After Elton interviewed Jane Lynch at an event for Fox Television a few nights ago, and they got Jane to go on the record about her thoughts on casting gay actors in lead roles in television and film. Even though I think Jane’s comments might be seen a “controversy,” what she’s saying seems completely basic. It’s like Jane has a complete no-illusions comprehension of her business. In Jane’s opinion, it’s not that Hollywood is homophobic or that there’s some huge anti-gay conspiracy. It’s just about economics and what people who run the studios believe about their audiences:
AfterElton: Jane, this week The Daily Beast ran an article talking about gay actors not getting cast in straight parts, and I’m just wondering what your experience in Hollywood tells you about where we’re at with gay actors. I mean, there are a lot of gay actors getting work right now but what about the leading roles? When do you think we’ll see more of that?
Jane Lynch: I don’t know when or if that will ever happen. I think because since most of the world is straight — and maybe we’ll get to a place where this will happen — most of the world is straight and we want the audience to project their hopes and dreams for love and romance onto those actors. And if it’s not in some way possible, maybe never probably, in their mind that it could never happen, then they’re not going to do it. You know, most people are straight, and I think that’s probably why.AE: So you think audience acceptance is keeping networks and casting directors from making…
JL: Yes. This is a business of projection and desiring people from afar. And watching people go through trials and tribulations, so there has got to be some truth to it, in terms of, “I could see myself with that person.” Because the leading man and lady are the person we want them to fall in love with, and most of the audience is straight. So for right now, we can only use straight actors.Look, I’ve never — as far as I know, it’s been behind my back if it has — I’ve never been turned down for a role because I’m gay. I’m a character actor, and that’s probably why. I don’t find Hollywood, in my own experience, to be homophobic. Have I ever been turned down? I don’t know because you never know when you don’t get something or why you didn’t get it. But I do think the straight folks will continue to play the straight roles.
AE: I just want to follow up because I want to make sure I don’t misquote you and that you understood the question.
JL: Oh, are you afraid I said something terrible and you’re going to use it as a headline? “Jane Lynch doesn’t think blah blah blah!”AE: I don’t want to put something in a context that is inaccurate. What I understood you to say was you thought audiences, it was going to be very hard for openly gay actors to get those lead roles…
JL: Right.AE: Because audiences weren’t going to accept them?
JL: Yep.AE: A lot of people’s reaction might be, “Everybody knows that so and so isn’t a killer or isn’t really an astronaut, but audiences don’t have any trouble …”
JL: Oh, I know. But what they want, what studios want, is for people to project their hopes and their dreams for romance onto these people, and I think that’s what stops them from casting gay people.AE: So you think it’s the studios?
JL: Studios. It’s everybody looking at the bottom-line.AE: Ok, because audiences will have a hard time if they know…
JL: That the actors is gay, yeah. Yeah. Now I, as a 50-year-old woman and a lesbian, could probably do [it], because I’m not 25. I could probably do a romantic straight thing, which I’ve done before. Because I’m not a young … I think they want their young Romeo/Juliet archetypes to be straight.
[From After Elton]
Yeah, I think Jane is right on – it‘s all about the money. I also think Jane probably isn’t too comfortable being the face of “the out lesbian actress with a job on a mainstream show, who must speak for all lesbian actresses everywhere”. I mean, who else is there? It’s just like Jane Lynch and Ellen Degeneres, right? And Ellen gets to be herself on her talk show – Jane is asking for the audience to accept her as a completely different character.
Getting back to Jane’s point about it all coming down to business decisions – even though I think she’s right, I also think that this just further cements studio executives’ collective stupidity. They think they’re marketing their mainstream stuff to hordes of ignorant hicks (“the audience”) who won’t “accept” an openly gay actor. How do they know what we’ll accept until they try?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
The best example of such an audiance who refuses to accept gay actors and their existence are posting here.
really yana?
clarify.
I’m not necessarily comfortable with homosexuality but I love Jane on glee and role models. Basically, I appreciate her talent and let that speak more than her lifestyle.
Check the posts about Jake Gyllenhaal.
She is awesome!!!
I think what Yana is saying is that people obsess over the fact the jake Gyllenhaal, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, etc. are gay. Even though some of them (Jake and Tom )have said they are not.
@ # 3 – Salina:
Except that homosexuality is, unlike religious affiliation or political leanings, not “a lifestyle”.
Being bigoted is, though.
@Yana: You are right on the money. There is so much hypocritical bull$hit on this site about homosexuality. And I’m pretty sure some of those same hypocrites are about to tear poor Salina a new a$$hole.
i love her! i just find her characters really funny.
I do think though, rightly of wrongly, that for some reason its harder to believe a heterosexual storyline if the actor is gay and I do think its something to do with projection of hope/possibility etc like she said.
I always hear or read that there are no new or original ideas in Hollywood. That films are pretty much carbon copies of each other, or rip-offs of far better Asian flicks. I would have guessed that the lack of roles for gay/lesbian actors, and the lack of gay/lesbian characters, has partly to do with those reasons also.
