something on a page.”
8 comments:
Nikki LoPinto
said...
In any context, calling a LGBTQ+ individual 'brave' is insulting and sort of nauseating. I completely agree with what Ellen Page has to say, especially regarding the double standard involving actors playing straight people. I wonder if the media would ask the same question to another actor if they were playing someone as villainous as Hitler, or someone as well regarded as Gandhi. I would find the actors playing those roles to be more brave to assume the characteristics of a previously living person, evil or good. Sexual orientation and identity are and should be simple facts of life, not personality traits that make a character or a person more quirky or edgy. Page also talks in the article about the importance of telling stories outside the usual realm of filmmaking. I would personally love to see a story about a Native American or Native Canadian. I think we're all attracted to stories that contain pieces of ourselves in them. But, as Ellen Page says, those traits don't have to form the entire fabric of the films and literature we decide to look into.
I feel like we have reached a time in our society where people are sufficiently scared about being considered homophobic, to the point of overcompensation. We now see LGBTQ+ people portrayed in the media, but they are almost always singled out for the sexuality. If there is a film about a gay character, everyone involved is praised for their grace and tolerance, and the entire plot will be centered around the fact that that character is gay. In these films, a gay person's sexuality can't be ignored, and in fact it is their defining trait. On the other hand, a straight character need never mention their own sexuality. Who they fall in love with is either a given, or irrelevant. I consider this type of thing to still be discrimination, albeit discrimination that comes from a place of good intentions. But while we praise and coddle these characters, we a still implicitly saying that they cannot carry stories on their own, without this special protection. We need to enter the mindset that it isn't 'edgy' or 'daring' to play someone of a different sexuality. Sexuality is but a single element of a person's personality. It is an actor's job to transform themselves completely. I don't see why a sexual orientation is supposed to be the thing puts the art over the edge.
It seems to me that those referring to actors playing LGBTQ roles as 'brave' have no malicious intent, and are doing so out of what they believe to be political correctness. In the past it was rather risky to play these roles, as it was risky to even live in society as a member of the LGBTQ community. That is changing, but out of fear of offending, media coverage is not. In this fear of appearing insensitive to these people and their plights that arise from their sexuality, reporters, movie critics, etc. do more harm than good. They make it seem as if straight actors, though I understand the actor of this specific film is not straight, are venturing out, taking a huge risk by acting as a gay person. As if they, the actor, are a stronger person for having it in them to be able to pretend to have interest in the same sex as them. That should not make an actor brave. As Page brought up, she would never be called brave for playing a straight character simply because that character is straight. It is only when the sexuality of the character strays from societal norms that it is brought to our attention. However, all too often it is just their sexuality that is brought to our attention, as if that alone is enough characterization, and the variety of traits offered to a straight character remain hidden from their homosexual co star.
I can very easily rant for hours about the need for diversity in our entertainment industry and how its ignorant for old-school producers to literally be ignoring a new audience that craves people of color in their favorite forms of media, but I think that is a somewhat different issue in terms of discussing privilege like in a case like this. While I do understand the idea that actors do experience a great deal of privilege in their daily lives and I also agree with the fact that gay-centric films should looked at no differently than hetero-centric films in terms of how "brave" it's actors are. But that kind of ends right there, it SHOULD. The world doesn't work that way, because were only a few years off from the highly publicized hate crimes against homosexual people of the 90's and early 2000's. To be thinking that those people don't exist anymore would be a little bit much too be assuming, no?
Perhaps this has lessened over time, but I have always felt that some people see being gay as too much of a defining characteristic. I have, for a long time, had the desire for a movie with a gay protagonist that is not about their sexuality or what people think of them for it or how it affected their life or anything- but instead a movie with a gay protagonist that tells an entirely different story and oh yeah, she also has a girlfriend. I agree with Nix, sexuality isn't something that has to be at the forefront of every gay character's story. Being attracted to men is no different, in my mind, than preferring vanilla to chocolate. If we aren't talking about ice cream, or eating ice cream together, why should we steal from the depth of the story by focusing on what kind of ice cream one of the characters prefers? I say this within limit. There are obviously some beautiful and tragic and wonderful LGBTQ+ stories that absolutely center around sexuality and the marginalization that often accompanies homosexuality. I am talking about the times when movies include a gay man for humor who has no substance, or a lesbian woman who only ever talks about attractive women. These are the things that really bother me in film, though I am glad that seems to be changing, if only slightly. I think Ellen Page is on point when she says it shouldn't be an act of bravery to play a gay character; it shouldn't require anymore bravery than a straight character. Characters are characters just as people are people, and I think the more we move away from using someone's sexuality as their defining characteristic, the less "brave" it will seem to take on a gay character.
