I can see it now, eh?

[Hopper]

As to the Chenoweth babe, she is the co-star in the play where the actor was criticized, and therefor has a financial stake in it's success. She would probably naturally dispute any critical review, whatver it's contents. But I don't think that was her main motive in making her off-the-wall claims.

Having worked with him, it may well be that she is rather fond (and "protective") of him, and that may play a part in her personal motivation, I dunno.

Among her explicit statements is this:

"No one needs to see a bigoted, factually inaccurate article that tells people who deviate from heterosexual norms that they can't be open about who they are and still achieve their dreams."

She sees something she doesn't want to see, so she counter-attacks. I think she too misread the original article, but let's assume she didn't. However you interpret what he did say, he didn't say what she imputes to him.

I think it goes without sayin that an obviously gay actor ("open about who he is") may encounter special difficulties in "achieving his dreams" if those dreams include persuading others that he is not gay. A good actor could do it, and this writer does NOT claim otherwise (although he seems to think it is "rare'). But not every actor can. A movie critic noting that a particular actor failed to achieve his dreams in a particular play is NOT a wholesale condemnation of homosexuality, it it not "horrendous homophobia," and it is not "bigotry," at least not if the critic is competent and sincere (he notes, elsewhere, that other reviews, without any reference whatsoever to homosexuality, have been very critical of this actor's performance).

So how about the "gay blogs?" Heh, that's where we get to the meat of this whole fiasco. I'll save it for a later post.

But anyone who takes the "horrendously homophobic" accusation at face value (as probably every gay activist does) is a damn chump, if ya ax me. Not that the same thing doesn't happen on this very board.

 

[One Brow]

Careless reading does not necessarily imply poor wording, eh, Eric? The original article says things like this: "This is no laughing matter, however. For decades, Hollywood has kept gay actors—Tab Hunter, Van Johnson, Richard Chamberlain, Rock Hudson, etc.—in the closet, to their detriment. The fear was, if people knew your sexual orientation, you could never work again. Thankfully, this seems ridiculous in the era of Portia de Rossi and Neil Patrick Harris. But the truth is, openly gay actors still have reason to be scared."

This could have been followed with an agreement of why this was true or an explanation and disavowal of the truth. "Straight Talk" does nothing to discourage the former interpretation nor imply the latter.

Read all the "horrendous homophobia" or "bigotry" into that that you want, I just don't see it.

I don't recall using the passage you quoted as a justification for determining bigotry.

I gave an alternate explanation. You can agree with it, or not, suit yourself. However, the mere presupposition that "only" bigotry could possibly explain such a thing seems very narrow-minded and prejudicial to me.

The only thing that seems close to an attempt at explanation is your comparison of characters that pretend to be the opposite gender in movies being unconvincing. Neither Rock Hudson nor Sean Hayes are pretending to be a man.

 

[One Brow]

I think it goes without sayin that an obviously gay actor ("open about who he is") may encounter special difficulties in "achieving his dreams" if those dreams include persuading others that he is not gay. A good actor could do it, and this writer does NOT claim otherwise (although he seems to think it is "rare'). But not every actor can.

You forgot the flip side: it's much more common for straight actor to convince people that their characters are gay. So, the divide between acting gay when your straight is mush easier for straight people to cross than the corresponding divide for gay people, even though it is the same divide.

Also, knowing an actor was gay changes a romantic comedy into a farce.

Maybe the author is sharing his perception of popular sentiment, and not his own sentiment. Either way, the sentiment itself expresses bigotry.

A movie critic noting that a particular actor failed to achieve his dreams in a particular play is NOT a wholesale condemnation of homosexuality,

I agree. Note the original review in the Times, by the author's admission, makes no reference to Hayes sexual orientation. The author added that assumption in.

So how about the "gay blogs?"

I can't imagine why they would matter.

 

[Hopper]

The only thing that seems close to an attempt at explanation is your comparison of characters that pretend to be the opposite gender in movies being unconvincing. Neither Rock Hudson nor Sean Hayes are pretending to be a man.

OK, let me say it again, differently. People, after being fooled, will naturally tend to re-evaluate their initial reactions if they later discover that they have been duped. Has nuthin to do with bigotry, homosexuality, or any such things. If you show a kid exactly how the "magic" they saw done by an illusionist was accomplished, they are almost as fascinated with the mechanics of the trick as they were with the trick itself. Either way, they will never again be fooled by, or at a loss to explain, the same trick. This guy is sayin that, once you know Hudson is gay, you tend to see his original trick in a different light. That's to be expected. As I read it, the guy is sayin that Hudson DID (not didn't) do a great actin job. That doesn't mean it wasn't acting. To the extent some people identify actors with the roles they play, they can be very disappointed if they find out that, in real life, the actor is a totally different kinda person than the one they have come to know and love by virtue of his on-screen roles and persona.

