Like a Charm

In his interview, Sean Mitchell displays a homophobic dislike for Rupert Everett (“An Ideal Leading Man?,” June 13).

His snide comments and his writing technique of raising unnecessary questions reflect an attempt to put down this handsome and successful actor. From the headline question to a comment such as “it’s hard to deny he brings a lot to the drawing room,” it is obvious that the writer was trying very hard to find reasons to deny Everett’s talent and reason for success.

A handsome man, even an English actor, “incongruous” on Venice Beach? Hardly. Everett is unable to portray working-class men? Not proven, but so what? Everett is very good at what he does do. And on and on throughout the interview.

Mitchell even records Everett’s seeming awareness of the writer’s negative bias when Everett says, “I feel this is difficult. We’re not kind of . . . it’s difficult to connect.”

Exactly!

PHILIP WRIGHT

Palm Springs

*

If there are any doubts as to Rupert Everett’s ability to play a “straight” male character, particularly in a dramatic role (even if that role calls for intensely charged sexual interplay with an alluring female counterpart), look no further than the virtually forgotten but nevertheless superb 1985 British film “Dance With a Stranger,” co-starring the excellent Miranda Richardson alongside the young Everett, for the definitive answer.

RICHARD G. RODRIGUEZ

Newport Beach

*

It’s true what Rupert Everett’s (female) media assistant says: He’s no Ellen DeGeneres. He’s probably never been told, “We know you’re gay, shut up!”; nor has it been said that he’s “unconvincing” in heterosexual roles, as many lesbian performers are told.

DeGeneres’ alleged “gay poster child” status is not entirely voluntary. The woman merely came out, and was roundly attacked for doing so. When a gay male celebrity comes out, he’s lauded for his courage and integrity. Indeed, Everett can even admit to having been a prostitute, with no damage to his career.

(If Ellen tends to complain a bit too much, the fact remains that she was treated pretty shabbily. Lucky Rupert has no such gripe; even his petulance and self-centeredness are considered part of his appeal.)

All of this is further evidence that even homosexuality is not immune to sexism.

KEVIN DAWSON

Sunland

*

Rupert Everett says that he’s “not a very Method-y actor” and never in a bad mood for five days when doing a bad-mood scene. Sir Peter Hall refers to actors who are so “method-based they strangle the text” (“As He Likes It,” by Barbara Isenberg, June 13).

Come on, guys. We’re approaching the 21st century. We’ve heard these beliefs for a good part of the present century. They are cliched and misleading.

Why are certain English actors so grateful for Method technique enabling them to be more physical during the fluid flow of verbal cadences? Why has there been a stream of fine English actors who have expressed an interest in principles of Stanislavski and his multivaried disciples? Why is there no awareness given to the fact that the renowned Strasberg extolled the acting of great English actors of decades past?

Who strangled words? Who was in a bad mood for five days? Next time, please give names, places and dates of Method misbehavior that that fine American Method (and Method-influenced) actors need not be included with Method self-indulgents.

NED MANDERINO

Los Angeles