Ellen Page is completely correct. Actors who play gay on stage aren’t brave. Yes, they are sometimes talented, and quite obviously secure in themselves enough to portray a controversial character. But at the end of the day they get to go home, walk away from the part and go about their everyday lives. It’s the audience members who have to deal with the daily struggle of being persecuted just for who they are. With the increase in LGBTQ films it is become more prevalent for straight actors to actively accept these opening roles, many of them simply to say that they “speak out” for the LGBTQ struggle. In this way it isn’t fair to call them brave. The audience is the real brave people. And while no, you can’t applaud them for their performance, you can turn your attention to the role itself and the story behind the character.
Yes, a few years ago actors and artists involved in projects centered on LGBTQ+ characters were taking risks, opening themselves up to both potential personal harassment and professional discrimination. I believe we can legitimately call those people "brave" for taking those risks. But now, things have turned a corner, to a disturbing extent. As Olivia pointed out a gay character's sexuality is always front and center. The recent controversy surrounding the movie "About Ray" shows how bad this exploitation of LGBTQ+ "representation" can get. This is a movie about a young trans man and his transition. The director has been openly transphobic in interviews, as well as constantly referring to the main character with she/her pronouns and casting Elle Fanning instead of a trans actor. As far as I can tell, this director is only working on this project as clickbait that they think a lot of people will go see to feel open minded and accepting. Do I think they should be praised as brave? No. I think it is time, as Jordan Gavaris who plays Felix on Orphan Black says, to realise that there are many more interesting things about a person than their sexuality or gender identity. For most members of the LGBTQ+ community I know, including myself, their sexuality or gender identity is NOT their most defining characteristic and I would like to see more representation that reflects that truth in our media and entertainment.
It is my hope, that as with all minorities in film and media, that LGBTQ people will go from centering in movies only about social justice and rights, and just become regular characters where their gender/sexual orientation is acknowledged without it being the overarching theme of the film. Films about straight people usually aren't about them being straight, it is just accepted that they are and the story moves forward. Movies such as "The Kids Are Alright" and "Blue Is the Warmest Color" have been helpful in bringing LGBTQ relationships into the light via film, but it is time for them to go a step further and simply have them as regular roles. A trans action hero, or a lesbian rom com.
8 comments:
In any context, calling a LGBTQ+ individual 'brave' is insulting and sort of nauseating. I completely agree with what Ellen Page has to say, especially regarding the double standard involving actors playing straight people. I wonder if the media would ask the same question to another actor if they were playing someone as villainous as Hitler, or someone as well regarded as Gandhi. I would find the actors playing those roles to be more brave to assume the characteristics of a previously living person, evil or good. Sexual orientation and identity are and should be simple facts of life, not personality traits that make a character or a person more quirky or edgy. Page also talks in the article about the importance of telling stories outside the usual realm of filmmaking. I would personally love to see a story about a Native American or Native Canadian. I think we're all attracted to stories that contain pieces of ourselves in them. But, as Ellen Page says, those traits don't have to form the entire fabric of the films and literature we decide to look into.
I feel like we have reached a time in our society where people are sufficiently scared about being considered homophobic, to the point of overcompensation. We now see LGBTQ+ people portrayed in the media, but they are almost always singled out for the sexuality. If there is a film about a gay character, everyone involved is praised for their grace and tolerance, and the entire plot will be centered around the fact that that character is gay. In these films, a gay person's sexuality can't be ignored, and in fact it is their defining trait. On the other hand, a straight character need never mention their own sexuality. Who they fall in love with is either a given, or irrelevant. I consider this type of thing to still be discrimination, albeit discrimination that comes from a place of good intentions. But while we praise and coddle these characters, we a still implicitly saying that they cannot carry stories on their own, without this special protection. We need to enter the mindset that it isn't 'edgy' or 'daring' to play someone of a different sexuality. Sexuality is but a single element of a person's personality. It is an actor's job to transform themselves completely. I don't see why a sexual orientation is supposed to be the thing puts the art over the edge.
It seems to me that those referring to actors playing LGBTQ roles as 'brave' have no malicious intent, and are doing so out of what they believe to be political correctness. In the past it was rather risky to play these roles, as it was risky to even live in society as a member of the LGBTQ community. That is changing, but out of fear of offending, media coverage is not. In this fear of appearing insensitive to these people and their plights that arise from their sexuality, reporters, movie critics, etc. do more harm than good. They make it seem as if straight actors, though I understand the actor of this specific film is not straight, are venturing out, taking a huge risk by acting as a gay person. As if they, the actor, are a stronger person for having it in them to be able to pretend to have interest in the same sex as them. That should not make an actor brave. As Page brought up, she would never be called brave for playing a straight character simply because that character is straight. It is only when the sexuality of the character strays from societal norms that it is brought to our attention. However, all too often it is just their sexuality that is brought to our attention, as if that alone is enough characterization, and the variety of traits offered to a straight character remain hidden from their homosexual co star.
