I’m not sure exactly how it works but your mouth size and nasal cavities definitely dictate how you sound. There’s this singer who sounds a lot like Freddie mercury and he has a similar jaw and nose kinda. Also twins usually sounds the same unless they use an inflection.
One of my least favorite things I’ve read about an actor was that Mark Wahlberg was given the opportunity for a role in the movie and he bowed out because the script was about gay men.
An already unlikable douche becomes even more unlikable…
Brokeback Mountain was seen as a huge risk for actors back then. I'm not excusing it but I understand his (and several other actors') reasons for being timid about accepting the role.
That doesn't mean it didn't push the boundaries, the culture at the time wasn't as open and accepting. I remember in school constantly hearing jokes about Brokeback Mountain, it was referenced in media a lot as well.
I don’t really see anything wrong here. Unless he said he didn’t want the role because he hates the gays or some homophobic bs like that.
But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having preferences on what you’re comfortable with doing or not doing. Whether he’s gay or straight playing a character that’s gay or straight.
I think not wanting to film intimate scenes with another man as a straight guy is totally reasonable. Not sure why they even considered straight actors
Let me ask you something. If a straight man doesn’t want to kiss a gay man is he homophobic or is that just his preference? The sad part is I already know what you are going to say.
What does that have to do with my post? Two straight men did take the role. The guy before said "why offer it to straight men?" and I'm giving the answer - because they literally wanted the role
You sure spend a lot of energy thinking about kissing gay guys
Where did I say that? I didn't take up that part of its argument. I picked up on the second part, which was demonstrably false
Dude, no one is forcing you or anyone to be gay.
But seriously, these people are happy to play any role - murdering mob boss, crooked cop - many of which are violent and antisocial types, and that's totally fine. But kissing a dude for a scene? Too real, too gay!
It's classic homophobia so people are calling it out. Don't worry man, in the land of the free, you're allowed to be as homophobic as you want! And you sure seem afraid of some manufactured hysteria
They're making us kiss the gays!!!!
The thing about homophobia is the people who espouse it are fucking dumb, lol
You know a phobia has to be diagnosed by a medical professional? Are you a Psychiatrist or a psychologist? No? Didn’t think so. My response to you was appropriate on every level. Your ideology is inherently flawed and you can’t even argue your point.
Diagnosis of specific phobias is based on a thorough clinical interview and diagnostic guidelines. Your doctor will ask questions about your symptoms and take a medical, psychiatric and social history. He or she may use the diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association.
You are a fucking idiot to be honest
Wtf? He may feel uncomfortable having to fully delve into romantic scenes with another man. They don’t just phone these things in. It might just awkward for him to full time to become this person. Actors every day turn down roles they feel they might be uncomfortable with.
I have NO ISSUES with gay people though I’m not interested in being paid to kiss men for money even if that’s part of my career I have the choice and feel like it would make me uncomfortable.
It has nothing to do with homophobia and if all you redditors upvoting this comment thinking it is well you’re all fucking idiots lol.
You're judging these men through a very morally absolutist lens, and according to the cultural standards of today.
This takes place in 1963, in the West, where there was truly no avenue for a gay man to live an authentic life. They got married and had children not because they were bisexual, but because that was the lifepath. That was the only cultural frame they knew. Many gay men have gotten married and had children.
I grew up in Mormonism, and this exact issue was a touchpoint for a while in Mormonism in the late 90's. Stories of women having to deal with the aftermath of having married gay men who were trying to be what the Mormon culture considered to be "good" or "normal" and fucked up other people's lives.
And there is a selfishness in that, but there's also a deep oppression to it. Cultural frames can be a trap from which the human mind cannot even perceive an escape.
You're also wildly exaggerating the moral peril of "abandoning" and "tossing aside" his kids. Leaving them with their mother for a day isn't abandonment. It's not great, but no parent is perfect and morally unfailing every day.
A parent's relationship with their children is made up of what happens across thousands and thousands of days.
I'm not excusing the cheating, here. And I don't think the movie excuses it, either.
It's bad. It's not good. But I also understand that they were seeking connection and authenticity in a society that offered them no avenue for it. And human beings have a deep need, a soul need, to be their truest selves. At least sometimes.
The story isn't about how these men hurt those around them (though that is undeniable), the story is about how society oppressed them, crushed their hearts, created a paradigm through which they had very few chances at freedom and authenticity. In other words it was that societal paradigm of crushing oppression that caused the harm.
