Like I said before, I don’t think this is accurate. I think it has been the misconception, but that the industry is starting to learn that many women are quite fond of gay men, even as objects of desire.
That’s very true. Stars like Harrison Ford, Will Smith, Sharon Stone, Woody Allen, etc. bring not only their name and face to a role, but an established persona that blends into their real-life personality in the audience’s minds. Witness the plethora of commentary that Tom Cruise’s onscreen persona as “stoic, level-headed, unflappable hero” is no longer believable given his offscreen antics. Sexuality is (potentially) the same issue.
And why not? Your average female filmgoer is never gonna get close to her favorite action hero anyway, so what difference does it make if he’s straight or gay?
If they know he’s straight they can hold out the fantasy that they might get him someday. Not that this is a rational thought (it is after all, fantasy) but I can see where it would be a factor.
Does this mean that those of us who don’t watch interviews or get involved with the off-screen personalities of actors will never be able to tell the difference between movie stars and actors? Just curious.
No you have to watch their films and notice that there is a single persona behind them. BTW, Rock Hudson had this. It was nothing like who he really was.
Not at all. A movie star just doesn’t play characters so much as Movie Star Tom Cruise, or whatever. You could have somehow been the one sentient being in the charted universe who avoided seeing that fucking clip of Cruise jumping up and down on a talk show, and still know that whoever he’s playing in MI:3, it’s Movie Star Tom Cruise to the rescue. Dig it?
I didn’t see that clip, although it’s debatable as to how sentient I am. 
Still, I think people could do a better job of leaving their knowledge of the actors’ personal lives at the box office. I won’t defend Cruise’s acting skills, but to people who won’t see his movies because he’s a scientologist I have to ask…how many scientologists has he played in the movies?
saoirse - So is it more important that all of an actor’s roles be similar to one another for him/her to be considered a moviestar rather than an actor? Or more important that the roles be similar to the off-screen personality?
I’ve never heard anyone say that, personally. I’ve heard people say they won’t see his movies because they can’t stand his acting, and for a long time before the Scientology thing got real ink. I personally don’t think he’s that bad, but he is a Movie Star more than an actor. And I have no idea what his off-screen personality is supposed to be like, even now with all the off-screen antics he’s been up to. I certainly know the character Movie Star Tom Cruise, though, I’ve seen him play it many times.
Well, you’re wrong. Have you ever talked to any women about this? My experiences mesh with astro’s and Antinor01’s. I remember turning off a woman to Langston Hughes by telling her that he was gay (I know, inconclusive).
“Aww! I always thought he was cute”
“You can still think so. You’re chances with him are still the same, you know, since he’s dead.”
“But still…”
There was a thread here within the last week, I believe, with many women chiming in to say they found gay guys and the thought of gay action hot. Presumably, if they do require stars to be involved in their sexual fantasies, they don’t mind bowing out of the action. The popularity of “slash” fan fiction is higher than a lot of people know, too, I think. And yes, I have talked to women I know about it, and surprise, our antecdotes contradict each other. I’m not saying no woman, or even no significant amount of women, feel as you describe. I’m saying there is now strong evidence that many women don’t.
The fact that there is this much debate over the issue means that no, an uncloseted gay male could not be a Hollywood superstar. In order for it to be possible, there would have to be no questioning of it like this. The fact that it’s even up for debate reveals the ambiguity that people would have about it, from the studio heads to the directors to the box office - even if nobody involved is anti-gay, certain attitudes would nonetheless surface, even if only subconsciously so.
Bullshit. Google the term “slash fic”.
:rolleyes:
Or, the way I see it, at least I can’t lose him to another woman. Losing him to a man? Well, there’s no way in hell I can match that, right?
Anyway, put me in with **FisherQueen ** who thinks a gay James Bond would only be hotter. Provided they *don’t * make him effeminate because some movie exec thinks gay men = effeminate.
So yes, yes we do agree. Your assumption about having to have the hetero mannerisms is correct as well.
It really is too bad that people can’t be who they are and that their line or work precludes them from being themselves. It’s easy to say “well, it’s the nature of the beast, you work in that field, you’ve got to play by those rules”, but that’s such a tidy and convenient way out of the dilemma.
Well…those are fictional. Maybe fictional characters being gay rouses a different response in people’s libido than actual people. Think about the other side. We all know about the popularity of lesbian fantasies with heterosexual men, but are there any female celebrity sex-symbols who are out lesbians?
Does Madonna count? She’s shown no qualms about swinging that way; I’d call her at least firmly in the gray area of bi-ness.
It seems that most of this conversation has been if a gay man could play an effective straight romantic lead or a rambo style action star. If that’s how we’re defining ‘Hollywood Superstar’, then I would have to say not anytime soon.
If we’re defining superstar in other ways, such as…top 10 paid actor per film, appearing in 2 or more top 50 grossing films, etc etc that changes the answer.
Tom Cruise is always listed as a top hollywood player, but unless I’m missing something he is only in 1 of the top 50 grossing movies (war of the worlds, #45) whereas a gay actor such as Ian Mckellen is in 3 of the top 50 (LOTR trilogy at #'s 8,12 and 17) or Rupert Everett voicing in Shrek 2 (#3).
Point being, it really depends on what criteria we’re using to define Superstar.
Well, it does. But I’d think that your action star or typically hetero romantic lead would be the two most problematic roles, no?
It’s all about the fantasy. Don’t think my heart didn’t break a little when I learned Sara Gilbert was gay.