More Queerty

I wandered into a Queerty.com thread again, and felt compelled to post this in response to a fierce and freewheeling debate--which as far as I could tell was entirely male--involving the suggestion of homophobic behavior and/or attitude from NBA legend Shaq O'Neal and actor Demetri Martin during their recent appearance on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien.

Full disclosure: I did not catch that particular Tonight Show or even watch the posted clip of it. However, through the exchanges between the commenters I understood that Martin, who in the new movie Taking Woodstock plays a real-life gay man who was instrumental in the creation of the iconic 1969 music festival, talked to Conan about having to kiss a guy in the film. Apparently O'Neal then slid away from Martin as if to express repulsion at the idea of two men kissing; that, or mock fear that Martin would try to kiss him.

In response to this, some commenters went after O'Neal, others insisted Shaq was unfairly taking the brunt of the criticism over the episode and charged racism, and still others generally opined that there was plenty of blame to go around, expressing annoyance at (presumably) straight actors who sign on to play gay characters and then moan to the press about how "challenging" such roles are, and also at Conan O'Brien, who must have something of a history of homophobic joking around in his comedy. (I guess. I'm not particularly a Conan fan, so I can't say for sure.) Even Taking Woodstock director Ang Lee came in for an angry scolding for not casting gay actors in his movies' main roles... Anyway the commenting back and forth over this, and other issues it led to, was so heated, with so many good points getting mixed in with a lot of sneering, testosterone-fueled zingers, that I couldn't resist joining in (though, admittedly, I rattled on rather longer than I should have for forums like this):

We ARE all essentially on the same side here, aren't we? Or at least most of us? It's kind of hard to tell what with all the shouting, name-calling and insult-slinging. (You're a pretty lively group, lol.) Several thoughts came to me as I read all the back and forth of these comments; hope y'all don't mind my sharing a few...


1) I know it's Shaq's appearance on Conan--sorry, The Tonight Show--that kicked off the raging debate, but somehow my thoughts wandered to Magic Johnson's appearance on Arsenio Hall's show nearly twenty years ago, after he had tested positive for HIV and announced his immediate retirement from basketball. In answer to the rumors that he was gay, Magic told Arsenio he was not, saying "...I'm a long way from that." Arsenio smiled and the studio audience exploded with cheers. I wanted to throw up, I was so disgusted with Johnson. It was his tone, the way he said what he did, that got to me. I remember thinking: Fuck you, Magic. Is it really necessary to play to all the bigots out there? You can't find a way to say the words "It's not true" without the insulting insinuation?

Admittedly, this is not the same as the Shaq controversies, but it came floating back to me anyway.


2) The victimhood issue-- as a black lesbian entering her fifth decade, I can kind of speak to that. A lot depends on how and where you grew up, of course, but if you are a member of a group that has historically suffered serious and significant discrimination--some of it irritating in its subtlety, some of it scarily overt--over-sensitivity becomes a kind of occupational hazard, especially if you're a member of both tribes and find yourself constantly having to deal with one tribe's dissing the other.

I have been to queer events where mine was the only face of color and the freeze-out (especially from the guys; not sure why) was such that I couldn't bear to stay in the room. I have also found myself at noisy odds with black family, neighbors and coworkers (especially the women--don't ask) who frankly found the gay stuff "unnecessary" and even "disgusting"-- even as they insisted that they personally had "no problem" with gay people. (Riiiight...)


3) And as to Ang Lee, and the issue of straight actors playing gay roles... sigh. Are we sure we're in command of all the facts about this? I'm not convinced a gay actor, out or not, could have brought more nuance and heartbreak to the role of Ennis Del Mar than did Heath Ledger, though, yes, it did get increasingly annoying watching one entertainment reporter after the next "sympathetically" prompt Ledger about how "uncomfortable"-- read: having to kiss and simulate-fuck Jake Gyllenhaal--the role must have been to, um, play. (And excuse me, but just how was that so damn hard really? I'm a dyke--I'm not blind or dead.)

On the other hand, how many talented, hunky gay actors felt safe taking on such a role? How many of them worried that doors would softly close around them and they'd never be seriously considered for an action or straight romantic lead role ever, or ever again? How many might actually have been eager to play Ennis or Jack but were warned away by their (closeted?) agents, managers, and publicists? Do we know who was on Mr. Lee's short list for the main characters of all his queer-themed films, and who turned him down for the reasons just mentioned?


Again, reading your arguments about this, my thoughts turned to another time and place: I recalled reading about the difficulty Alfred Hitchcock encountered when trying to cast for his film "Rope," the movie loosely based on the 1920s Leopold-Loeb murder case (Think it was Arthur Laurent's autobio that detailed this). Hitchcock had wanted Cary Grant in the professor role, and the beautiful and exciting newcomer Montgomery Clift in the role of one of the murderous young men.

Alas. Neither Grant nor Clift, both gay, would go near the roles. Both were aware of the famous case that inspired the story, and may have known the real-life protagonists had been lovers--though of course that's only hinted at in the 1948 film-- and were apparently afraid the homoerotic subtext would mean trouble for them. (Grant's character was also originally envisioned as a former lover of one of the young men.) I think it was handsome Farley Granger--quite good (and, ironically, also gay)--who took the role meant for Clift. And it was stalwart, straight as a stick James Stewart who played the young killers' ex-teacher, a piece of casting which changed the entire tone of the film. Stewart brought moral umbrage, but not much else, to the proceedings, seeming to have no clue what was really going on.


My point is that, as much as we might like to think so after all this time, not all that much has significantly changed for young hottie actors (especially males) in Hollywood. They are still told to keep their heads down and play it "safe" if they want a chance at a Serious, Big-Ticket Career in showbiz (or for that matter, team sports), and the status quo remains largely intact. Unfortunately.

PS: I sincerely apologize for the length of this comment, guys. Stepping off the soapbox now.

Yeah. A tad long. But I feel better, how 'bout the rest of you?