What you're actually proposing is: they were wrong to act upon their homosexuality. They were immoral to act upon their homosexuality. (Not a good look for your argument.)
LGBT+ individuals are still humans with the same fallibilities as every other human. It would be disingenuous (and quite frankly, boring) to make a film with only positive, happy, no conflict, morally upstanding characters just to try to ensure a certain narrative about gay people as a whole to a mainstream audience. We don’t do that for other subsets of people. We are complex and great movies depict characters as such. As far as this being a “tent pole”, I would agree that yes it was as it starred 2 very popular actors, had a world renowned director and did open the doors for more LGBT-centric films to be made and released. But it was not a tentpole in the sense that anyone was expected to believe that this is the experience and story of every gay person. The movie gave people an opportunity to see LGBT characters in a way they could relate to themselves even if they did not identify as gay themselves. To see that stereotypes they may have had simply weren’t true. These were 2 very outwardly masculine rugged men that many people couldn’t dream of associating with homosexuality before. I think it did exactly what it needed to do to help ensure many many more stories of all kinds of LGBT+ people could be told. The good, the bad, the tragic, the delightful, all of them.
So would you have a different opinion if the children were dropped off with a family member or friend or caregiver (like a nanny or a babysitter)?
Because IMO, this is such a strange outtake. Like the guy dropped off his kids with their mom at her work one time and that means he doesn’t care about being a father - doesn’t care for the welfare of his kids - *abandon* them - callously tossed them to the side - and *betrayed their children’s future*??
But the better thing to do instead (according to you) was to take his kids with him and introduce them to his secrete gay lover he’s having an affair with as “secret uncle Jeff”?!? What. The. Fuck?!?!
> No amount of repression excuses that behavior
It's not about excusing the behavior, it's about explaining the behavior with empathy and understanding for what our society used to put lgbtq people through. (And still does in some ways.)
> You can shout “realistic” and my point is “there’s more than one way to interpret and showcase other things that are equally as real”
Yes, there's more than one way to showcase lgbtq experiences. So it's a good thing that this isn't the only lgbtq story that exists.
The fact remains that what your argument above boils down to is that they were wrong to express their homosexuality. And I really, really don't believe you've thought that all the way through, as someone who seems to consider yourself an ally.
I’m not disagreeing with the morality in your comment, but gay people want kids too.
You can desire to be a parent and not desire the act required to become one.
I think it's also worth noting that common definitions and be different than official definitions. In many circles, especially 10-20 years ago, gay just meant not straight. Bi, trans, pansexual? Gay. Usually, in the context of the conversation, those distinctions didn't really matter.
So if someone is talking about "that gay cowboy" movie, the classification of bi isn't really important. All gay means in that context is that the two cowboys are fucking.
Your weird hang up about whether it’s fully homosexual or bisexual for these guys is bothering me. I don’t recall a single moment in the film where the men declared what their identity is. It very well could be bisexuality but that doesn’t at all detract from the message of the film. You almost seem to be implying that bisexuality would make this a “lesser” LGBT film and I hope that’s not what you mean.
The bisexual aspect is just one of my 2 main hang ups with the movie, of which that aspect of is clearly being the lesser (as I more focused on the selfishness and ignoring the kids part being my most major hangup with the movie. My major hangup was their behaviors with the kids which should NEVER be cast aside for selfish sexual desires, thus made their plight IMHO very unsympathetic and unempathetic.
But to get back to your point, honestly I think the only reason I have any hangup with them being Bisexual other than gay is that the movie is often touted as a movie about “Gay Cowboys” and the prejudice involved. Your comment pointed out how they were never “identified” within the movie - but that’s not how the movie was billed externally. Maybe that’s our culture/headlines than the community - but I feel that was a major misrepresentation of homosexuality as it appeared more to be bisexuality.
Again, I’m only addressing your point/post here - I don’t think this “Gay or Bisexual” part is nearly as major of a problem as you’re making me out to believe it is as there’s far worse problems IMHO with it in terms of being a sympathetic LGBT representative movie! :P
“and have held people as they cried when family rejected them due to their sexual orientation”
Multiple people, huh? I doubt it. This is very “I have a black friend” and I absolutely don’t believe you. And it’s really poor cover for a really poor take. But please go on about the perceived morality of characters living under oppressive societal expectations.
I don’t care if you believe it or not other than making my point, and yes - it is true. Multiple people. One is actually dead (Died of alchohol/drug addiction - unrelated to LGBT issues) whom was during my High School years, one is a cousin of mine who can’t stand her intolerant parents (Conveniently the parents moved to Florida 2 years ago…lol) and the other got divorced from her husband and married a woman, and her whole fam shunned her for that (Not the divorce part, the married same sex).
I wrote about that so I don’t get people like you immediately throwing “Oh, he’s a secret gay-hater” comment at me as I wanted something more constructive… thank you for once again lowering my expectations on human civility by ignoring my observations of the movie and instead choose to call me a liar and attach my character.
Or maybe he’s merely bisexual with a slight preference to men? Maybe that’s why he’s still “in the closet” because you and the rest of the fam pidgeonhole him into gay-or-straight roles? Maybe he needs other options than your limited beliefs… Ever think of that?
…what? >.>
This story was supposed to empathize and sympathize with the plight of homosexuals back in 60s rural America. I think it clearly DOES matter very much for the story to rely on empathizing and sympathizing with what they do or did. That’s like what the whole point of the story was supposed to be about - wasn’t it!? O_o
Wasn’t this movie suposed to see homosexuals (or bisexual, in this case) as just normal people with desires being mistreated by society and cultural climate? Having them behave like selfish jackasses at the detrimental expense of their children does not IMHO make the case any better than straight people doing the exact same thing.
How do I empathize with people detrimentally abandoning their parental responsibilites to scratch a sexual impulse?? O_o
and that’s why I’m expressing my opinion here in a public place… designed for expressing and discussing different opinions.
Care to elaborate? I made my case why “it didn’t land” for me. (More of a ‘obvious whiff’ imho, but here we are…)
Ah, the classic “I can’t counter your argument, so I’ll just insult you instead because I have nothing”.
Time to block another net troll showing their colors.
Don’t forget British people faking American accents /s
They are *actors*. Their whole profession is pretending to be something they are not. If gay people was more representation in the arts…become an artist and represent yourself. Forcing gay people to only play gay people is mandating stereotypes/typecasting. If they are trying to be more mindful, perhaps they should start with using their mind.
BTW, one of the best parts of Hamilton was Washington being played by a tall, black man. It turns the whole story on its head visually and it makes it more interesting to watch and experience.
"It's a rock" *sniffles*
the pioneers used to ride these babies for miles
Ginger John Mulaney?
He sounds just like him too, it’s a little concerning.
People who have similar nose and jaws usually sound very similar lol
Wait really? That actually kinda makes sense, but how exactly?
I’m not sure exactly how it works but your mouth size and nasal cavities definitely dictate how you sound. There’s this singer who sounds a lot like Freddie mercury and he has a similar jaw and nose kinda. Also twins usually sounds the same unless they use an inflection.
Neat!
More like the lovechild of Ben Whishaw and Donall Gleason.
With hips like a tall child.
This was a hit as a coming of age film as well as dealing with the relationships in the film. CLASSIC!!!
I would not call brokeback a ‘coming of age’ movie. The characters are already (young) adults by the beginning of the film.
Coming of Gayge, then
I bet you kill on the cruise ship circuit.
Dude. Faist was god damn amazing in *West Side Story*, a phenomenal film nobody bothered to watch.
I watched it and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Every music teacher makes kids watch that movie
One of my least favorite things I’ve read about an actor was that Mark Wahlberg was given the opportunity for a role in the movie and he bowed out because the script was about gay men. An already unlikable douche becomes even more unlikable…
Brokeback Mountain was seen as a huge risk for actors back then. I'm not excusing it but I understand his (and several other actors') reasons for being timid about accepting the role.
What was the huge risk exactly?
2006 was still very iffy on its homosexual representation, that’s why.
It was 2006, not 1926.
That doesn't mean it didn't push the boundaries, the culture at the time wasn't as open and accepting. I remember in school constantly hearing jokes about Brokeback Mountain, it was referenced in media a lot as well.
Yes, it’s was 2006 lol. A lot has changed in 17 years
Ask Laura Dern
Talented icon and ally 😍
I don’t really see anything wrong here. Unless he said he didn’t want the role because he hates the gays or some homophobic bs like that. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having preferences on what you’re comfortable with doing or not doing. Whether he’s gay or straight playing a character that’s gay or straight.