Like just sticking with the standard, what has worked so far formulas. You’re right. Major studios don’t try new stuff or ways at all. I just watched ‘This film is not yet rated’ on Youtube. It is a documentary about the MPAA ratings board- a homogeneous, bland, white , hetero, upper class peopled committee that pretty much decides what will be shown in all major American cinemas. Right on par with what Jane has described. It is a fascinating piece of research, I highly recommend seeing it.
As someone who has worked on the business side with a major studio, I tell you what Jane says is totally correct. Whether people want to believe that or not is beside the point. It is fact, I have sat in meeting where it is discussed. Just like “ethnic or urban” in media means Black. Suspected gay or Out actors/actress “lifestyle” or “flamboyance” is discussed in money meetings. Maybe people are surprised that this still goes on, but the movie and tv business is a business after all. No eyeballs = no money.
t i have no problem with homosexuality some of my friends are gay (boys and girls).
and who the hell doesn’t like gandalf? he’s gay and i love him.
anyway jane lynch is amazing I’m glad she’s speaking up without ruining her career over it. She’s very classy
I don’t think we’ll get to a point where people accept that being gay is not a choice, nor a lifestyle. Often there is just too much religious influence in many people’s thinking. And that’s why this attitude that the studio holds makes total sense, even if it is sad.
Personally, I could care less about who is or isn’t gay in Hollywood. But there are a lot of vocal anti-gay people out there. People who would (and do) protest violently when it’s “in their face”. Apparently there is a group of people who are claiming the only reason those people in Arizona got shot had to do with gays and gay marriage. Ridiculous. But that being said, I don’t think I would like to be an openly gay person in the public eye. I really don’t blame actors who don’t come out. Just my opinion.
I think she’s right. I wish she wasn’t but it is what it is.
@Roma As far as studio execs go, the hesitation is not about religion. If you meant these thoughts are about potential viewing audiences religious views yes, I agree with you.
@LindyLou Studio exec and backers are not worried about vocal minorities (the % of people who profess to be “anti-gay” is small). What they are way more concerned about are the potentially large segment of the audience that are quiet about their misgivings and just don’t show up to the theaters or as tv viewers.
Yana, I see your point, but I guess I read those comments differently about JG, TC, and others. It seems to me that they are given crap because they presumably lie about their sexuality, not because of their sexuality, per se. Of course, it’s flawed anyway to assume you know what goes on behind closed doors of any actor, and I wish that as a society we had evolved to the point that it wasn’t discussed because it doesn’t matter. I realize we aren’t there yet, though.
I can say for me personally that I truly don’t care. Who a person is off screen has no bearing to me on how I see them on screen (Mel Gibson and Lindsay Lohan being exceptions, lol).
A few things the question of Jake G’s sexuality came from two gay bloggers Perez Hilton and Ted Casablanca. Ted C is specifically hypocritical because he says he’d never out anyone but his blinds are so transparent (and probably exaggerated or false) that a 5 year old can guess them. I think that’s actually where the blame lies. To criticize John Travolta and Tom Cruise for possibly staying in the closet while they pour millions into a homophobic cult is fair game. Just like it’s fair game to criticize a politician who writes homophobic laws or a religious leader who is gay while preaching homophobia. As for Jake G I think his publicity stunt relationship with Taylor Swift was pathetic whether or not it was done to “beard” him. I personally wouldn’t care about a gay famous actor and would admire him/her for coming out. I always thought Rupert Everret was hot back in the day. But if you think about studios investing 200 million dollars or more into a huge movie with a lead who is homosexual I think it’s going to be at least a decade or more until actors can openly come out.
@nycmom – agreed. It’s unfortunate that in 2011 things like this are still an “issue”. Acceptance still has a long way to go.
Speaking from the point of view of my 16 year old self – a young lesbian – I can say that I sat in each of the movies I loved (OH! Like Titanic!) watching the hetero couples and projecting away my hopes and dreams! For me, an extreme girly-girl, I would sit there and imagine that the male lead was a butch girl, or that the female lead was gay!
So yes, what she is saying makes sense – but you can project your hopes and dreams if the actor or actress is amazing and story moves you! (Even if it isn’t all hand and hand with your personal life.)
I think what she means is that, while many strait people are fine with seeing gay people on tv, strait audiences don’t like gay people in heterosexual roles because it ruins the romantic illusion for them. For example, Rupert Everett, before he came out, was a leading man. He played all kinds of romantic roles, he was Lancelot once. After he came out, his career changed totally, and he played “the gay character”, or a comedic, cartoonish “charactor” not until Sue Silvester. It’s a shame, he was a wonderful actor, but even though he’s very handsome, women didn’t find his characters sexy anymore after they knew the actor was gay.
I don’t know, I think Rupert Everett’s horrific plastic surgery and terrible attitude have more to do with his career cooling off.
