To play or not to play; Katie wrestles with the question of who gets to play Queer on-screen…

Today's society is becoming much more aware of the historic erasure that marginalised groups have inherited for generations. As the limiting of these groups’ stories slowly becomes less acceptable, it is easy to understand why the conversation about whether cis-heterosexual actors should play LGBT characters is a continuous discussion in the film and television industry. The question itself is a very personal one to me, as I am someone who is currently on a journey of self-discovery regarding their own gender and sexuality. It is for that reason that I feel obliged to point out that I aim not to be a definitive source of answers when it comes to this issue. However I hope that this piece serves as a guide that helps to facilitate and encourage as much of this nuanced discussion as I can.

Seemingly, the entire argument comes down to this: is it not only possible, but ethical for a straight actor to embody a queer character when they have never lived that experience, monopolising on these rare chances at representation, in a cultural climate that allows them to work far more than their LGBTQ+ peers? 

The first strand of this argument is the one concerning the marginalisation and alienation of Queer creatives on the business side of storytelling. For the longest time, LGBTQ+ actors have been overlooked in favour of their cis, heterosexual counterparts for most roles.

Speaking from decades of experience, Emmy-award winning actor and performer Bill Porter highlighted with characteristic the disparity between how in the current state of industry, queer actors “can't get the gay parts, [and] can't get the straight parts." 

At the same time, he articulated how this couldn't be said for straight actors. Who, in comparison, are praised for taking on LGBT characters.

It's important to understand this context when considering who gets to play queer on-screen, as it highlights how the answer is much more complex than simply saying an actors' job is to pretend to be other people and, therefore, they can pretend to be LGBT. In fact, many have argued that being LGBT is a crucial aspect of identity and not something an actor can’t pretend to be. While on the surface this argument is compelling, I find some issues with it. From my perspective the argument that non-LGBT actors can't understand what it's like to be LGBT draws lines between individuals, creating differences and focusing on separation rather than inclusion. While we should all celebrate and take pride in what makes us unique, this concept of actors not being able to take on the character of LGBT seems to 'otherise' LGBT people, when the aim behind the idea is equality and inclusion. 

 Ultimately, it gives off what I call a horseshoe effect, where each end of the argument bends round to the extent that they end up closer together than they realise. To elaborate, for the longest time, LGBT actors weren't given the same opportunities as cis-heterosexual actors because they were LGBT, so now LGBT roles should be reserved for LGBT actors because they are LGBT. The focus still seems to be on their sexuality and identity when, for me, it shouldn't matter as we are all just people. 

I do understand that this is a very idealistic worldview, and the world isn't at that place yet.  Being straight does, after all, come with privileges. For example, straight people are not afraid of family rejection, dealing with workplace discrimination, hate speech, and so on. However, I can't help but feel that insisting only LGBT actors play LGBT roles opens up many other problems. For example, it could lead to actors having to come out before they are ready for the sake of employment, which no one should have to do. I can also imagine newspapers and tabloids viciously interrogating a person's personal life for the sake of a scandal when an actor's personal life is nobody's business but their own.

When it comes to this issue, equality isn't the only argument to consider. The practice of having LGBT actors play LGBT roles also allows for an extra level of authenticity to the performance. Something I can't, and won't, argue against. The fact that in recent years LGBT stories are getting the recognition they deserve on-screen should be praised. After all, everyone deserves to see themselves represented in the media they consume. We can see this positive representation in TV shows like She-Ra and the princess of power, The Owl House, and even The Haunting of Bly Manor.

The strive for authenticity led Russel T Davies to cast only LGBT actors in his latest Channel 4 series, 'It's a Sin'.  He spoke about how when he casts actors, he's doing so to have them act as a "love, or an enemy, or someone on drugs…not to 'act gay." 

 This decision has been supported by many, including the likes of Stephen Fry, who in a recent interview insisted that  'there is something magically extra' about knowing the show's characters are 'young gay men'. Fry explained to TravelGay that he thought: 'Russell was absolutely right. There is a sort of feeling as you watch it about how those boys could have been us.'" 

 However, my concern lies with Russel T Davis statement of 'act gay'. I don't fully understand this because what does it mean to act gay? (Besides the obvious outdated stereotypes.) Would you ask an actor to ‘act straight?’ Isn't asking an actor to 'act gay' bad direction/writing? For me, a character's sexuality, while an essential and influential part of who they are, shouldn't be all they are? By asking a cis-straight actor to 'act gay', it again seems to be focusing on their sexuality, not who they are as a person. As I pointed out early in the article, it feels as though we are ‘otherising’ LGBT individuals. 

Many LGBT actors seem to feel a similar way. For example, Ben Whishaw believes that "actors can embody and portray anything and we shouldn't be defined only by what we are." He isn't the only LGBT actor to speak out about this issue. Both Neil Patrick Harris and Kristen Stewart have shared their opinion on this complex issue.  

Harris spoke about how in today's world, a "director [can't] demand that [an actor be gay or straight]." and again he pointed out how he feels this could lead to the unpleasant situation of people trying to determine how gay someone is?" The point Harris makes here is an interesting one to consider. Similar to the risk of unintentionally outing actors, it highlights how having only LGBT actors play LGBT roles puts their sexuality under the microscope. A consequence that personally concerns me.

However, when Stewart addressed this issue, she also raised an interesting point that can't be ignored.  The belief is that sometimes there are stories that should only be told by individuals who have that lived experience. Though it should be noted that she also acknowledged how such a direction could lead to a slippery slope of unintended consequences "because that means I could never play another straight character if I'm going to hold everyone to the letter of this particular law."

In conclusion, I do understand the call for LGBT roles being reserved for LGBT actors and, certainly, there should be more equality in the casting room and broader industry. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer to this question, nor do I believe there is one. That said, I don't believe that a cis straight actor should never be allowed to play an LGBT role.  This to my mind focuses the attention too much on the LGBTness of the character instead of who they are as a whole and, as such, unintentionally creates dividing lines between people.

credits

words — katie hulme

design — sâde popoola