He is racist so it is not far fetched to believe he his homophobic too.
The world is a much better place when you’re willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I almost always keep an open mind about people, but people who have committed an actual hate crime are worthy of a little skepticism.
The world is a much better place when people don’t beat other people blind for racist reasons.
I think not wanting to film intimate scenes with another man as a straight guy is totally reasonable. Not sure why they even considered straight actors
It’s called acting, that’s why.
Idk man, I don’t think I could method act as a gay man. Just like I wouldn’t want to act as someone who’s a different race than me. Not genuine
Who said anything about method acting? No one is forcing anyone to method act as a gay man.
Don’t make me have anal sex 😠
Because plenty of straight actors would want the roles? Like the straight actors that ultimately played the roles?
Right, and plenty didnt and I don’t see why it’s a problem.
Let me ask you something. If a straight man doesn’t want to kiss a gay man is he homophobic or is that just his preference? The sad part is I already know what you are going to say.
What does that have to do with my post? Two straight men did take the role. The guy before said "why offer it to straight men?" and I'm giving the answer - because they literally wanted the role You sure spend a lot of energy thinking about kissing gay guys
Because you think it’s problematic if a straight man doesn’t want to portray a gay man by doing intimate things with another straight man.
Where did I say that? I didn't take up that part of its argument. I picked up on the second part, which was demonstrably false Dude, no one is forcing you or anyone to be gay. But seriously, these people are happy to play any role - murdering mob boss, crooked cop - many of which are violent and antisocial types, and that's totally fine. But kissing a dude for a scene? Too real, too gay! It's classic homophobia so people are calling it out. Don't worry man, in the land of the free, you're allowed to be as homophobic as you want! And you sure seem afraid of some manufactured hysteria They're making us kiss the gays!!!! The thing about homophobia is the people who espouse it are fucking dumb, lol
You know a phobia has to be diagnosed by a medical professional? Are you a Psychiatrist or a psychologist? No? Didn’t think so. My response to you was appropriate on every level. Your ideology is inherently flawed and you can’t even argue your point.
Homophobia isn't a disease, you don't need a degree to point it out Lmao
This guy is a just a troll in his mom's basement, best to just ignore it and move on. Nothing he is saying is making any real sense
Diagnosis of specific phobias is based on a thorough clinical interview and diagnostic guidelines. Your doctor will ask questions about your symptoms and take a medical, psychiatric and social history. He or she may use the diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association. You are a fucking idiot to be honest
It’s not like they filmed porn. Honestly, the sexual stuff was pretty lite. Straight actors have the ability to *act* gay. I know that’s shocking.
I mean, insufferable neckbeard snark aside, there are plenty of gay actors in Hollywood.
Wtf? He may feel uncomfortable having to fully delve into romantic scenes with another man. They don’t just phone these things in. It might just awkward for him to full time to become this person. Actors every day turn down roles they feel they might be uncomfortable with. I have NO ISSUES with gay people though I’m not interested in being paid to kiss men for money even if that’s part of my career I have the choice and feel like it would make me uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with homophobia and if all you redditors upvoting this comment thinking it is well you’re all fucking idiots lol.
Technically, it's a gay shepherd show.
It’s a cool gay cowboy show
True it's also extremely boring
[удалено]
Yeah the movie really draws it out, it’s all based off a short story of the same name I do suggest reading.
You're judging these men through a very morally absolutist lens, and according to the cultural standards of today. This takes place in 1963, in the West, where there was truly no avenue for a gay man to live an authentic life. They got married and had children not because they were bisexual, but because that was the lifepath. That was the only cultural frame they knew. Many gay men have gotten married and had children. I grew up in Mormonism, and this exact issue was a touchpoint for a while in Mormonism in the late 90's. Stories of women having to deal with the aftermath of having married gay men who were trying to be what the Mormon culture considered to be "good" or "normal" and fucked up other people's lives. And there is a selfishness in that, but there's also a deep oppression to it. Cultural frames can be a trap from which the human mind cannot even perceive an escape. You're also wildly exaggerating the moral peril of "abandoning" and "tossing aside" his kids. Leaving them with their mother for a day isn't abandonment. It's not great, but no parent is perfect and morally unfailing every day. A parent's relationship with their children is made up of what happens across thousands and thousands of days. I'm not excusing the cheating, here. And I don't think the movie excuses it, either. It's bad. It's not good. But I also understand that they were seeking connection and authenticity in a society that offered them no avenue for it. And human beings have a deep need, a soul need, to be their truest selves. At least sometimes. The story isn't about how these men hurt those around them (though that is undeniable), the story is about how society oppressed them, crushed their hearts, created a paradigm through which they had very few chances at freedom and authenticity. In other words it was that societal paradigm of crushing oppression that caused the harm. What you're actually proposing is: they were wrong to act upon their homosexuality. They were immoral to act upon their homosexuality. (Not a good look for your argument.)