I agree with Jane’s assessment though – I think studios always underestimate audiences, and get stuck in ruts of only wanting what’s already been proven to work. Few of them take risks, not with casting or creative material or anything, it seems.
Personally I don’t care – if someone is a good actor, I’ll believe them, and who they’re with in the private life doesn’t really matter. If they want to be open about it, great, and if they choose to keep their private life private, that’s their right too.
But the manufactured marriages and stuff do bug me, because it’s usually SUCH overcompensation.
@ 13. Lindy ?. Sorry, I can’t read your name. The group you are thinking about is the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the same slimy, insane group of churchgoes that picket Armed Services personel funerals. They carry huge signs saying these military hero’s deserved to die because America embraces homosexuality. According to their pastor, the little girl in Arizona deserved to die for the same homophobic reason. It took Arizona legislature 90 minutes to pass a law that outlawed assembly within 300 yards of a funeral service or cemetary service. This group plans also to picket the 2 intersections required for use at the Judge’s funeral service. There be some scary f’n people out there folks.
It’s a shame that they discuss the urban/ethnic or gay or not aspects in these money meetings because seriously if they wanted eyes on the screen they should be more worried about better storylines, screenplays and actors in general. I’d much rather watch any talented openly gay actor in a leading (straight romantic) role than Ashton Kutcher or Katherine Heigl.
How many of us, if we were that way inclined, could quite happily project ourselves on top of (or underneath – take your pick) any gay man? It’s hardly a stretch over projecting yourselves onto any straight actor, it’s all imagination and a bit of fun anyway. The studio execs assume we can handle the opposite scenario (ie straight actor playing gay, Colin Firth in A Single Man etc) just fine.
I think NPH does a great job on How I Met Your Mother of playing a straight womanizer.
I think by and large Jane is correct. I personally don’t care who an actor goes home to. I don’t care where their sexual leanings go. But many people do. Look at some of your Twihards. If Robert Pattinson jumped out of the closet in a top hat and tails (and I’m reasonably certain he’s not gay, nor would I give a flying fart), there would be a lot of fans feeling “betrayed.” Is it ridiculous? Yeah, absolutely. You can find a gay man attractive and project onto him (and vice versa) and it shouldn’t matter because you wouldn’t be going home with him at the end of the night even if he WAS straight.
Hollywood as an entity isn’t really homophobic. I’ve witnessed very little in the way of homophobia during my 12 years working in the film industry. It’s the fear of the majority audience reaction that prevents openly gay actors from portraying heterosexual romantic leads. And money does rule Hollywood.
And you know what? All these attempts to “out” people don’t help the cause either. When it stops mattering if someone is gay, straight, closeted, or out, THAT’S when we’ll advance as a society.
This just supports what I’ve said all along on the “Why won’t John Travolta Come Out?” threads.
Since gay policies now seem to dictate so much in government now, I may not vote at all. There’s no need for ‘parent 1’ or ‘parent 2’ on America’s passports now. Why? Since when stuff like this being changed to appease a smaller group. I’m sure it will be ‘parent 3’ someday while we’re at it. I’m sorry I believe in Civil Rights not black rights or white rights or no specific rights accept for everyone. So, you’ll get no sympathy from me. Why not so many black actors? How is that?
As for the acting, she’s lucky she has a job at all.
number 6 nanea, I said I still like her films and shows so obviously I still support her. anyones private life is their own private life and it doesn’t matter what I think because I’m content in my life and feel no need to hate anyone. there is no need for name calling or being hateful yourself since apparently not agreeing with you makes me a “bigot” which by the way is defined as a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions different from his own . sound familiar?
I couldn’t give a flying rat’s rectum if someone is gay or straight. All I just want is for the product to be good and non-preachy. If you want to send me a message, use email or Western Union. If you preach at me (and this includes Glee), I won’t watch your show, no matter how good the critics say it is. If you want to produce “art”, great – just don’t be suprised when it doesn’t sell as well as other stuff. Bottom line, most people don’t give a bowel movement what your orientation is – they care how well you do your job.
LittleFATMe, I appreciate your perspective. If only more people held that view!
I’ve lived in Hollywood and I’ve lived in the Midwest. My experience tells me that it’s mainly the Hollywood people who are hyper-conscious of other people’s sexuality, ethnicity, political views, etc. But they psychologically project their attitudes over everyone else, and often spin them to portray themselves as superior — e.g., “People in Wyoming are all bigots and rubes.” It has nothing to do with reality; it’s just some weird psychological syndrome typical of Hollywood people, maybe because a lot of them are narcissistic.
Hope Jane’s frequent running off at the mouth doesn’t eventually do damage to Glee’s popularity. Really, with all the other problems facing this country, does anyone care about what homos are doing or not doing?
I suppose if there was a lot of demand from Americans to see more openly gay actors in their entertainment, then the studios would meet that market demand by providing those actors. Studios are not in the business of social engineering. They provide entertainment.
Meeting what the market demands.