I can very easily rant for hours about the need for diversity in our entertainment industry and how its ignorant for old-school producers to literally be ignoring a new audience that craves people of color in their favorite forms of media, but I think that is a somewhat different issue in terms of discussing privilege like in a case like this. While I do understand the idea that actors do experience a great deal of privilege in their daily lives and I also agree with the fact that gay-centric films should looked at no differently than hetero-centric films in terms of how "brave" it's actors are. But that kind of ends right there, it SHOULD. The world doesn't work that way, because were only a few years off from the highly publicized hate crimes against homosexual people of the 90's and early 2000's. To be thinking that those people don't exist anymore would be a little bit much too be assuming, no?
Perhaps this has lessened over time, but I have always felt that some people see being gay as too much of a defining characteristic. I have, for a long time, had the desire for a movie with a gay protagonist that is not about their sexuality or what people think of them for it or how it affected their life or anything- but instead a movie with a gay protagonist that tells an entirely different story and oh yeah, she also has a girlfriend. I agree with Nix, sexuality isn't something that has to be at the forefront of every gay character's story. Being attracted to men is no different, in my mind, than preferring vanilla to chocolate. If we aren't talking about ice cream, or eating ice cream together, why should we steal from the depth of the story by focusing on what kind of ice cream one of the characters prefers? I say this within limit. There are obviously some beautiful and tragic and wonderful LGBTQ+ stories that absolutely center around sexuality and the marginalization that often accompanies homosexuality. I am talking about the times when movies include a gay man for humor who has no substance, or a lesbian woman who only ever talks about attractive women. These are the things that really bother me in film, though I am glad that seems to be changing, if only slightly. I think Ellen Page is on point when she says it shouldn't be an act of bravery to play a gay character; it shouldn't require anymore bravery than a straight character. Characters are characters just as people are people, and I think the more we move away from using someone's sexuality as their defining characteristic, the less "brave" it will seem to take on a gay character.
Ellen Page is completely correct. Actors who play gay on stage aren’t brave. Yes, they are sometimes talented, and quite obviously secure in themselves enough to portray a controversial character. But at the end of the day they get to go home, walk away from the part and go about their everyday lives. It’s the audience members who have to deal with the daily struggle of being persecuted just for who they are. With the increase in LGBTQ films it is become more prevalent for straight actors to actively accept these opening roles, many of them simply to say that they “speak out” for the LGBTQ struggle. In this way it isn’t fair to call them brave. The audience is the real brave people. And while no, you can’t applaud them for their performance, you can turn your attention to the role itself and the story behind the character.
Yes, a few years ago actors and artists involved in projects centered on LGBTQ+ characters were taking risks, opening themselves up to both potential personal harassment and professional discrimination. I believe we can legitimately call those people "brave" for taking those risks. But now, things have turned a corner, to a disturbing extent. As Olivia pointed out a gay character's sexuality is always front and center. The recent controversy surrounding the movie "About Ray" shows how bad this exploitation of LGBTQ+ "representation" can get. This is a movie about a young trans man and his transition. The director has been openly transphobic in interviews, as well as constantly referring to the main character with she/her pronouns and casting Elle Fanning instead of a trans actor. As far as I can tell, this director is only working on this project as clickbait that they think a lot of people will go see to feel open minded and accepting.
Do I think they should be praised as brave? No. I think it is time, as Jordan Gavaris who plays Felix on Orphan Black says, to realise that there are many more interesting things about a person than their sexuality or gender identity. For most members of the LGBTQ+ community I know, including myself, their sexuality or gender identity is NOT their most defining characteristic and I would like to see more representation that reflects that truth in our media and entertainment.
It is my hope, that as with all minorities in film and media, that LGBTQ people will go from centering in movies only about social justice and rights, and just become regular characters where their gender/sexual orientation is acknowledged without it being the overarching theme of the film. Films about straight people usually aren't about them being straight, it is just accepted that they are and the story moves forward. Movies such as "The Kids Are Alright" and "Blue Is the Warmest Color" have been helpful in bringing LGBTQ relationships into the light via film, but it is time for them to go a step further and simply have them as regular roles. A trans action hero, or a lesbian rom com.
Post a Comment