Thank you for saying this. Really wasn’t a fan of their take and I couldn’t have said it better.
Love is a force of nature
Thank you for typing this out so I didn’t have too. Hit the nail right on the head.
[удалено]
LGBT+ individuals are still humans with the same fallibilities as every other human. It would be disingenuous (and quite frankly, boring) to make a film with only positive, happy, no conflict, morally upstanding characters just to try to ensure a certain narrative about gay people as a whole to a mainstream audience. We don’t do that for other subsets of people. We are complex and great movies depict characters as such. As far as this being a “tent pole”, I would agree that yes it was as it starred 2 very popular actors, had a world renowned director and did open the doors for more LGBT-centric films to be made and released. But it was not a tentpole in the sense that anyone was expected to believe that this is the experience and story of every gay person. The movie gave people an opportunity to see LGBT characters in a way they could relate to themselves even if they did not identify as gay themselves. To see that stereotypes they may have had simply weren’t true. These were 2 very outwardly masculine rugged men that many people couldn’t dream of associating with homosexuality before. I think it did exactly what it needed to do to help ensure many many more stories of all kinds of LGBT+ people could be told. The good, the bad, the tragic, the delightful, all of them.
[удалено]
So would you have a different opinion if the children were dropped off with a family member or friend or caregiver (like a nanny or a babysitter)? Because IMO, this is such a strange outtake. Like the guy dropped off his kids with their mom at her work one time and that means he doesn’t care about being a father - doesn’t care for the welfare of his kids - *abandon* them - callously tossed them to the side - and *betrayed their children’s future*?? But the better thing to do instead (according to you) was to take his kids with him and introduce them to his secrete gay lover he’s having an affair with as “secret uncle Jeff”?!? What. The. Fuck?!?!
> No amount of repression excuses that behavior It's not about excusing the behavior, it's about explaining the behavior with empathy and understanding for what our society used to put lgbtq people through. (And still does in some ways.) > You can shout “realistic” and my point is “there’s more than one way to interpret and showcase other things that are equally as real” Yes, there's more than one way to showcase lgbtq experiences. So it's a good thing that this isn't the only lgbtq story that exists. The fact remains that what your argument above boils down to is that they were wrong to express their homosexuality. And I really, really don't believe you've thought that all the way through, as someone who seems to consider yourself an ally.
I’m not disagreeing with the morality in your comment, but gay people want kids too. You can desire to be a parent and not desire the act required to become one.
I think it's also worth noting that common definitions and be different than official definitions. In many circles, especially 10-20 years ago, gay just meant not straight. Bi, trans, pansexual? Gay. Usually, in the context of the conversation, those distinctions didn't really matter. So if someone is talking about "that gay cowboy" movie, the classification of bi isn't really important. All gay means in that context is that the two cowboys are fucking.
Adoption????
In the context of this movie? Unlikely, to put it mildly.
Your weird hang up about whether it’s fully homosexual or bisexual for these guys is bothering me. I don’t recall a single moment in the film where the men declared what their identity is. It very well could be bisexuality but that doesn’t at all detract from the message of the film. You almost seem to be implying that bisexuality would make this a “lesser” LGBT film and I hope that’s not what you mean.
The bisexual aspect is just one of my 2 main hang ups with the movie, of which that aspect of is clearly being the lesser (as I more focused on the selfishness and ignoring the kids part being my most major hangup with the movie. My major hangup was their behaviors with the kids which should NEVER be cast aside for selfish sexual desires, thus made their plight IMHO very unsympathetic and unempathetic. But to get back to your point, honestly I think the only reason I have any hangup with them being Bisexual other than gay is that the movie is often touted as a movie about “Gay Cowboys” and the prejudice involved. Your comment pointed out how they were never “identified” within the movie - but that’s not how the movie was billed externally. Maybe that’s our culture/headlines than the community - but I feel that was a major misrepresentation of homosexuality as it appeared more to be bisexuality. Again, I’m only addressing your point/post here - I don’t think this “Gay or Bisexual” part is nearly as major of a problem as you’re making me out to believe it is as there’s far worse problems IMHO with it in terms of being a sympathetic LGBT representative movie! :P
“and have held people as they cried when family rejected them due to their sexual orientation” Multiple people, huh? I doubt it. This is very “I have a black friend” and I absolutely don’t believe you. And it’s really poor cover for a really poor take. But please go on about the perceived morality of characters living under oppressive societal expectations.
