Milk: Playing Gay
Milk’s double win at the Oscars Sunday night spawned a nation-wide discussion about the high incidence of winning an award for “playing gay”. But even before Tom Hanks took home a little gold man in 1994 for his portrayal of the ailing Andrew Beckett in Philadelphia, Oscar has been handing out golden statues to gender-bending pretenders since its inception 81 years ago.
Milk is Gus van Sant’s triumphant film that brings us the story of Harvey Milk, an early champion of gay rights, and the first openly gay person to hold a significant public office before his assassination by fellow California supervisor, Dan White, in 1978. Van Sant, who is openly gay and known for making gay-themed films (Elephant, My Own Private Idaho), expertly and lovingly directed Dustin Lance Black’s Oscar-winning screenplay with a more straight-forward bent than the bulk of his work. While van Sant’s signature camerawork is present, he shirked over-stylization, trusting the strength of the story to speak for itself, and drawing out amazing performances from James Franco, Emile Hirsch, Diego Luna, Josh Brolin, and a much-deserved Oscar win for Sean Penn.
Though Milk takes place in the 1970s, its politics are more relevant in current events than ever before. The film was released on October 28, 2008, four days before California passed Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that stripped same-sex marriages of legal recognition by the state—the very same state where Harvey Milk gained so much ground for the gay rights movement over three decades earlier. Milk comes as a beacon of hope to all of those who feel their basic civil rights backsliding into a darker time, and the film has repeatedly been called “lifesaving” in its unwavering encouragement. But for all of its progressive qualities, the fact remains that aspects of the film are still deeply problematic.
Harvey Milk’s decree to his supporters was to come out! In the movie, he is criticized by his partner for never actually coming out to his own parents in their lifetimes, but he knew a mass coming out would be fundamental in getting “straight” support from the community. But if Harvey Milk believed that coming out to the public is one of the fundaments of gaining support for the movement, and the screenwriter and director are openly gay, then where are the gay actors in Milk?
Not to criticize the cast—there is no argument that it is very brave for leading stars in Hollywood to take on gay characters. It seems like actors spend much time and energy in the earlier stages of their careers building a status as a sex symbol, but those who want to be taken seriously often turn to iconoclastic gay roles to prove their willingness to explore other selves for the sake of art. It is an admirable step to take that ultimately tends to boost careers: Hillary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry, Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, Charlize Theron in Monster, and now Sean Penn have all won Best Performance Oscars for their work in gay (and ultimately, tragic) roles. It is doubtful that any group of actors could have done a better job than the wonderful ensemble of Milk, but while the movie is a symbol of achievement for those of us fighting for equal rights in America, it is itself an example of the barriers that remain, and the social stigmas that will cling, even after we win equal rights for gays.
Milk’s recent Academy Award wins highlight Oscar’s rich history with playing gay, and, implicitly, homosexuality’s inherant interconnectedness with acting, through a little device called “the closet.”
Hollywood has always been abundant with gay and lesbian performers at every notch on the spectrum of sexuality. But we rarely think of all the Oscars that have been given away over the years to those who were in the closet and playing straight, and for many it was a role they played all their lives. Greta Garbo (Honorary Oscar recipient), Marlene Deitrich (Oscar-nominated sexual icon), Montgomery Clift (four-time Oscar nominee), and Rock Hudson (nominated) lived their entire lives undercover in a time when coming out was far less acceptible, but they all shined onscreen playing “straight,” not to mention the countless other actors whose sexuality we’ll never know due to a combination of social climate, secrecy, and incredible acting.
The need to hide homosexuality is aptly rooted in a fear of being typecast. Rupert Everett, who is out and often plays gay characters, claims to have lost the lead role in About a Boy for being gay, which Hugh Grant filled. Does Hugh Grant honestly seem more masculine than Rupert Everett? In the investors’ eyes, it doesn’t matter. Hugh Grant hasn’t come out and therefore has a better drawing power at the box office because Hugh Grant preserves the “heartthrob” appeal. Apparently, producers feel that women can’t properly incorporate an extremely attractive gay man into their sexual fantasies.
