Fnarr, Fnarr

Somewhere along the line, playing gay has gone from making you flavour of the month to leaving a strange taste.

That might need a little rephrasing there, Guardian.

As to the larger point they’re trying to make well, if straight should no longer play gay then presumably gay should no longer play straight. Which is, given the tastes of the personnel in the industry, going to be more than a little restrictive, no?

Of course, we could always decide that it’s all about playing dress up and we can evaluate individuals on that basis – how well do they play dress up? But then that last is sensible and therefore has no chance today.

12 thoughts on “Fnarr, Fnarr”

  1. Aren’t we always told that gays are perfectly normal people & just like everybody else?* In which case, it shouldn’t be necessary to be a gayer to “play” a gayer any more than it would be necessary to be a football supporter to play one. In fact “playing” a gayer would be stereotyping, these days one of the most despised no-nos.

    *On the other hand I had Dan Wooton of GBNews pegged as a shirt lifter after 15 seconds of listening to him. So why is that?

  2. ’After Brokeback,” says Erik Anderson, editor-in-chief of the Hollywood website AwardsWatch, “I think more actors probably did seek out a queer role to pad out their canon and their legacy. Largely because it became very awards-friendly to do so.”

    It was alluring for less immediately craven reasons, too.’

    Wait, why is it somehow ‘craven’ to work towards winning an award in your chosen career?

  3. JuliaM- The acadamy is made up of luvvies and luvvy enablers, so you’d expect the parts they like, i.e vote for, to be also parts luvvies like,i.e. seek to play.

  4. @Addolff
    Natural seems a strange word to use in conjunction with human beings. It’s what almost, by definition, what humans aren’t. They are concerned about how other people see them as individuals & modify their behaviour accordingly. What is what acting is.

  5. @Julia
    I should think you’ve only witnessed the inability of the supposedly educated to comprehend what words actually mean. But journalist, so not surprising. I expect he’d seen it used somewhere, thought it looked good & stuck it in. “Self serving” better?

  6. BiS, my point is that people are gay, straight, whatever. This is ‘natural’, and although a two headed snake may be ‘natural’, it definitely isn’t normal.
    “Natural seems a strange word to use in conjunction with human beings. It’s what almost, by definition, what humans aren’t”.
    I believe your idea of natural isn’t normal.

  7. Addolff. I’m using “normal” in its correct sense. Within the range of behaviours of the majority of people. It’s not a matter of acceptance. Mathamatics geniuses & mass murderers both exhibit behaviours outside that range. Their acceptability might be different, depending on the culture. The acceptance of homosexuality was the transferring of homosexuality from outside to inside the range of behaviours of the majority of people. And that process was in no way “natural”. There was no majority consensus. It was forced on the majority by a minority.

  8. BiS, “Addolff. I’m using “normal” in its correct sense. Within the range of behaviours of the majority of people”. That is one definition, not THE ‘correct’ one. Another definition is occuring naturally and I don’t agree with that definition when used in this instance.
    Homosexuality is not the behaviour of normal people but it is natural behaviour. Whether anyone accepts it is irrelevant.

  9. “After Brokeback,”

    Rampant discrimination here. Film about a couple of gay cowboys gets loads of praise about how worthy it is, yet they turn down my script about a couple of lesbian Native Americans going at it in a teepee.

  10. So awards given for gay roles…actors want awards to massage ego/increase earnings or whatever….I think the next step is obvious to most people

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *