Michael Douglas, Zach Galifianakis, Heath Ledger and Sean Penn Courtesy of HBO (Douglas), Warner Brothers (Galifianakis), Kimberly French/Focus Features (Ledger), Focus Features (Penn)
A few weeks ago, I found myself in the strange position of seeing both The Hangover Part III and HBO?s Behind the Candelabra over the course of the same evening. Talk about tonal whiplash: The first film is a study in bro humor that almost hypnotizes with its minimalist development of the twin themes ?holy shit, man!? and ?aw, crap,? while the latter is a delightfully light-loafered jaunt through Liberace?s kitschy glass closet. But looking back, the couple actually doesn?t seem so odd?each depends heavily on gayness for its appeal and, more specifically, on straight actors playing gay or crypto-gay men to produce it.
Before I?m accused of comparing vertical stripes to rhinestones, let me be clear that these versions of gay-for-pay are not identical. Indeed, very little has been made of the gay role-playing in The Hangover, for reasons I?ll get to shortly. On the other hand, the Liberace biopic inspired a CNN/BuzzFeed list of the 20 best straight-to-gay drag numbers of all time and, more to the point, a fair amount of pushback to the praise that straight actors regularly get for taking on such ?brave? and ?challenging? roles. The most cogent rebuttal was Tyler Coates? Flavorwire post, in which he used the listicle?s premise to perform a thought experiment:
?How would the tone of this listicle change if, say, it were called, ?20 of our favorite white actors who played non-white characters?? After all, Robert Downey, Jr., Ben Affleck, and Angelina Jolie are all hugely popular, and each played a character of a different race in the last six years. To use the same language ? ?Whether it?s for television or a feature film, it?s not easy pull off [a non-white] role as a [white] actor. Many have tried, but it takes a great actor to make the role three dimensional and believable? ? would be at least as problematic and, I?m guessing, much more incendiary.?
It?s true that such a race-based list would at least raise eyebrows, if not inspire outright anger, due to the ever-present specter of blackface. But does this provocative comparison really hold up? Does ?gayface? really deserve to be placed in the same awful category as racial impersonation, and if not, what makes it different?
Let?s look at the movies in question. In The Hangover Part III, Zach Galifianakis reprises his usual effete-man-child persona, but this time surpasses vague swishiness with a handful of clear come-ons to his more manly co-stars (in particular a depressed-behind-the-aviators Bradley Cooper). And then there is the conniving Chinaman caricature Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who uses homosex as both a weapon of disgust and a bargaining chip, like when he tries to negotiate his way out a tight spot by asking Ed Helms, ?Want Chow to blow your dick??
Given that both characters are eventually seen gesturing toward something like desire for female humans, I think we?re supposed to conclude that they?re not actually gay, but let?s ignore that cognitive tap dance and take them the way they?re clearly meant to be understood: the familiar gay figure whose performance of masculinity and icky sexual desires are presented as items comedic in and of themselves, or at least congruent to comedy. This trope is so very tired (not really even worth a call to the PC police), and worse, represents a whimper of an ending to a series of films that initially held a thimble?s worth more promise.
In Behind the Candelabra, we again have straights gaying it up, this time two A-list actors?Michael Douglas as the piano man and Matt Damon as his young lover Scott Thorson?enacting the exchange of various goods that that has gone on between old queens and spring chickens since the beginning of time. Distinct from the milquetoast gay minstrelsy lazily tossed off in Hangover, this kind of casting choice is not an entirely new phenomenon: Some discussion of gayface has flared up in the past around films like Brokeback Mountain and Milk, with critics wondering why straight men and women were being given important gay/lesbian parts that underrepresented and underemployed openly gay actors both need and would, so the argument goes, be better at performing. But compared with black- or yellowface (which regularly and rightly bring out angry mobs whenever they appear), gayface has inspired relatively little backlash.
Part of the gay community?s patience with gayface has to do with a kind of representational pragmatism: Many gays are so happy to see a story like Harvey Milk?s told at all that they?re willing to cede the role to Sean Penn, especially considering that without a big name like his attached, the project would almost certainly have never happened. (Big names, so far, are always straight.) But that on its own cannot account for how gayface is a treated differently from other touchy identity-based performances. What makes gayface a special case?
I recently posed the question to a group of gay friends in one of the gayest places I could think of?Central Park on Memorial Day. After we?d clarified that I wasn?t talking about gayface as a physical trait (that, incidentally, we all agreed is real), it became clear that straight dudes snatching gay roles didn?t really bother any of us. But why? As I gazed out at the diversity of gay male subspecies before me?gym bunnies, eyebrow sculptors, schlumpy comedians, screaming exhibitionists and more?I realized that the answer has something to do with what we mean when we say ?gay? in the first place.
If we define the term as the Chelsea public health clinic does, it simply means you?re a person who has sex with (and perhaps loves) someone of the same sex. But, in terms of acting, we?re really talking about a set of behavioral traits, interests, or ?mannerisms??the stuff that?s meant to set off a well-tuned gaydar. But that?s not a great definition either, because there are plenty of gay people who pass for straight, could pass for straight if they wanted to, and/or reject the so-called stereotype. And then there?s the somewhat controversial argument (which I espouse) that ?gay? is really a specific cultural attitude that one must study and ultimately choose to wear atop one?s innate homosexuality. So that?s three definitions of gay, and there are plenty of others?I do not envy the straight actor who is asked to sort them out for himself. ?
mlb trade rumors Misty May And Kerri Walsh Jake Dalton London 2012 field hockey Missy Franklin Hunter Pence NBCOlympics
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.