Gay Roles a ‘Risk’ to Actors? Nonsense

The theme of two recent articles, regarding Tom Hanks starring in “Philadelphia” (“Deadly Serious,” Calendar, Dec. 19) and Will Smith’s role in “Six Degrees of Separation” (“Yo! Check Out the Fresh Prince’s 180-Degree Turn,” Calendar, Dec. 4), was that these two actors were making “great leaps” by playing gay characters in current releases.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation/Los Angeles (GLAAD/LA) strongly supports the release of these two movies, especially “Philadelphia.” We are very concerned, however, about the slant of the coverage surrounding the actors playing gay characters.

It’s especially ironic that in covering the first major studio release dealing with AIDS-phobia and homophobia (“Philadelphia”), the interviewer’s primary focus was on the presumed damage that starring in such a film might do to the actor’s career.

Acting is a profession that usually involves playing someone with a personality and characteristics different than the actor’s own. We are not aware of articles dealing with the “courage” of actors playing most other types of characters. So why, when an actor plays someone lesbian or gay, are we treated to a cover story heralding his/her “bravery”?

Inevitably, these stories involve a full analysis of the risks involved in taking the role, why the actor or others had concerns about the role, and an explanation that he/she is not gay.

The subtitles for The Times story are problematic enough--”How did Tom Hanks come to play a gay lawyer with AIDS?” “What made him take the leap?” But the article practices a subtle form of apparently unconscious defamation when it states that Hanks’ “likability quotient will probably never again be put to (this) kind of test.”

It is really not a big deal for a heterosexual actor to be playing a gay or lesbian role--lesbian and gay actors play heterosexual roles all the time. We therefore find it offensive to see Will Smith’s homophobic reactions to his role--”scariest choice I’ve ever had to make in my career,” “I was concerned about how my credibility would be affected”--painted as”courageous.”

Why was the chief focus of questioning Smith about the gay aspect of his character, rather than, say that he was playing a conartist or a liar?

Through stories and interviewers of this kind, The Times and other papers are creating and reinforcing the myth that playing a gay or lesbian character could have a negative impact on an actor’s career. To the contrary, a long line of highly successful actors have played gay and lesbian characters at some point in their career.

Why is The Times making this the essential issue?

Luckily there are an increasing number of movies and television shows that reflect the diverse makeup of American society. Lesbians and gays are in every walk of life in every society. GLAAD/LA is working to ensure greater inclusion of lesbian and gay characters in film and on television.

The Times does a disservice to its readership when it reinforces the homophobic notions about the effect of playing gay and lesbian roles that we are working so hard to fight.