Did I say that I would have a problem with any of those portrayals?
If I explain any further is there any likelihood that you would be able to understand what I meant or would I be wasting my time?
I’m serious.
If you are going to ask fallacious straw man questions like these I’d like to make certain before I bother to respond again.
I think I understand now.
Of course you didn’t. The entire point is that having a problem with any of those portrayals would be ridiculous. Nobody is suggesting that you have these views. We’re suggesting that homosexuals portraying heterosexual characters is equivalent to these other scenarios that you have no problem with.
Of course you are. By saying that you don’t believe out gay actors should play straight roles, you are arguing either that gay actors should not be out (which would mean that, for instance, if Tim DeKay wins an Emmy he may thank his wife, but Matt Bomer does he may not thank his boyfriend) or that gay actors should be confined to roles playing gays (in which case their possible roles are circumscribed greatly). Either way you are arguing for confinement.
Um, yes. And so what?
I knew nothing of Vangsness’ private life before reading this thread (and shall endeavor to forget what I’ve accidentally learned, like Sherlock Holmes and Copernicus). But her portrayal of a woman who is ambivalently in love with her best friend is entirely believable to me, either way. She’s a good actress, I’d say (though Garcia is sometimes too precious for my taste). When she looks at Morgan or what’s-his-name from Buffy with lust or affection or fear of rejection in her eyes, it’s entirely believable. The fact, if it’s true, that men don’t do it for the actress means she’s a BETTER actress than if she were emulating the feeling while actually thinking Shemar Moore is mattressable.
Except you obviously do, since you think gays and lesbians should be disqualified from playing straight roles. If you didn’t care about their personal lives, you wouldn’t care what roles they played.
I daresay that’s simply because Hudson’s heyday was in the 50s and 60s, half a century ago, and many young persons don’t care for the pacing of movies from that era.
I don’t recall the last time I saw, say, a Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, or Spencer Tracy movie on any channel other those catering to fans of decades-old entertainment. It’s for the same reason, I expect.
Okay, let’s try a different analogy…
Anthony Hopkins isn’t REALLY a violent sociopath- does knowing that ruin*** Silence of the ***Lambs for you?
Henry Fonda wasn’t really the warm, loving family man he portrayed in numerous movies. Does that ruin his movies for you?
Can a non-religious actor play a Catholic priest effectively? Speaking as a Catholic, I say “SURE, he can.” What say you?
“People ask me from time to time what it was like growing up with Henry Fonda as my father. I say, Ever see Fort Apache? He was like Colonel Thursday.” ~ Peter Fonda
Now you’re edging into “actually, yes” territory.
I would have difficulty suspending disbelief watching, say, Charlie Sheen play a doting, devoted father. Or Lindsay Lohan portray a teetotaller, or Paris Hilton play a virgin, etc… Some real-life traits of actors do interfere with their ability to pull off the opposite in a character.
I don’t think the group of people who include “gay => straight / straight => gay” in that category is all that small. Maybe not the majority, but I would bet it’s a sizable chunk of the audience.
For me, the Ellen Degeneres movie mentioned upthread was wholly unbelievable. From minute one I couldn’t buy into the story, solely because of her sexual orientation. This isn’t the case for all instances of gay actors playing straight and vice versa, but it sometimes is the case.
Neil Patrick Harris on How I Met Your Mother isn’t supposed to be believable as a womanizer, so for me that works. In contrast, Cam on Modern Family doesn’t work for me. He comes across (to me) as a mincing caricature.
EDIT: I also have trouble buying into characters with radically different hair color than they normally have in real life. Even if their “normal, real life” hair color isn’t their natural color.
A distinction should be drawn between performances that fail because of a lack of skill on the part of the actor and performances that fail because of the audience’s refusal to separate the actor from the character.
I’m speechless…
In response to the thread’s question, I find smart and quirky to always be traits that are sexy…
ETA: I’m a huge fan of Criminal Minds
No link to a photo?
:confused:Step 1: Google Images
Step 2: type “Kirsten Vangsness”
Step 3: Hit enter
Repeat these steps, replacing the name Kirsten Vangsness with your celebrity of choice, to find images of any celebrity you please.
Way off topic, but the above post reminded me of it. I know a woman who just uses the internet for Facebook and when you tell her to Google something she is asking about, she won’t do it and seems quite proud of that. Guess she either wants to remain ignorant or wants everything spoon-fed to her. Or both.
It’s called “acting”.
I’m reminded of Whoopi Goldberg mentioning when she wanted to audition for some part in a classic play. The response: “But, you’re black!” Her response: “It’s a PLAY, isn’t it?” I agree with Whoopi.
If you can pull it off, all the better for you.
I remember seeing Hal Linden (“Barney Miller”) and being disappointed that he wasn’t anything like Barney Miller. And then of course I smacked my forehead, since this was just a testament to his acting ability. He pulled off a believable character who was pretty much nothing like him.
The best is when I see an actor I know very well and either don’t recognize him or her at first, of when I do, it doesn’t affect my perception of the role portrayed. Ben Kingsley is the best example I can think of for this.