 

[Scat]

OK, let me say it again, differently. People, after being fooled, will naturally tend to re-evaluate their initial reactions if they later discover that they have been duped. Has nuthin to do with bigotry, homosexuality, or any such things. If you show a kid exactly how the "magic" they saw done by an illusionist was accomplished, they are almost as fascinated with the mechanics of the trick as they were with the trick itself. Either way, they will never again be fooled by, or at a loss to explain, the same trick. This guy is sayin that, once you know Hudson is gay, you tend to see his original trick in a different light. That's to be expected. As I read it, the guy is sayin that Hudson DID (not didn't) do a great actin job. That doesn't mean it wasn't acting. To the extent some people identify actors with the roles they play, they can be very disappointed if they find out that, in real life, the actor is a totally different kinda person than the one they have come to know and love by virtue of his on-screen roles and persona.

So what you're saying is that if the American Beef Council hired Pamela Anderson (a well known member of PETA) to promote the consumption of beef it would be much less believable than hiring, say, Tom Selleck?

Too add, after Selleck had promoted beef for several years it came to light that he never touched the stuff you wouldn't view his previous work in the same light?

Am I hitting all the right notes here?

 

[One Brow]

As I read it, the guy is sayin that Hudson DID (not didn't) do a great actin job. That doesn't mean it wasn't acting.

Generally, the term "farce", when not literal, is not a used to describe great acting ability. As I pointed out before, I have never heard that the Gere/Winger mutual dislike reduced their movie to a farce, whereas it was a fine movie otherwise.

As to your point that people identify actors with their roles, I agree that does happen. Allowing that to color what is on-screen is bigotry, which can take many different forms.

 

[Hopper]

As to your point that people identify actors with their roles, I agree that does happen. Allowing that to color what is on-screen is bigotry, which can take many different forms.

Again, Eric, I can only note that, to me, you seem to use the word "bigotry" in a way that varies from it's accepted denotation. I get the idea that for you it may be more akin to a generic term to be applied to those who disagree with the perceptions and reactions you WANT them to have.

 

[Scat]

As to your point that people identify actors with their roles, I agree that does happen. Allowing that to color what is on-screen is bigotry, which can take many different forms.

Bigotry is a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. If I'm watching Star Wars and really like Sir Alec Guinness' performance as Obi Wan and later read that he despised the part and thought the Star Wars movies were trash it will pop into my head every time I watch Star Wars now and I'm going to view him in a different light. As he's portraying Obi Wan fighting Vader on the Death Star is Sir Guinness cursing under his breath that he has to do this? Is he thinking how stupid this whole scene is? I don't hate him for his belief or fault him for having a differeing opinion than I. I simply won't be able to watch his performance in the same light ever again. There is nothing bigoted about it. This is no different than someone watching Hudson in a movie and finding his portrayal of a character less believable because they are privy to new information now.

You calling this bigoted is really stretching the bounds of common sense.

 

[moevillini]

...

OK, see next post.

Will you two (err one) quit arguing with yourself?

I think you took the words right out of his mouth...

...To the extent some people identify actors with the roles they play, they can be very disappointed if they find out that, in real life, the actor is a totally different kinda person than the one they have come to know and love by virtue of his on-screen roles and persona...

well, I figure they're acting regardless.

I dunno Hopper, you seem to have some sort of a problem here. Difficulty differentiating reality from fantasy perhaps?

 

[moevillini]

I think basically what Hopper's trying to say is that he liked it better when he didn't know she was just acting....

 

[Hopper]

Bigotry is a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own....You calling this bigoted is really stretching the bounds of common sense.

Marcus, I'm often amazed at the degree of bigotry shown by those preachin against bigotry, and at the degree of intolerance displayed by those purportedly preachin tolerance.

 

[Hopper]

well, I figure they're acting regardless.

Well, aint that special, eh, Mo? I bet you're the onliest person on this here message board sophisticated enough to realize that.

I dunno Hopper, you seem to have some sort of a problem here. Difficulty differentiating reality from fantasy perhaps?

Mo, I aint 100% sure just why, altho I have my ideas, but you seem to kinda have replaced guys like Vinny, Trout, and Sharpy who used to comb through threads where I was postin lookin for sumthin to ridicule, baseless or not. At least Trout would often by-pass the charade and simply openly and repeatedy state his personal hatred of me. Redundant, mebbe, but not quite as disingenuous that way, ya know?