I’ll say.
Before the audition? YES.
After the audition/performance? NO.
Well, yeah, but Rock Hudson wasn’t available.
In the show Rhoda, which actually had those characters, yes. But, as far as I can remember, there really wasn’t any of that on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Her parents showed up very infrequently*, and she barely mentioned her brother and older sister (who disappeared in the spin-off.)
*Wiki only lists their arrival as a plot point in one episode: the third season one where her mom thinks her dad is having an affair.
I could see not putting him high on the list, and thus he might miss out if the perfect guy gets found first. But not to completely deny him the ability to audition.
Also, quite a lot of people thought he was straight on Will and Grace. Jack was just too campy.
Still, if the guy judged this after seeing it, that means Hayes did not do a good enough job shaking off the typecasting, something that every actor is familiar with.
You are correct. Not only did I jump from The Mary Tyler Moore Show to Rhoda (because I loved the show), Nancy Walker was in only 42 out of 110 episodes. It seemed like more because she was such a presence though.
(Bess, You Is My Daughter Now? Hah!)
Maybe it was less the effects of typecasting, and more because of the looking through the lenses of prior expectations and the self-hatred of the reviewer, especially since he says any gay man would fail playing a straight role.
Gay or not too many male stars in action roles are too “pretty” to be taken seriously .
But for me this opens up the whole star system to question, especially as we have all too many line reciters rather then bona fide actors in movies and t.v.
i.e. We see the same people undertaking the same roles in different films playing them pretty much the same in every movie rather then making us believe that they really are different characters.
How many films have been spoiled by us seeing Harrison Ford up on the screen rather then I.J.s? or Sean Connery, instead of the person he’s supposed to be representing , Brad Pitt whatever.
Lets have more anonymus people starring in films but who can actually act.
At least that way we won’t know who is going to survive the whole film unscathed.
I am not connected in any way to movies, tha stage or t.v.
The writer is seriously underestimating audiences’ ability to suspend disbelief. As long as the actor is acting, rather than repeatedly playing themselves, the audience can cope. I mean, it’s not like we think they’re actually in love - we know it’s all pretend!
FWIW, re the OP’s Al Bundy/King Lear reference, there’s an actor here called Lenny Henry who was really well-known as a comedian who created over-the-top caricatures. He later played several serious roles including a very well-received Othello.
I know there have been several other well-known comic or non-serious actors who’ve then gone on to acclaim in really serious stage roles - I’m trying to pull their names out of my aching head; the general point is that audiences are actually more than willing to accept funny people playing it straight. And if theatre audiences weren’t willing to accept gay actors playing it straight then their choice of shows to see would dwindle considerably!
I don’t think he’s quite making that point; he apparently thinks Rock Hudson worked perfectly as the brawny leading man plainspokenly doing his level best to get the girl – until the secret came out years later, which only makes the big guy fail in straight roles retroactively.
Granted that might be true, how do you explain the set-up in the other direction? Kelsey Grammer in La Cage Aux Folles, Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, the whole Priscilla, Queen of the Desert trio. If those are deigned to have worked, then his whole premise regarding anyone playing someone they’re not tells me there is obviously something else going on.
I don’t see an actor’s sexual orientation or religion being an issue. To me, there are three valid considerations:
1 - Does the acter fit within the physical parameters of the role?
2 - Is the actor capable of giving a credible performance as the character?
3 - Does the actor have a public image that’s so established it’ll overwhelm his performance?
I think astorian you are being dishonest about what the article actually said - as has been illustrated by quotes already posted it was homophobic.
This wasn’t about not being able to criticise gay actors when they play straight, ever, no matter how bad they are.
Don’t forget Brokeback Mountain, in which not only were the two leads straight in real life, but one (Heath Ledger) fell in love with his female co-star (Michelle Williams) during filming. By the time the film was in wide release they were not only publicly known as a couple, they’d already had a child together. But I don’t remember hearing anybody at the time say Ledger and Gyllenhaal were just too obviously hetero to be believable as romantic pair, or pointing out that Ledger’s on-screen chemistry with Williams was too good for it to be plausible that his character was really in love with another man.
This video may or may not be relevant. Sean Hayes is the guy on the left.
In threads like this, someone is bound to say “I had no idea he/she was/wasn’t gay/straight until now.”
I had no idea Valerie Harper wasn’t Jewish until now.
And I “think” you are 100% wrong. If I were “dishonest,” why would I provide a link to EXACTLY what the Newsweek writer said?
I repeat: it’s entirely possible that Sean Hayes was WONDERFUL in the role. I don’t know much about his range or his body of work as an actor.
I was a theater buff when I lived in New York, and I have no doubt that I’ve seen MANY gay actors play straight roles (including romantic roles) perfectly convincingly.
As I said, I could easily buy Rupert Everett in a dashing ladies man role. Paul Lynde? Charles Nelson Reilly? Not so much.
And if someone HAD cast Paul Lynde in a romantic straight role, I don’t see why it would be wrong for a critic or audience member to sneer, “PLEASE!”
I don’t know about Sean Hayes.
I don’t think you were dishonest, but you are presenting the article, and the negative response to it, as if it were just about this particular actor possibly being too feminine, when it’s actually about gay actors* in general* not being good for straight roles.
Looking Paul Lynde up, it seems that he was cast in some straight romantic roles too. Presumably he didn’t use that Sylvester Sneakly voice for those roles - he’s an actor.
BTW, have you ever heard of Eddie Izzard? Check out his acting career.
While Izzard likes to wear women’s clothes, he is not gay.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. Wearing women’s clothes, I mean.
Most of the time he’s an extremely camp transvestite comedian, the sort that the OP would apparently expect audiences to not want in a serious role. However, he has played serious roles that are completely at odds with his usual stage persona.