One of the more puzzling insistences of recent times is this idea that acting should not be acting. You know, this process of playing dress up in order to tell a story that interests should not really be dress up. Gay parts should only be played by gay actors, trans parts only by trans and so on.
Given that we all do believe in equality, equal treatment, these days we’ve thus an interesting question to ask those doing this insisting:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Playing it straight: should gay roles be reserved for gay actors?So, should hetero parts be reserved solely for hetero actors? Cis for cis? If not, why not?
Sure, it will mean that we lose both Rock Hudson’s and James Dean’s output but perhaps that is a price worth paying for equality the way this modern world defines it?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
I'm not sure there are sufficient heterosexual actors for such a ban to be feasible.