Penn’s women (beards?):  Elisabeth McGovern, Madonna, Robin Wright (two children), Jewel.

Unless those were all fake relationships and his children had surrogate fathers, I think we can safely say that Sean Penn is straight.

Straight roles have been filled by openly gay actors for decades, what’s wrong with returning the favor?

The following three comments sum up this entire discussion:

Dave24: “I’d rather see a great actor like Sean Penn play a profound role, rather than choosing an actor based on their personal sexuality.  Choosing actors should be based on talent.”

SuzieKidder: “I think Harrison Ford said it all when asked how it felt to work with a ‘lesbian’ - Anne Heche in Six Days.  His evolved, gracious and accurate response, ‘You mean, a thespian?’” (though Heche is, sadly, more lesbian than thespian…LOL).

BruSays: “Gays have been playing straight roles since the first actors stepped on stage. Nobody knew any different because (a) they’re actors and playing roles is what they do…and (b) it was assumed…that every gay person fits into their stereotypical Liberace or Richard Simmons role and couldn’t act any differently if they tried. I think there remains an ignorance that in reality, to most people most gays are indistinguishable from the population at large.”

Besides (and these are simply questions for thought), what makes someone “homosexual?”  A single experience?  Multiple experiences?  An ongoing lifestyle?  If the first, then two of the most “macho” actors today - Sly Stallone and John Travolta - are “homosexual.”  If the second, then even more actors are homosexual.  If the last, then even more…

Second, why is it NECESSARY that a homosexual actor be “out of the closet” - i.e., OVERTLY homosexual - in order to be “accepted” by the Hollywood community as a “gay” actor?  This seems awfully intrusive.  Jodie Foster’s determined closetedness does not make her any less great an actress, whether she is playing a straight or gay woman.  Nor does it seem to effect Ian McKellan, who has given us two of the greatest, “male” screen roles of last decade in the fantasy genre: Gandalf and Magneto.

Personally, I find this entire issue distasteful, and ultimately insulting to the gay community.

Peace.

Gays have been playing straight roles since the first actors stepped on stage. Nobody knew any different because A) they’re actors and playing roles is what they do (duh) and B) it was assumed - and many continue to assume - that every gay person fits into their stereotypical Liberace or Richard Simmons role and couldn’t act any differently if they tried.

I think there remains an ignorance that in reality, to most people most gays are indistinguishable from the population at large. But, Brokeback Mountain and a very few other films excepted, Hollywood continues to feel more comfortable pushing the ignorant stereotype rather than the reality because the stereotype is safer and sells more tickets. There’s no risk portraying gays in the fringe, effeminate, conflicted, brooding or zany comedic roles (“Zack & Miri Make a Porno,” “Ugly Betty,” etc. than as they actually are.   

And Russian Paul…spot on. It’s been my view that gays are far more connected to a broader spread of non-gay issues than the general population.

Agreed, Nicholson is the greatest.  Talent is what matters.

troublesum: I agree with you—but my point in general is that Jack Nicholson’s interpretation of a character is where the talent shines.  That’s what he was paid for as an actor: to interpret a particular character.  And sexual preference, in the case of this article, has no bearing on talent.

It’s not who gets the part; it’s who writes the script.  When gay people are scripted out of true stories or histories, that’s not good.  Americans can’t bear too much reality.  It has to be sugar coated.  For example, “Shakespeare in Love” had to be presented as a light romantic comedy for an American audience.  Anyone familiar with the sonnets knows the reality was anything but that.

Dave24
Can’t imagine Jack Nicholson playing a general unless the general happened to be off his rocker.

Russian Paul
I didn’t say gay activists were “unaware” of other causes; I said or meant to say that they were uninvolved in causes which are unrelated to gay rights and that this is to their own detriment.  I don’t see Milk as a gay activist.  He was an activist.

I’d rather see a great actor like Sean Penn play a profound role, rather than choosing an actor based on their personal sexuality.  Choosing actors should be based on talent. 

It might be more authentic to get, for a example, a real general to play the role of a general in a movie; but I’d rather see Jack Nicholson perform it.

Troublesum - To say that gays don’t reach out and support other causes than their own…and then to imply this is why Prop 8 passed is an ignorant assumption.

Most of us gays are well aware of other more pressing issues facing us now…But gay marriage was not on the table in Milk’s time - this is what we are focusing on now. Proposition 8 only passed because people were repeatedly told two lies: homosexuality will be taught in schools and churches will lose their tax exempt status…and good old-fashioned prejudice.

What I remember about Milk - and I learned this from the 1984 documentary - was that he was interested in more than just gay issues.  He was trying to build a coalition of leftist groups includion labor unions, womens rights groups, the elderly, the poor, unlike todays gay leaders who seem to care only about gay rights.  This probably has something to do with why proposition 8 passed.

I thought this was a great article, but I think your characterization of Lohan as “openly gay” is a bit exaggerated.  Unless something’s happened that I’m unaware of, Lohan did not use the work gay or lesbian to characterize her or her relationship in her public “admission” of the relationship, and afterwards, there was even an attempt to backpedal by saying that wasn’t what she meant when she said “love.”  She’s also 20 years old, and unfortunately, in our society, it’s very hip especially for young women to faux lesbian or faux bisexual, so I’m not sure how seriously people even take her dubious queer status when she hasn’t used the words lesbian or bisexual definitively. 

As far as being “bankable,” its circular:  if you don’t get the needed exposure because of prejudicial assumptions about your sexuality, you’ll never become bankable. 

But I really liked this suggestion: “Could we be in a historical moment when the system—studios, agents, actors—are worried about an audience reaction that is no longer real?”  This is the same for women as well—the assumption by the execs that only certain types of roles for certain people will be money-makers.  Therefore, such movies that challenge assumptions aren’t made, and when they are, they are poorly funded and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Hollywood is uber-cautious:  time and again, it goes with what it know will make money, and continues discriminating in the process, so I agree that they’re way behind the population in terms of actual attitudes.  But will they ever get the guts to find out they’re wrong?

Being a very talented (and gay) director, I’ll trust Van Sant’s decisions…My biggest concern when I see gays portrayed in media is that they are always shown as effeminate charactures (Bravo TV).

The fact that roles are being written for same-sex oriented characters that are so good that actors straight and gay fight to play them is light years ahead of prior periods.  It’s already been said that the “best” and “most bankable” stars have priority when putting together a movie deal, as that’s where the money will be.  It is only natural for directors and producers to cast them when possible.  Milk star Penn wanted to play that part, has the chops and the stature to attract funding, and along with that other stars.  As a business decision, hiring him was a no brainer.  It is also turning into an artistic coup as well, and Penn will very likely get an Oscar nomination at the very least.

That said, out GLBT actors are making progress in being accepted to play whatever roles.  It is a difficult and slow process, but at least it is progress.  Some of those actors want to avoid being pigeonholed into just playing “gay” roles, and that is consistent with the idea that an actor can play a variety of roles.  That has been more easily done by straight actors, notably Javier Bardem, the Brokeback duo Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, and even super macho Antonio Banderas.  The fact that didn’t hurt their careers significantly is only a recent and welcome phenomenon, as it overcomes that fear.

You don’t have to have a gay actor play a gay character, and you don’t have to have a straight actor play a straight role.  For things to even out to the point that it becomes unremarkable enough that no one bothers to take notice and write about or debate it will take a bit more time.

Why is there so much homophobia at this website?  Whenever there is a column dealing with gay issues, 90% of the people who post here won’t go near it.  Isn’t it unusual for a left-leaning site to be so homophobic?  If you read and respond to a column about homosexuality will it make you gay?

But what is the “best and most bankable actor”?  If the article is correct about audiences mainly using the movies to inspire fantasies about the actors, and most people are strongly heterosexual, then the Gay actors won’t be bankable no matter how good they are as actors.  Such movies are a kind of pornography, and porn, open or covert, has to synchronize with its audience’s fantasy life regardless of whether it’s politically correct.

It’s a matter of the actors themselves coming out of the closet.  The majority of male actors are probably gay and especially the ones who take tough guy roles.  According to a recent biography of Marlon Brando, he had several homosexual affairs.  Americans can’t bear too much reality; it has to be sugar coated.  That’s what hollywood is all about.

Larry Gross’s idea that the same audience that accepts a gay leading character would not accept a gay actor in the role is pretty silly. The reality is that the best and most bankable actors get the roles. How else should a business function?