Rupert Everett has claimed that his orientation has affected his career, as since coming out in 1989 he has had a hard time being cast in heterosexual leading male roles.
It was a role which, coupled with his openness about his sexuality, pigeonholed him into only playing gay characters and – according to the actor – killed his future as a leading Hollywood man.
“I wanted to be a movie star,” he told the mag. “I had a difficult set of circumstances to deal with, particularly for a movie career.”
When pressed, Rupert responds bluntly, “Being gay, really. It just doesn’t work.”
After he went public with his sexuality, Rupert alleges he was turned down for the lead role opposite Sharon Stone in the “Basic Instinct” sequel… due to his sexuality. According to the actor, an MGM executive told his agent that an openly gay actor would be viewed as a “pervert” in the eyes of American audiences.
Something the actor adamantly disagrees with, saying, “As actors we don’t play gay, straight… we play human beings.”
Looking at Rupert’s career, I think that there are many factors that could be suggested as affecting his appeal as a Hollywood leading man. Could it be the ill-timed pop music album he released in the 80s? Is it just coincidence that he year he came out, 1989, was also the same year he moved to Paris and wrote a book? Or maybe his second book Red Carpets and Other Banana Skins in 2006, where he’s bitchy to just about everyone he’s ever worked with that affected his employability?
Rupert’s two most successful roles were playing the ‘gay best friend’ in The Next Best Thing and My Best Friend’s Wedding, so perhaps by accepting those roles Rupert put himself in a position himself to be typecast. I think the issue is less his sexuality and more that his most successful roles were as gay men, so every gay man part in Hollywood probably at one stage has passed through his agent. I’m sure Kate Beckinsale gets a steady collection of scantily clad female vampire offers, and Sylvester Stallone has a good collection of Rambo knock-off scripts to join in the Rambo knock-off movies he has made.
The most unbelievable part of Rupert’s whole rant – he’s upset at missing out on a role in Basic Instinct 2. If only he’d gotten that part – his career would have been completely different!
Rupert Everett is shown on 7/30/08 and 11/30/08. Credit: WENN
I do believe him here, it’s just that I heard him say, in an interview, that he ‘preferred’ to be cast in gay roles.
You know, I really want to like Rupert…but he always comes across as such a petulent sourpuss.
I blame Madonna.
Maybe that’s true and that is why so many actors stay in the closet but the bad botox or plastic sugery didn’t help his career either ?
He has this permanent sad or suprised look now and as a actor you have to work with (your)facial expressions ?
He doesn’t look healthy.
And why is he blaming Americans for his problem? That he didn’t get Basic Instinct because we’d see him as a pervert. I don’t think he’s doing that well in Europe or anywhere else either.
I would venture to guess that his being openly untalented might have more to do with the lack of good roles than his being openly gay.
I actually like him but he’s not a good actor – even the exceptional cast in Unconditional Love couldn’t save him. I think he saw himself as on a par with someone like Richard E Grant and expected a similar career. He can blame being gay all he likes – and I know that does impact, particlarly in America – and if it makes him feel better, but he just never had the acting chops to begin with.
What’s with his expression in the header pic? It made me laugh out loud, which is probably not the reaction he was going for.
In a media-saturated culture, it’s inevitable that what we know about an actor’s private life will affect his or her believablity in a role.
Who would buy Lindsay Lohan as a shy virgin? Or Sean Penn as a Wall Street trader?
Likewise, it would be hard to buy Rupert Everett as a macho hero.
The actors that get a lot of varied roles are people whose private lives are private – people like Ed Harris.
I should add that there are plenty of gay roles that might require a macho hero – like Jeremey Glick, the openly gay businessman who helped bring down Flight 93 on September 11. I can’t see Rupert Everett playing Jeremy Glick. Although I could imagine Sean Penn in the role…
Livia…BWAH!
DUH!! Same reason Tom Cruise doesn’t come out of the closet!!
Rupert, go whinge at Ian McKellen and see how far it gets you. I think being “posh”, a limited actor, known primarily for his(former) friendship with Madonna and not having a reputation as being a terribly easy person to deal with probably affected his getting work in Europe certainly as being gay. If he was particularly talented or likeable the studios would more likely take a punt at him.
You can’t get more openly gay than John Barrowman and he’s starting to make it big despite suffering the ignominity of being “too straight” to be cast as Will in Will & Grace (!!!).
Geronimo, interesting point, but I’d like to point out that Richard E Grant is beloved and lovely and a fine actor, he isn’t a movie-star. Which is what this fella wants to be.
And isn’t Neil Patrick Harris openly gay, too? And yet his two biggest roles (besides Doogie Howser) are womanizing cads. And he is certainly not hurting for job offers.
Just stick with being Prince Charming.
maybe it’s his grumpiness that’s really to blame…
Didn’t seem to hurt many of the other openly gay actors. Maybe he isn’t aggressively looking for work either, who knows.
Mairead – yep, I know that re Grant, I’m saying Everett seems, despite not having Grant’s wit, charm and acting chops, to feel some sort of god-given entitlement to the same degree of love, warmth and respect that’s effortlessly extended to Grant, He’s always had an opinion of himself that’s bears little resemblance to the one most other people have of him!
I don’t think being openly gay was totally the reason… maybe being a bitchy queen who pissed the wrong people off and being an actor of moderate abilites also made his career difficult.
I think people are being unnecessarily harsh on Rupert Everett. I have always adored him and have read his autobiography as well as his hilarious, very well-written novel, Darling, Are You Working? I never got why people wouldn’t accept a gay man in a heterosexual role. I’ve seen Everett in heterosexual roles and swooned. His homosexuality didn’t and couldn’t destroy the illusion his acting created. After all, acting is all about creating believable illusions for people. Also, I think his acting is quite good, so I don’t understand the snarkiness of the comments. Okay, I’ve loved him for years and will always be his number one supporter in everything.
I remember when Another Country came out. (God, I’m old.) Everyone was swooning over Rupert. Much more so than they were for future Bridget Jones hunk Colin Firth. But then Rupert just kind of bolted from the movie scene, went to Paris, etc. Nobody knew what he was up to.
Then he showed up again in some crappy Madonna movie. And still fans forgave him–look at how much attention he got for An Ideal Husband. No one seemed to have a problem imagining him as a romantic character in that case. Sounds like he’s casting about for reasons he’s not a megastar or award-winning actor, after years of not really aiming to be a megastar or serious actor.
Or else he’s just making a deadpan joke about being in Basic Instinct 2.
Boo hoo hoo.
I’m sorry but Rupert is NOT leading man material. It doesn’t matter whether he’s gay or straight. He doesn’t have that little thing that separates the A list from the B list. He’s not the best actor, his looks (age aside) are not leading role caliber. Perhaps he needs to reevaluate his talent and not blame the casting directors.