And then there are the openly gay actors who don’t really bother trying to play straight men: Alan Cumming, Nathan Lane, David Hyde Piece to name a few. (Why else do you think in 11 seasons of Frasier we never once caught a glimpse of Maris?) Is this because they are bad actors? Then how is it that Sean Penn could don the body language, speech, and affectations that convinced his audience his character was gay? And yet Neil Patrick Harris could probably never convincingly play Rambo. (Then again, Doogie has zero Oscars.)
Alan Cumming plays straight in Ali Salim’s beautiful Sweet Land, but his eyes sparkle freely and his smile is so ebullient and devoid of the web of anxieties and gruffness that passes for masculinity that the performance isn’t particularly convincing. Does this mean Alan Cumming isn’t a talented enough actor to play straight? Sean Penn has proven that playing gay can be learned, so can it be unlearned? (Ultra-religious sexual reformation camps seem to think it can.) Certainly, not everyone who is gay share a distinct set of mannerisms, but if audiences already know an actor’s sexual orientation, then the actor must wear a mask that makes us forget our preconceptions.
Outed women seem to have better luck at playing straight in the modern age. Portia de Rossi and Cynthia Nixon have both been successful at playing straight on television, and both even held roles whose feminine sexuality was paramount to their characters. Lily Tomlin (Oscar-nominated) and Jodie Foster (double Oscar-winner) led long and successful careers playing straight before eventually coming out. Foster and Tomlin were already big stars at the time of their coming out, so why can’t popular male stars come out of the closet late in their careers?
Even though it is Hollywood, it is still a big decision and a step that certain actors (I’m looking at you, Spacey) find it easier not to take. Oscar-winner Kevin Spacey, who has been rumored as gay for years, stipulates in his contracts with his assistants that they are barred from discussing his sexuality with anyone on the threat of a $100,000 punitive breach of contract.
Thrice-nominated Tom Cruise has been the top box-office-drawing actor for the past decade, but has been rumored as gay off and on throughout his career. Cruise has been a sex symbol since the 1980s, has fired enough guns, and has been in enough explosions to prove his proclivity to play the masculine hetero-normative man’s man for the rest of his career. But has he ever played gay? What would have happened if the rumors had been true and he came out last year? Would people have boycotted Valkyrie? They didn’t boycott it, even though the director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men, Superman Returns) is openly gay and even had his own Harvey Milk movie in development, entitled The Mayor of Castro Street, before van Sant got Milk off the ground.
Obviously, the gay rights movement will continue to shift and progress, and hopefully shed its stigma at the Oscars along with the rest of the world. And the movement is progressing steadily—Sunday night, Sean Penn admirably used the bulk of his acceptance speech time to shame those who voted for Prop 8, but the same hopeful people that saw Milk up on the screen, must still look forward to the day when they will see an openly gay actor on the screen at the Oscars accepting an award for Best Performance. And while the Academy hasn’t gone so far as to invent a Lifetime Acheivement Award for Staying in the Closet, the statistics show that the Oscars still favor those actors who do. -CH.
So which is more important from a gay rights perspective: society accepting homosexuals (of both genders) in queer roles, or society accepting them in straight roles? The former might suggest a general comfort with homosexuality, that we don’t need the removed understanding that actor is really straight (ala Milk or Brokeback Mtn.). The latter suggests that we’re able to get past homosexual stereotypes and judge openly gay actors primarily by their performance.
And how do we gauge our society’s “acceptance”; box office numbers? awards won? when Rupert Everett is elected President?
That’s an excellent question, Andy. BananaWho seems to think that the most important thing from a gay rights perspective is for gays to be accepted in both queer and straight roles. After all, straight actors are accepted in both.
The question of acceptance is perhaps more pertinent, especially considering the lovely bigots of the Westboro Baptist Church who crashed the red carpet at the Oscars, protesting Milk’s double nomination. What jerks. Obviously, not even straight actors in gay roles are accepted by all of society, even though these hateful Kansans represent the most extreme end of the spectrum. Acceptance will come both at the end of the filmmaking process with box office revenues and awards won, and at the beginning with open-minded producers and innovative casting agents. Casting is the department that thrives owing to their right to discriminate based on race, age, weight, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc.