Should straights be able to play gay roles?

[Bellatrix 34,639]

Of course they should. No one should cast depending on sexual orientation. If you're good for the role is what matters.

[TheSlash 14,539]

Why not, maybe some hot straight actors "convert" afterward  .

But seriously, gay actors portrayed straight roles, why not vice versa?  

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

Only if they can prove that they were listening to the homosexual version of ITA instead of the straight one

 

[loathereality 22,761]

i do not see the difference in between the trans acting and homosexual acting

[Jester 6,197]

Isn't the whole point of acting NOT being yourself, but someone else, a completely different character? 

Wtf

[doppelganger 3,740]

The issue is not whether straights shouldn’t play gay character ; it’s about diversity and equal opportunities. Hollywood is still extremely cis and extremely white. 

[Didymus 32,745]

It's complicated.

The problem is that gays aren't booked, so it'd be more fair to just not make movies with gay characters then. Think of it as white actors playing black roles because black actors aren't accepted. It's just not right.

However, essentially there would be no problem with it if the system was equalized. But it's not.

[JoeMo 3,492]

ABSOLUTELY YES

 

This is a NON issue. Gay people who kick up a fuss over this sort of stuff make the gay community look weaker in my opinion, not stronger

[edengowon 9,643]

Yes but in films like Call Me By Your Name and Love, Simon, the characters should be played by gay actors.

And the other thing is that straight actors often play overly flamboyant or feminine gay characters so they need to be able to play a neutral character that isn't overly camp and isn't overly masculine

[BornAsUnic0rn 1,856]

It should be decided on whether he/she is the best one to fit for the role. Regarding mostly the auditions but also the profile. Deciding someone should play a role based on their sexual and private life and their biography results in a lot of type casting. Which I think is the worst that can happen to an artist.

[Benji 20,113]

On the face of it, yes, of course.

The issue is that a lot of out actors are only considered for gay roles which means they have less opportunity.  Everyone’s quick to jump on the fact gay roles should be open to everyone but they fall silent when it comes to straight roles being played by people in the LGBT community.

[Blue wig 322]

I think everyone should be able to play any role, but this whole debate makes it look like Hollywood is desperately clinging onto their 20 or so straight cis actors instead of looking for new talent, maybe better suited for the job; as if LGBT+ roles are reserved for already famous actors who "want a challenge". And that's without talking about LGBT+ actors in "normal" roles, roles where their identity isn't the focus

Also, it's almost patronising when you think about it: straight cisgender people wanting to make a film about a community that isn't theirs, but only using their own actors instead of people from said community. It's almost like we're some funny specimen in a zoo, and they don't want to touch us, but they do want their entertainment out of us (at least some people do their research for the roles, it's not like every film is an insult to our very existence)

At least when Katy Perry used drag queens on SNL for attention, she chose real ones 

[loathereality 22,761]

i feel like the whole

issue stems from the complaints of lgbt+ community and we essentially need to check the acting based incomes of actors with different features

[loathereality 22,761]

12 minutes ago, Blue wig said:

I think everyone should be able to play any role, but this whole debate makes it look like Hollywood is desperately clinging onto their 20 or so straight cis actors instead of looking for new talent, maybe better suited for the job; as if LGBT+ roles are reserved for already famous actors who "want a challenge". And that's without talking about LGBT+ actors in "normal" roles, roles where their identity isn't the focus

Also, it's almost patronising when you think about it: straight cisgender people wanting to make a film about a community that isn't theirs, but only using their own actors instead of people from said community. It's almost like we're some funny specimen in a zoo, and they don't want to touch us, but they do want their entertainment out of us (at least some people do their research for the roles, it's not like every film is an insult to our very existence)

At least when Katy Perry used drag queens on SNL for attention, she chose real ones 

you present it as gay community beingn alienated from us/ hollywood i feel like the film business is a unison of different communities i do not see different people separate

 

[Blue wig 322]

4 minutes ago, loathereality said:

you present it as gay community beingn alienated from us/ hollywood i feel like the film business is a unison of different communities i do not see different people separate

Apparently a lot of LGBT+ actors never get roles either because of homo- or transphobia, or because straight people expect them only to perform in LGBT+ roles were their identity is central plotpoint

(I'm not really an expert on films though, I'm sure someone could bring better arguments than me )

Another point would be the Scarlett Johanson problem, being that they give the role not only to a cis actress, but to one who is already established as an actress, when there are probably a lot of trans actors and actresses out there who might never get hired, it feels like a waste