I feel like the average American probably knows Matt Smith from The Crown, or possibly his turn on Doctor Who. He’s made some attempts, here and there, to become a bigger thing in America, but I do think he’s happy mostly working on British film and TV projects. He did score one lead role as a famous American though: he plays Robert Mapplethorpe in the Mapplethorpe bio-pic. Mapplethorpe was a famous American photographer known for imagery that was both mundane (flowers, portrait work) and controversial (BDSM imagery, sexually provocative imagery). Here’s the trailer for the film:
I think this looks interesting, but I do wonder why filmmakers insist on outsourcing these great American roles to British actors? Why couldn’t an American actor play Mapplethorpe again? But that’s not the controversy. The controversy – albeit, a minor one at this moment – is that Matt Smith is a heterosexual man playing a gay man, an LGBTQ+ icon, who died of AIDS. Matt Smith was taking part in a Q&A session about the film and he was asked about that issue:
Eliza Dushku and Matt Smith spent their Valentine’s Day evening at the 92nd Street Y in New York discussing their new biopic Mapplethorpe, which tells the life story of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe (played by Smith), in front of a room full of fans. Asked by Dushku, a producer on the film, whether Mapplethorpe, who was gay, should have been played by a gay actor, Smith said, “I think your sexual orientation, or your sex and your choices outside of work, shouldn’t influence — in either way, positive or negative — what happens. So, to me, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight. That has no bearing on whether you should get the part.”
Smith is not the first straight actor to portray a gay historical figure in film. Just last year, we had Rami Malek’s Frankie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody, Keira Knightley’s Gabrielle Colette in Colette, and Olivia Colman’s Queen Anne in The Favourite. Darren Criss made headlines recently after announcing that he would no longer play gay characters, sparking a conversation about the ethics of such portrayals.
But, as Smith pointed out to Dushku, acting is meant to be a transformation into someone different. “Where does it stop?” he said. “Like, do we then say, do we apply that logic to going, “Okay, I’ve got a part, and it’s playing a brother, and he’s addicted to heroin.” Do we then go to people that have only taken heroin?”
“It’s an important discussion,” Dushku responded. Smith agreed, saying “It’s good that it’s being had.”
My thought on straight actors playing gay characters is that… it’s tricky at this point, and I think it’s good that we’re having those conversations, because they’re part of larger conversations about LGBTQ visibility and representation on camera and off-camera. Of course it’s not the case that “straight actors should never play gay” or that “gay actors should never play straight.” That being said, I’m unsettled by Matt’s answer a bit. The comparison of being LGBTQ to being a heroin addict is… not great. But where do we draw these lines? Should a British actor never play an American? Should a straight guy never play a gay man? Should a sober actor never play a drunk? At what point is it just ACTING? But then again, at what point are straight cisgendered white dudes just taking all the roles because they’re always going to be “the default”?
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I dont think the issue is necessarily that straight actors shouldnt play gay roles – its that it rarely goes the same way, therefore straight actors are end up taking the few roles that gay people are given. Until we get to a point where gay actors have an equal shot to play straight roles, I think this criticism is valid/worth having a conversation about.
this is it. in an ideal world, what matt is talking about is perfect. we don’t happen to live in an ideal world.
Gay actors have been playing straight roles since acting was invented. Think of Rock Hudson. If you start saying that only gay actors can play gay roles, then it stands to reason that the reverse would also be true – that an openly gay actor can’t play a straight role. We wouldn’t have Neil Patrick Harris in HIMYM or Gone Girl. It will further closet actors.
Huh? Where in my comment did I say only gay actors can play gay roles?? I’m saying they should have an equal shot at whatever roles they want…BOTH straight and gay.
Until we reach that equality actors should be cognizant that roles for LGBT actors are limited in Hollywood and they are essentially taking that role away from them.
Also, can you list 10 more gay actors that are as successful as NPH? And didnt wait until AFTER he got HIMYM to come out (after years of only getting bit parts here and there after Doogie Howser)? Unfortunately, after all that he is still the exception – not the rule.
Laverne Cox’s character as a trans person truly opened my heart. I was afraid of trans ppl prior- albeit unconsciously. I mean. Look at silence of the lambs, or even Ace Pet Detective- trendy films causally associating trans w severe pathology. My point speaks to the depth an actor brings from authenticity & “skin in the game”. Maybe not as a rule, but when it happens the art is palpable.
as sarah lee said…there have always been gay men who were playing straight men. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong if you think gay men are being discriminated in that regard. they aren’t. there are more gay men pretending to be straight on screen than vice versa.
I agree with him, but the same should be the other way around. Meaning a gay actor should be able to play some heterosexual icon (like James Bond) without his sexuality being an issue. The problem here is that most actors, once they come out as gay, are stuck in gay or asexual roles.
Also, Matt Smith is british and a theatre guy, and over there they’ve been really doing a push in past years for “blind casting” so I can see where he’s coming from.
Yes, this. I completely agree with his point, but that means people should be given equal opportunity for those roles. LGBTQ actors should be able to play straight with no issue, and vice versa. Acting is supposed to be acting.
About the only things I would say are if a character is supposed to be a POC, they should be played by the correct POC (ie. maybe look for Korean actors for a Korean character, rather than just Asian), and for stories where a character is disabled, try to find disabled actors first rather than a non-disabled actor who then gets accolades for playing disabled.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I agree about the POC, especially if the race/ethnicity is integral to the character. At least while there’s still not equality in terms of quantity and quality of roles.
I think what both of you said is fair.
Also, I don’t know much about Matt Smith or Rami Malek but do we know for certain that neither is gay?
As far as we know both of them are dating actresses right now. Rami is dating his Co star from BR and Matt is dating Lily James.
Rami’s gf is a beard specifically for this awards season.
Matt Bomer plays a pretty ‘manly’ character on White Collar and he’s openly gay.
Yes, but Matt Bomer only came out as gay publicly in 2012, three years into White Collar.
The only instances I personally feel roles should go to actors who are the same is when it comes to race or disability. Those are outward-facing qualities people can’t change, and I just can’t stand when, for instance, an able-bodied actor takes the role of someone with a disability, when people with disabilities are so limited in the roles they’re cast in. Or if a black role is white-washed for no reason.
When it comes to sexuality, I think it should be open who plays what roles. Gay actors shouldn’t just be pigeonholed into playing gay characters — that’d be absurd, wouldn’t it? Gay actors should be able to play heterosexual roles, and vice versa.
Side note, Matt was just INCREDIBLE on Doctor Who. But he cannot do American accents.
I understand your point on race/disability, but the the thing I struggle with is representation. We know visible minorities are underrepresented in Hollywood in general. The only way to correct that is to ensure there is representation and support projects/artists promoting that. We also know invisible minorities, in this case LGBTQ+, are underrepresented in Hollywood, so I would say the same logic applies. If we keep giving what few LGBTQ+ roles there are to straight dudes, I’m not sure how will we will ever ensure there is representation of invisible minorities as well. It’s a tricky one.
I get what you’re saying. I’d say the answer to that, probably, would be to make sure LGBT actors and actresses can play whoever they’d like without issue — gay, straight, or otherwise. And for there to simply BE more LGBT roles out there — how about a high-profile LGBT rom-com for a change?
I think you’re right – getting to a place where it’s fine for anyone to play any role, as you say. Sadly, I think it’s going to take a lot more social change, aside from just convincing studio heads that marketing to someone other than the straight white male is going to be okay. Maybe they are finally learning lasting lessons with Crazy Rich Asians, Wonder Woman, etc. On a positive note, Billy Eichner is writing / starring in a gay rom-com in 2020 with Judd Apatow producing, so that’s progress. 🙂
Not all gay actors are out. So even if the role had gone to a gay actor, there’s not necessarily a guarantee that that actor would admit that he’s gay. Most of the well-known gay actors that are out seem to above a certain age point or aren’t aiming to be hearththrobs (is that still a thing? It’s hard to tell) . Opportunities should be given to all, but at the same time sexual orientation can be hidden and even if the role had been given to a gay actor, I don’t necessarily think he’d admit his sexual orientation to the public. I think that’s another point to consider.
I get why British actors get a lot of the roles. Even when a British actors might be limited, they do seem to be trained to emanate a certain presence. Even the worst British actors seem more charismatic than some of the bad American actors. I have absolutely no idea why that it is. If you had a choice between watching Orlando Bloom on film vs say a bad counterpart like Kellan Lutz, who would you choose? Think about it.
Yeah exactly what I was thinking. It’s not like there aren’t closeted gay actors in Hollywood.
I think so many actors are in fact gay and playing straight roles on film and TV AND in the public eye. If they want to make this an issue, it would be more genuine if they were out. There is the British actor Ben Whishaw who is out and a fantastic actor and plays both straight and gay roles. He just won a Golden Globe for A Very English Scandal, which I recommend.
Really, I think the whole argument is Swiss cheese right now.
As a lesbian, I don’t have a problem with actors playing characters with sexual orientations different than their own. Agreed, though, that it would have been better had he not used the heroin addict comparison. Eek. How about just say that playing a gay man when you’re straight is like playing a married man when you’re single? Also, plenty of non-actor gays have to pretend to be straight every day just to keep their jobs, avoid being kicked out of their families, not get beaten up in school, etc., so it’s not really that impressive when a straight person has to play at being gay on a movie set.
I don’t have an answer for this, but I’ve been thinking about this a lot especially since the Best Actor/Supporting Actor front runners are two straight men portraying gay characters. I’m also not LGBTQ identifying, so does my opinion matter? Probably not.
I haven’t seen Green Book or Bohemian Rhapsody, and probably never will given what I’ve read about both… but an offhand comment I heard from a member of the LGBTQ+ community was that Mahershala doesn’t actually “play” a gay man well at all – he doesn’t read as gay whatsoever – and yet is being rewarded so extensively for it. Another that Rami’s portrayal is almost over the top ridiculous, like a caricature. These, of course, are opinions, and who is to say what a “gay” portrayal should be… But it was sort of like a punch in the gut, this realisation that hey, maybe it’s good acting, but we straight people don’t even KNOW what we are supposed to be looking for in gay roles. Is it fine? If it’s not fine that white people portray visible minorities (and it’s definitely NOT), is it really fine that straight people are portraying an invisible minority? Again, I don’t have an answer, just more questions.
I haven’t seen Green Book but I did see Bohemian Rhapsody (and was pissed when Brian Singer’s name showed up in the credits because I had no idea beforehand), but I can say that Rami played a very credible Freddie (not “Frankie” as the article above refers to him) Mercury. Freddie Mercury was very charismatic as you can see in interviews with him and in his stage performances. Brian Mays and Roger Taylor, who have always been incredibly protective of Freddie’s image were so involved in the film and approved of the portrayal as did Freddie’s sister. I don’t really know what “play gay” means when your friend said Ali didn’t play the character gay enough. What does that even mean? There is no one way to be gay or a certain way you carry yourself, that’s ridiculous. I say this as the daughter of a gay man.
Yeah, I kinda of quizzed my friend on that too, like what does that mean – “play gay”. He explained that he wasn’t saying he should be some fem stereotype, but that he found him stiff and his interactions disingenuous in a way which that you sort of had to know to understand. Which I suppose is fair enough and just his opinion. Can’t really say as I haven’t seen it (and clearly award show voters don’t agree!!).
Who says those two nominated actors are both straight?
That’s a very fair question, Bella, and I’m really only going by the image each of them choose to present to the public (Mahershala is married to a lady and Rami is with one of his female costars I think) which could be fabricated or only half the story! But if they aren’t straight, I guess that begs the question, why aren’t they out or why do they not feel comfortable being out in Hollywood? Yes, you could argue that it’s no one’s business, but given that “straightness” and partnership is leveraged by the likes of Leo Dicaprio, Bradley Cooper, etc. as a marketing tool during award’s season (…and beyond), I suspect there is a lot more to it than “nobody’s business”. Which… makes me sad…
I think roles should go to the people who actually live these lifestyles whenever possible. I wonder if Matt Bomer was considered?
That being said the other commenters did bring up some good points about the whole process in general. My issue is the casting process for movies is usually so closed that sometimes it’s hard to discern if the directors really are trying their best or just phoning it in when it comes to representation. That and the same 20 actors are picked to play everything all the time (like seriously Scar Jo is always popping up in relation to problematic casting) doesn’t help in terms of diversity.
I also feel that when it comes to roles studios already have in mind what they wanna see representation be damned which leads to tone deaf casting. The best example I can think of is when Disney posted that whole cop out “We can’t find someone to play Jasmine or Aladdin 😫” but then miraculously two days later they found them? and Jasmine was looking hella whitewashed already lol. Like of course you’re not going to find them if you don’t even give a chance for others to get their foot in the door.
I have mixed feelings about it because the unfortunate reality is that Hollywood is not progressive and LGBT+ orientation can still get you blacklisted, and it only gets worse if gender identity and minority status are added to the pot. On the other hand, requiring actors to be the same sexuality as the role risks outing people who aren’t ready or defining them solely by their orientation, which also isn’t great. Either way, there’s a long way to go until we’ve addressed prejudice enough for it to legitimately not matter.
As much as I love Matt Smith, I wish they could have found a gay actor for the role, preferrable one as beautiful as the character.
It would be nice of the bisexual identities of people like Mapplethorpe and Freddie Mercury wouldn’t be constantly erased.
I think the only thing this witch hunt is going to achieve is it’s going to push the already closeted actors who usually use these roles to test the waters deeper into the closet and make them avoid auditioning for them in the first place.
If we turn it into “only gay people can play this” it automatically marks any actor who accepts the role as gay whether they are ready for it or not.
That’s a good point. Acting is supposed to be freeing because you’re allowed to put yourself in other people’s shoes. That’s what the job is and people need that freedom.
I wish the industry would have an ongoing conversation about equality, instead of using different aspects of it sporadically to sell the movies.
This has nothing to do with anything, but I once got my hair cut by a petite black man with bleached blond hair in the Village, and he had this wonderful nude photo of himself on the wall. He was photographed from the back, standing, hand on hip, with a very becoming curve of his butt. I thought it was slightly unusual for someone to have a nude photograph of themselves in their workplace and asked him about it, and he told me it was a Mapplethorpe. He said Mapplethorpe saw him on the street and asked if he could photograph him. He was very proud of that photograph.
I agree with him. Auditions should have nothing to do with sexual orientation, both ways. Gay can act straight and viceversa. Now if you cast a black Man for an Asian character, a white person to play an adian or latino having so many great actors in each community i can understand as discrimination shouldnt exist anymore. But discriminate straight actors should also be in the equation, AFTER white male straight dominance is over.
I have nothing against Matt Smith as an actor and think he’s great in The Crown, but he really doesn’t look much like Mapplethorpe. The actor that most resembles Mapplethorpe is Tim Olyphant, but he’s nearly a decade older than Mapplethorpe was at the time of his death.
The heroin analogy is unfortunate, but it’s really, really easy to misspeak in live interview/onstage conversation situations, and I think he’s making an excellent point.
If the world were equal, it wouldn’t. But it’s not so representation matters.