Ian Somerhalder has done pretty well for himself in the mainstream, in a relatively short space of time.
Is he gay though - didn't he just play one gay character?
As a slight defence of Richard Chamberlain, he was working when there was a lot more prejudice and it is something that still happens today. Sean Hayes has been performing on Broadway as a romantic leading man and some reviews have found him unconvincing based on his sexuality.
Here's an article where Sean's broadway co-star Kristin Chenoweth speaks about this sort of prejudice after a Newsweek article:
Acting is about making the audience suspend their disbelief.
Maybe they feel that the public won't believe the performance of a gay actor having marital problems with a wife in a movie or tv series if it's a self confessed gay actor that is starring?
Maybe its perceived as something that would stand in the way of people losing themselves in the performance?
I'd say that's more the reason than anything.
I'd say you're right, although it's a totally stupid attitude from Hollywood. Another example could be if the leading man is hetero, married with 6 kids and we, the audience, are supposed to believe he's in love with another woman, flying over Manhattan by himself (no help at all). I mean, come on, Hollywood! You force enough fantasy down our throats, it's not as though we couldn't suspend our disbelief a bit further and accept that a gay man is acting straight on film! Straight actors take on gay roles. Didn't Colin Firth even get an Oscar for it earlier this year?! So, how come it can work the other way round??
As for Richard Chamberlain, it was up to him if he wanted to stay in the closet. It's his own personal choice. I don't think anyone should be forced to come out, they don't owe anyone else anything, and Richard's right. It's hard enough for actors to get work anyway, so if they're gay and they know what Hollywood's like, it's best they keep schtum, or they'd likely be on the scrap heap with the other 95% of 'out of work' actors.
On a bit of another note, I loved the Thorn Birds. Richard Chamberlain and Rachel Ward worked brilliantly together.
I agree it's ridiculous to think an audience can't 'suspend disbelief' about an actor's sexuality when they can about pretty much anything else. I thought Rupert Everett was great as the womaniser in 'An ideal husband' and the chemistry he had with Juilianne Moore was hot! It's called acting!!
I already made a post apologising for this but it seems DS didn't want to take it (I have been having trouble for the past couple of weeks posting on DS on AOL, but annoyingly not in IE).
I was sure I'd read an 'Attitude' article about Somerhalder around the time of Rules of Attraction and it was based on that; someone pointed out earlier (and less belligerently) that I might be wrong, so I googled, and subsequently attempted to acknowledge my mistake. Computer evidently said no, so sorry Mr Somerhalder.
Matt Bomer the lead actor in Whte Collar is gay, he has kids with his partner, a powerful agent, and is openly gay. His character in White Collar is straight and a bit of a womaniser!
He is totally beautiful though, which I imagine helps with getting work.
I read the same Wiki page as you which clearly says he 'delivered the opening musical number' at the 2010 Oscars - this does not equate the hosting the show, the assertion I disagreed with. The 2010 Oscar show hosts were Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, as a matter of fact.
As for his cv - its all tv and Broadway credits. He is not a Hollywood star which is the topic addressed by this thread. Broadway theatre is far more accommodating of open homosexuality than Hollywood and most of us could name several if not many openly gay actors who have been very successful there. Not the same story in Hollywood.
Well I apologise. I read your post as he hadn't hosted The Oscars, The Emmy awards or The Tonys.
He is certainly a household name in America though...and seemingly very popular according to the American/Canadian movie forums I frequent.
As for his cv - its all tv and Broadway credits. He is not a Hollywood star which is the topic addressed by this thread.
The show he stars in gets around 10 million viewers per episode, which is more than some films. You're making an artificial distinction between TV and Hollywood. The US television industry is Hollywood. He has a major network television show, and if anything, network television is even more conservative than the film industry. He is a household name.
He had a major supporting role as himself in the Harold and Kumar films. Which wouldn't have made sense if people didn't know who he was.
Matt Bomer the lead actor in Whte Collar is gay, he has kids with his partner, a powerful agent, and is openly gay. His character in White Collar is straight and a bit of a womaniser!
He is totally beautiful though, which I imagine helps with getting work.
He's never come out though as far as I'm aware. That barsteward Perez Hilton tried to out him.
