Director Don Roos 'Distracted' by Gay Actors That Play Straight
Openly gay director Don Roos chimed in on the gay actors playing straight discussion that has been in the headlines recently, at an Outfest panel discussion.
He later told Greg Hernandez that while "he is not willing to make some kind of blanket rule about not casting gays as straight and straight as gay," he's "distracted" by actors who don't play characters with sexualities that mirror their own.
Says Roos at the Outfest panel: “I think the relationship between an audience and an actor is a very complicated thing, especially in a romantic lead. When you’re in a movie theater, what’s on the screen isn’t necessarily appealing to your best instincts. Most of the audience is going to be homophobic, they’re mostly violent in their hearts and that’s what they’re responding to on the screen and you can’t wait to have a career until the audience is not homophobic. That’s never going to happen. … In a romantic role, it can be very distracting for the audience to not be able to give themselves to a particular character. Like when I was watching Philadelphia — I knew [Tom Hanks] was straight."
Roos later elaborated to Hernandez: "I kept feeling distracted knowing that [Tom Hanks in Philadelphia] wasn’t really gay. I was admiring him and thinking, ‘Oh my God, how well he’s playing that.’...I’m just saying in general, the more I know about an actor and his personal life and his personal beliefs, the less useful it is to me as a director. Sometimes I’m distracted because I’m mad that it isn’t a gay actor playing that role. Whatever your political thing is, it interferes with the storytelling.”
Share Posted 2:18 PM EST by Andy Towle in Don Roos, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
If anything about an actor's personal life prevents you from believing their performance, you're stupid. Take in the movie and quit thinking about what happens when the cameras are off.
Do you sit around watching medial dramas thinking "omg he's not really a doctor whaaaat"?
Posted by: christopher575 | Jul 21, 2010 2:30:46 PM
You realize of course, it's called "acting." When people get stabbed in films they don't really have to die either.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 21, 2010 2:32:23 PM
And yet, he doesn't insist on casting gay actors in gay roles either. I think we should all just realize that Don Roos, whatever good films he's done, is not especially a friend to gay actors.
Posted by: db | Jul 21, 2010 2:33:32 PM
This is the problem with the insular world of Hollywood, these directors are so immersed in their own world, they don't realize that the rest of the world can suspend disbelief long enough to get through the movie and be entertained. This guy's problem is that he's too ingrained into the movie-making world to think any differently. Poor slob.
Posted by: johnny | Jul 21, 2010 2:37:30 PM
This man is a friend, but he is certainly not a visionary nor is he a leader in ours or any community.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 21, 2010 2:39:40 PM
um, it's called "acting." if you're an actor, you're supposed to be portraying characters that are different from yourself. if you're a gay person portraying hetero or vice versa, it's all part of the job. if you have a problem not being able to see past your cast member's sexuality, then you probably have no business being a director.
Posted by: alguien | Jul 21, 2010 2:45:35 PM
It is interesting in looking at his movies--he doesn't cast (openly) gay actors in gay roles or straight roles--look at Opposite of Sex or Happy Endings--both movies I liked but the gay characters are played by straight actors. Should we just imply that he doesn't want to cast gay actors in any roles at all?
Posted by: Wizbang | Jul 21, 2010 2:49:41 PM
You know, I always had trouble watching Lisa Kudrow on "Friends".
Knowing she wasn't a twin made her really unbelievable! Idiot!
Posted by: tommy | Jul 21, 2010 2:52:02 PM
That's nice that he has an opinion. Who is this person?
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 21, 2010 2:55:11 PM
Hmmmm... And yet he cast Martin Donovan, a straight man, as gay in 'The Opposite of Sex.'
His 'distraction' is selective, clearly.
Posted by: Sean | Jul 21, 2010 2:55:49 PM
Knowing that an actor's gay impedes the enjoyment of a movie.
Impeding the enjoyment of a movie is bad for the movie, director, actors, financiers, etc.
Therefore, knowing that an actor's gay is bad for the movie, et al.
----------------
Knowing that an actor's female, black, vegetarian, scientologist...
......
hence,
---------------------
The first premise maybe true. But if one has an obligation to not be bigoted, and thereby not allow it to impede the enjoyment of the movie, why should it matter? Stating that it's about money and not bigotry doesn't eliminate that obligation (because then you don't really believe bigotry's wrong, and are unsure, agree with it, or don't care either way if you're not motivated to act on that belief). Artistic vision? Does artistic vision discount ethical responsibility? No. So if the first premise is true, but it shouldn't be the case, why should it matter to hiring out gay actors? If it's because of the second premise, he doesn't believe that bigotry's wrong, because he's not willing to act on that belief in hiring out gay actors. If you don't believe that bigotry's wrong, then you're unethical. therefore, he's unethical.
Posted by: TANK | Jul 21, 2010 2:55:49 PM
Thank goodness all of our actors will soon be computer generated. Then we won't have to worry about this issue.
And where does the idea that the audience is "mostly violent in their hearts" come from? I can't think of anyone that applies to.
Posted by: jimstoic | Jul 21, 2010 3:01:52 PM
I share his opinion on this issue and have for a long time.
Bottom line is, the more you know about an actor, the more distracted you will be when watching them on screen.
It's not only for gays playing straight (and vice versa). The more FAMOUS or CELEBRITY any person becomes, it takes away from their on screen presence.
For example, I cannot watch an Angelina Jolie movie without thinking about all the baggage the comes along with her. (ie Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, adopted children, oscars, etc.)