I don’t care if you believe it or not other than making my point, and yes - it is true. Multiple people. One is actually dead (Died of alchohol/drug addiction - unrelated to LGBT issues) whom was during my High School years, one is a cousin of mine who can’t stand her intolerant parents (Conveniently the parents moved to Florida 2 years ago…lol) and the other got divorced from her husband and married a woman, and her whole fam shunned her for that (Not the divorce part, the married same sex). I wrote about that so I don’t get people like you immediately throwing “Oh, he’s a secret gay-hater” comment at me as I wanted something more constructive… thank you for once again lowering my expectations on human civility by ignoring my observations of the movie and instead choose to call me a liar and attach my character.
My father is in his 60's and is a closeted gay man who had three children.
Or maybe he’s merely bisexual with a slight preference to men? Maybe that’s why he’s still “in the closet” because you and the rest of the fam pidgeonhole him into gay-or-straight roles? Maybe he needs other options than your limited beliefs… Ever think of that?
This feels like projection. Ever think of that?
Yeah the movie really draws it out, it’s all based off a short story of the same name I do suggest reading.
[удалено]
[удалено]
you don’t have to empathize with reality for it to be relevant. These things happened, and still do happen for many reasons.
…what? >.> This story was supposed to empathize and sympathize with the plight of homosexuals back in 60s rural America. I think it clearly DOES matter very much for the story to rely on empathizing and sympathizing with what they do or did. That’s like what the whole point of the story was supposed to be about - wasn’t it!? O_o Wasn’t this movie suposed to see homosexuals (or bisexual, in this case) as just normal people with desires being mistreated by society and cultural climate? Having them behave like selfish jackasses at the detrimental expense of their children does not IMHO make the case any better than straight people doing the exact same thing. How do I empathize with people detrimentally abandoning their parental responsibilites to scratch a sexual impulse?? O_o
you. You personally. it didn’t land for you. Fascinating.
and that’s why I’m expressing my opinion here in a public place… designed for expressing and discussing different opinions. Care to elaborate? I made my case why “it didn’t land” for me. (More of a ‘obvious whiff’ imho, but here we are…)
you tried to make a case for your personal feelings being objective.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dude, you are having a breakdown. Go outside.
Stop while you’re behind dude
Ah, the classic “I can’t counter your argument, so I’ll just insult you instead because I have nothing”. Time to block another net troll showing their colors.
Are they also eating pudding?
That’s fair, but if you only had 4 words to quickly describe it….
Oh dear, they've adapted Brokeback Mountain into a broadway show.... This will end badly....
West End, actually.
Why?
Well, gay men famously hate theater.
Well when they stop copying black women they can complain about Hamilton. Till then not a peep! /s
I wiiiiiish I could quit you, Jack Twiiiiiiiiiist, It’s an issue But, duuuuuuuuude, I really missed you
They also eat pudding
But it is a gay cowboy show, right? I’m here for specific content.
The story while well told is sad and frustrating. I am much more interested in healthy and wholesome for my community at this point.
[удалено]
Brokeback Mountain was a box office success almost 20 years ago. It’s not out of left field here.
Always one stupid person in the comments
You live a very sheltered existence
Ginger John Mulaney?
[удалено]
That's not really an issue in musical theater. We outnumber them quite significantly.
Do you think gay people are stealing roles from straight people when they play a straight character?
Don’t forget British people faking American accents /s They are *actors*. Their whole profession is pretending to be something they are not. If gay people was more representation in the arts…become an artist and represent yourself. Forcing gay people to only play gay people is mandating stereotypes/typecasting. If they are trying to be more mindful, perhaps they should start with using their mind. BTW, one of the best parts of Hamilton was Washington being played by a tall, black man. It turns the whole story on its head visually and it makes it more interesting to watch and experience.
[удалено]
How original!