... I mean, come on, Hollywood! You force enough fantasy down our throats, it's not as though we couldn't suspend our disbelief a bit further and accept that a gay man is acting straight on film! Straight actors take on gay roles. Didn't Colin Firth even get an Oscar for it earlier this year?! So, how come it can work the other way round??
Hollywood's double standards and hypocrisy is astounding. When a straight actor plays a gay character he is often applauded for making it "believable", and yet in their view it doesn't work the other way round. It seems no matter how good an actor he is, a gay man could never pull off playing a convincing heterosexual because his sexuality will always be a handicap.:rolleyes:... Utter bollocks!
Trouble is that this industry is a massive money spending and making one, and studios don't want to gamble with risking an out gay actor playing the lead. I can see the point that some openly gay actors might not be taken seriously in certain roles, action ones mainly. Although, in the long run it would probably work as the public would soon learn to not care what sexuality a film's stars are. It's just taking and getting past those initial steps.
The ironic thing is the public is way ahead of the studio execs on this. If an openly gay man was cast as a leading (ladies) man, they'd be fine with it. But as with all things money-related, the people in power don't want to run any kind of risk whatsoever and are extremely loath to change what they perceive as a 'winning' formula.
I agree it's ridiculous to think an audience can't 'suspend disbelief' about an actor's sexuality when they can about pretty much anything else. I thought Rupert Everett was great as the womaniser in 'An ideal husband' and the chemistry he had with Juilianne Moore was hot! It's called acting!!
I stand corrected if I am wrong.....but I am almost sure Rupert Everett was another actor who stated in recent years he never got the roles he deserved and could have played very well because he was openly gay.
I can understand Richard Chamberlain's advice... purely from a career point of view. There probably are superb actors out there who should be in those award winning leading roles, but who are not cast in them because an audience would not buy them in a straight role. Equally there are probably actors who have won oscars in amazing roles purely because they have never publicy disclosed their sexuality.
Its a make or break career move for some if you are among the super talented cream of the crop. Its a high price to pay though if you in turn have to conceal your private life, which must be a stressful way to live.
Didn't Rupert Everett say the same thing recently. He said his Hollywood career as a leading man was over when he was open and honest about his lifestyle. He did a couple of Hollywood movies and then disappeared!!! Obviously, even today, there are problems with being gay in Hollywood. Richard Chamberlain knows what he is talking about! I remember years ago he was supposed to be engaged to an Agency Secretary with various pics of him and the happy lady!!! Sadly, I guess gay stars have to do similar things to hide their lifestyles. Rumours are one thing, but having it confirmed appears to be quite another!!!
Hollywood's double standards and hypocrisy is astounding. When a straight actor plays a gay character he is often applauded for making it "believable", and yet in their view it doesn't work the other way round. It seems no matter how good an actor he is, a gay man could never pull off playing a convincing heterosexual because his sexuality will always be a handicap.:rolleyes:... Utter bollocks!
I stand corrected if I am wrong.....but I am almost sure Rupert Everett was another actor who stated in recent years he never got the roles he deserved and could have played very well because he was openly gay.
I can understand Richard Chamberlain's advice... purely from a career point of view. There probably are superb actors out there who should be in those award winning leading roles, but who are not cast in them because an audience would not buy them in a straight role. Equally there are probably actors who have won oscars in amazing roles purely because they have never publicy disclosed their sexuality.
Its a make or break career move for some if you are among the super talented cream of the crop. Its a high price to pay though if you in turn have to conceal your private life, which must be a stressful way to live.
Do you think it's just the audiences though, or just the powers that be in Hollywood? Surely audiences aren't that dumb? Some of them are, I guess, but the majority of people, I think, would accept it. It's probably more likely to be the money spinners in Hollywood.
Do you think it's just the audiences though, or just the powers that be in Hollywood? Surely audiences aren't that dumb? Some of them are, I guess, but the majority of people, I think, would accept it. It's probably more likely to be the money spinners in Hollywood.
I fully agree, it's the execs,not the audience. They would have no trouble accepting a gay or bisexual romantic lead or action hero.
As to the Rupert Everett thing, I'm convinced a large part of his problem is he seems kinda...difficult to work with.
Comments
Is he gay though - didn't he just play one gay character?
As a slight defence of Richard Chamberlain, he was working when there was a lot more prejudice and it is something that still happens today. Sean Hayes has been performing on Broadway as a romantic leading man and some reviews have found him unconvincing based on his sexuality.
