Homosexuality in Acting?

[OraLabora]

The acting profession is not short of the real thing! If I were casting, I wouldn’t need to look far for someone with relevant experience, why would I cast a heterosexual?
If I were in that position, I would look carefully at the script. If it was making a crusading point about the desirability of such a dangerous lifestyle, I wouldn’t do it.

Does that mean we can only use a murderer for the role of a murderer in a murder mystery?

Let’s get real. Why not eliminate all movies altogether, they all have “bad guys” right?

 

[havana1]

Does that mean we can only use a murderer for the role of a murderer in a murder mystery?

Let’s get real. Why not eliminate all movies altogether, they all have “bad guys” right?

And what do with “The Maltese Falcon” with Humphrey Bogart? Sam Spade (the character he plays) is gay in earlier versions of the movie - and in the Bogart version, he’s riddled with lust in his heart. (The phone call in the opening scene about his gallivanting?) There are no “good guys” in The Maltese Falcon - they’re all rotten. So, it’s important to remember if you’re going to pick on movies, be consistent and pick on all movies.

 

[scameter18]

I agree. Fiction is just that - fiction. Fake. To me, the intentions of the creator of the film is important yes - for example, if a movie has nudity, is it to elicit lust, i.e. porn, or is it necessary for the story? Otherwise, it’s just a story.

 

[HauntedJame]

Neal McDonough doesn’t do sex scenes and made it known before accepting roles. but despite that, he still got fired from Scoundrels for refusing to do a sex scene. he actually has a major role for one season on Desperate Housewives, as the husband of neighborhood tramps Edie. but despite the nature of the show and the nature of the character of his on-set wife, there still weren’t any sex scenes for him

so take it from this guy. he doesn’t take roles that would go against his Catholic faith

He’s a great actor. He also played the first homosexual character in Star Trek.

Not every actor wants to do sex scenes…let people like Alexander Skarsgaard, who loves doing it, do it. If a person believes it goes against their morals, they can choose not to do it.

However, acting is art. Playing a homosexual doesn’t make you one, nor does it magically give you their attributes. A lot of straight men play gay or bisexual men. Here’s just a few names on the top of my head. Matthew Rhys (Brothers & Sisters) is straight but plays a gay man in a civil partnership, as is Gareth David-Lloyd (Torchwood/Doctor Who) who played a man in a relationship with another man. As for Catholics playing these roles…well, I am sure it happens a lot! An actor is drawn to a character and a script, and sometimes it feels good to play the bad guy.

 

[LilyM]

I agree. Fiction is just that - fiction. Fake. To me, the intentions of the creator of the film is important yes - for example, if a movie has nudity, is it to elicit lust, i.e. porn, or is it necessary for the story? Otherwise, it’s just a story.

It’s a very rare story, however, no matter what the plot or the character, that would have actual nudity as a requirement.

Put it this way - watch two films side by side. The two versions of the movie Cape Fear - one made in the 40s with Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck, and the other made more recently with Robert de Niro. Both great, both incredibly scary.

The one in the 40s isn’t nearly as overtly violent. Why? Because it couldn’t be under film codes of the day. So filmmakers had to be creative to achieve their effects. If a filmmaker knows their craft overt violence isn’t necessary for a movie scene to be effective.

Neither is overt sex or nudity. Lots of film stars have oozed sexuality - Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe - or any other emotion that you would care to name - without getting nekkid to do it.

 

[scameter18]

True. And violence in movies often is gratuitous, just for the shock and awe factor. But sometimes brutal violence is necessary to exemplify the nature of a character. For example, the recent Wolfman movie was very violent - but he was a werewolf. If he was gentle and never did anything horrendous, it wouldn’t make sense for him to despise being a werewolf so much. They had to show it.

But, alternatively, in the recent movie Law Abiding Citizen, I felt they definitely had too much violence. Much of it was irrelevant to the story or character, and could have been done just as well either without it, or with a flade to black cut scene. This also applies to nudity and sexulity. But to address the main point here, as I said art is fictious and fake, but the intent of the creator can determine its moral implications inherently, as shown by pornography. The intent of porn is exclusively to elicit lust or encourage masturbation. Even if someone watches it inadvertently without these intentions, the material itself is wrong. If someone happens to see porn unintentionally, it is not their sin. But watching porn on purpose makes one complicit in the sin of its creator.