Posted by: MykeTV | Jul 21, 2010 3:03:18 PM
his lack of imagination shouldn't limit employment opportunities for good actors of any sexual persuasion. He's just disqualifying himself, nothing more.
Posted by: hugo | Jul 21, 2010 3:04:12 PM
*In general* there is a truth in what he is saying in that the more you know about an actor the greater the challenge for both the actor and the film to help you forget that and lose yourself in their performance and the story. Even the most die-hard Mel Gibson fan, for example, would have a hard time watching him play a rabbi now, regardless of how dazzling his performance (*cough*) or gifted the director.
And I think there is some truth in acknowledging that the relationship between audience/character/actor when it is a romantic lead in a film is also shaded with elements of desire and wish-fulfillment -- you're not always just sitting there watching the performance at a distance.
I don't think he means it quite as literally as some are Commenting, it's just an observation about what can prevent an audience from fully falling into a performance/story.
Posted by: JauntyJohn | Jul 21, 2010 3:09:12 PM
"you can’t wait to have a career until the audience is not homophobic. That’s never going to happen."
That's NEVER going to happen? He sure is pessimistic.
Posted by: ravewulf | Jul 21, 2010 3:16:36 PM
most comments here seem to come from an overly idealistic pov. The reality is, Roos probably had only limited say in who could be in his films and the studios and production entities who FUNDED these films always have veto power. I am sure Roos would have preferred to cast his films with gay actors, that's just not how the system works. To the bigger question, can gays play straight, and vice versa. Again, let's get real. We live in a world where our celebrities have extremely public private lives. It's one thing when Victor garber has a supporting role as a straight man. But when you have hanks kissing antonio banderas it is simply a fact that the majority of audiences will have some reaction. Wow, Hanks kissed a boy! They know he's straight and interviewers will ask him what it was like. etc. on the other hand, cast a gay man and you won't get the movie to a mass audience. I mean did you really believe the romance between mel gibson and jodie foster in maverick? Ellen and pullman in Mr. Wrong?
Bottom line, you really can't simplify this issue as much as you'd like. The world of film and film financing is too complicated. Film is not always art, it's a business and you have to factor in that perspective when millions of dollars are in play.
Posted by: DMS | Jul 21, 2010 3:17:21 PM
I got distracted from this post when I remembered Roos hasn't made a decent film in 12 years.
Posted by: Jeff | Jul 21, 2010 3:18:31 PM
This whole argument is based on a set of social and political presumptions that are fast becoming quaint and outmoded. The idea that an actor cannot play outside of his own reality is absurd.
Posted by: tyler | Jul 21, 2010 3:18:38 PM
For someone in a creative field, he certainly doesn't have a lot of vision, to say nothing of suspension of disbelief.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 21, 2010 3:22:28 PM
I see his point about famous actor's private details becoming too public and therefore distracting. The rest of it ... *head scratch.* Something got lost in translation.
Full disclosure: "Happy Endings" was one of the best films (barely released in the theatres) released its year. If you haven't seen it, it's worth it for its storytelling, identity themes and the great ensemble work. I was particularly enamored by Lisa Kudrow (who has collaborated with him before) and Maggie Gyllenhaal (who is just plain amazing). And, if a director can get me to enjoy a movie with Tom Arnold, then, they're worth their salt. Heart-warming, funny and touching; if you can disregard the director's above comments, take my recommendation and watch the film, you'll be glad you did.
As far as "Philadelphia," I found the "okay, class, today's lesson is about homophobia"-script and overly earnest direction as distractions. I also found the vanilla-level romance between Hanks and Banderas distracting, not necessarily Hanks himself.
That being said, I recognize that "Philadelphia" "broke down barriers" and was "trailblazing" and blah, blah, blah ... that movie SO talked down to its audience.
Posted by: Vince in WeHo | Jul 21, 2010 3:24:00 PM
Utter bullshit. Bitch got issues. Next.
Posted by: James in BCN | Jul 21, 2010 3:24:59 PM
I don't agree - if the movie is good and the acting is good - you won't even be distracted to remember you are in a theater.
Does he get uncomfortable with straight actors in gay porn? Because there are a lot of them. :D
Posted by: Ranchdad | Jul 21, 2010 3:26:31 PM
I don't think it's overly idealistic to address the right thing to do, and identify that this person is unethical because he is less likely to hire an out gay actor. That's like saying that bigotry is justified simply because it generates more money at the box office, or enables one to satisfy a preference by not believing that bigotry is wrong. Do you believe that bigotry--or any action or belief--is justified because it's profitable, or promotes a favorable outcome to the bigot? Notice that disagreement with his premise that knowing more about an actor's private life interferes with enjoyment of a film or movie, isn't the point for many commenters. You can acknowledge its truth while agreeing that homophobia is wrong, and therefore, shouldn't be taken into account (should be disregarded). Since when did opposing bigotry become idealistic?
Posted by: TANK | Jul 21, 2010 3:26:53 PM
Its always so "brave" when a so called straight man plays a gay man, but when a gay man does it its "unbelievable". Sometimes, I think the identity issues the dominant culture has thrust on gay people are incredibly sad. This is the second time I've heard a gay person with a platform or voice of any kind take this idiotic idea that perception= reality. That gayness is somehow the only status that we're allowed to claim once we come out. This line of thinking serves to keep gay actors closted, and Hollywood segregated. And it obviously works.
Posted by: g_whiz | Jul 21, 2010 3:28:34 PM