Here's an article where Sean's broadway co-star Kristin Chenoweth speaks about this sort of prejudice after a Newsweek article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/kristin-chenoweth-defends_n_570537.html
Equally, people are surprised that Sean's co-star in Will & Grace, Eric McCormack, is straight as he plays Will so well.
Looks like you can't just win with sexual stereotyping, even now.
I don't know why you picked his name out, he's straight and I've never heard any rumours about his sexuality
I'd say you're right, although it's a totally stupid attitude from Hollywood. Another example could be if the leading man is hetero, married with 6 kids and we, the audience, are supposed to believe he's in love with another woman, flying over Manhattan by himself (no help at all). I mean, come on, Hollywood! You force enough fantasy down our throats, it's not as though we couldn't suspend our disbelief a bit further and accept that a gay man is acting straight on film! Straight actors take on gay roles. Didn't Colin Firth even get an Oscar for it earlier this year?! So, how come it can work the other way round??
As for Richard Chamberlain, it was up to him if he wanted to stay in the closet. It's his own personal choice. I don't think anyone should be forced to come out, they don't owe anyone else anything, and Richard's right. It's hard enough for actors to get work anyway, so if they're gay and they know what Hollywood's like, it's best they keep schtum, or they'd likely be on the scrap heap with the other 95% of 'out of work' actors.
On a bit of another note, I loved the Thorn Birds. Richard Chamberlain and Rachel Ward worked brilliantly together.
Er, he isn't Gay.
I already made a post apologising for this but it seems DS didn't want to take it (I have been having trouble for the past couple of weeks posting on DS on AOL, but annoyingly not in IE).
I was sure I'd read an 'Attitude' article about Somerhalder around the time of Rules of Attraction and it was based on that; someone pointed out earlier (and less belligerently) that I might be wrong, so I googled, and subsequently attempted to acknowledge my mistake. Computer evidently said no, so sorry Mr Somerhalder.
He is totally beautiful though, which I imagine helps with getting work.
He's gay?
Well I apologise. I read your post as he hadn't hosted The Oscars, The Emmy awards or The Tonys.
He is certainly a household name in America though...and seemingly very popular according to the American/Canadian movie forums I frequent.
The show he stars in gets around 10 million viewers per episode, which is more than some films. You're making an artificial distinction between TV and Hollywood. The US television industry is Hollywood. He has a major network television show, and if anything, network television is even more conservative than the film industry. He is a household name.
He had a major supporting role as himself in the Harold and Kumar films. Which wouldn't have made sense if people didn't know who he was.
He's never come out though as far as I'm aware. That barsteward Perez Hilton tried to out him.
Hollywood's double standards and hypocrisy is astounding. When a straight actor plays a gay character he is often applauded for making it "believable", and yet in their view it doesn't work the other way round. It seems no matter how good an actor he is, a gay man could never pull off playing a convincing heterosexual because his sexuality will always be a handicap.:rolleyes:... Utter bollocks!
What a shining example of humanity you are. :rolleyes:
I stand corrected if I am wrong.....but I am almost sure Rupert Everett was another actor who stated in recent years he never got the roles he deserved and could have played very well because he was openly gay.
I can understand Richard Chamberlain's advice... purely from a career point of view. There probably are superb actors out there who should be in those award winning leading roles, but who are not cast in them because an audience would not buy them in a straight role. Equally there are probably actors who have won oscars in amazing roles purely because they have never publicy disclosed their sexuality.
Its a make or break career move for some if you are among the super talented cream of the crop. Its a high price to pay though if you in turn have to conceal your private life, which must be a stressful way to live.
Funny...he was the first to come to mind for me, too. I really like him.
Correct! I don't understand it.
Do you think it's just the audiences though, or just the powers that be in Hollywood? Surely audiences aren't that dumb? Some of them are, I guess, but the majority of people, I think, would accept it. It's probably more likely to be the money spinners in Hollywood.
I think they meant that some will probably jump to conclusions on here if there's any whiff of some celebrity being gay.
I fully agree, it's the execs,not the audience. They would have no trouble accepting a gay or bisexual romantic lead or action hero.
As to the Rupert Everett thing, I'm convinced a large part of his problem is he seems kinda...difficult to work with.