Friday, 26 August 2016

Hollywood: We Built This City

It could seem puzzling that a business that depends so heavily on the talents and gifts of gay people would be obsessed with obscuring the true sexual orientation of it’s leading players and public faces. Usually this boils down to some variation of “the audience won’t believe so-and-so is playing a straight man if they really know he’s gay”. Its an amusing ploy on the film industry’s part, feigning concern over our belief in a hero’s sexual desires while he or she is surrounded by flying dragons and belligerent aliens.

Who, exactly, is this mystery audience confounded by movie leads acting straight? Gay men would believe it. Hell, we’re experts on that grift. I can’t imagine women really care. The ultimate concern of course is that precious young male heterosexual demographic, the one whose buying powers are legend. Just knowing your screen hero is gay could call into question what it means to be masculine, what it means to be yourself, what it really is to be a man who is honest about who he loves. Perish the thought. What would ever happen then? 

Hugh Elliott, Guardian Cif.


  1. But people DO, in their responses, blend actors and characters. What was that MGM slogan in the 30s or 40s?--"Gable's back and Garson's got him." And Fred and Ginger had to end up in a (decorous) clinch in every film.

  2. "If it wasn't for the fags and Jews, there wouldn't be a Hollywood".
    Mel Brooks as Dr Frederick Bronski, To Be, Or not to Be, 1983