The professionally outraged are at it again:
So of course, the usual suspects have taken umbrage at an actor who a) is discussing how he has prepared for a role, b) trying to explain where his head is while he's in the role, and c) expressing solidarity with us.
Yeah, go ahead -- attack your friends and allies. That always works so well.
All I've got to say to Garfield's critics is, "Grow up and get over yourselves." Which, strangely enough, is my response to outraged "Christians." Think about that. (I've been convinced for years that the extreme right and the extreme left meet: they share an attitude, if not a particular ideology. But the methods and the end goals are the same: ideological purity. According to their criteria.)
(Sidebar: I'm reminded of nothing so much as those trans activists who start foaming at the mouth when a cisgender actor dares to take on a trans role. My response: "They're actors. They make their livings making us believe they're someone else." The end result of their reasoning, as far as I can see, is that no actor is allowed to take on a role outside their real life persona. Sure, I think trans actors and actresses deserve career opportunities -- but should they not be allowed to take on cisgender characters?)
Meanwhile, our real enemies are working hard to take away everything we've won.
 | |
| Uncredited, via Towleroad |
Andrew Garfield inadvertently set off a controversy this week when he proclaimed himself to be a gay man "without the physical act." The comment came as Garfield, 33, was speaking Monday about his role in Angels in America, a 1993 play about the AIDS crisis and other LGBT issues being put on in London. Garfield plays the gay protagonist Prior Walter and was asked during a Q-and-A how he got ready for the role.
"As far as I know, I am not a gay man," Gay Times reported he said. "Maybe I’ll have an awakening later in my life, which I’m sure will be wonderful and I’ll get to explore that part of the garden, but right now I’m secluded to my area, which is wonderful as well. I adore it, but a big concern was what right do I have to play this wonderful gay role? ... It was as about doing honor, doing justice and knowing my herstory."
Garfield explained that he spent a lot of his free time preparing to become Prior. Then he brought up RuPaul's Drag Race, the reality TV contest that's been airing for nine seasons.
"My only time off during rehearsals—every Sunday I would have eight friends over and we would just watch Ru. This is my life outside of this play," Garfield said. "I am a gay man right now just without the physical act—that's all."
So of course, the usual suspects have taken umbrage at an actor who a) is discussing how he has prepared for a role, b) trying to explain where his head is while he's in the role, and c) expressing solidarity with us.
Yeah, go ahead -- attack your friends and allies. That always works so well.
All I've got to say to Garfield's critics is, "Grow up and get over yourselves." Which, strangely enough, is my response to outraged "Christians." Think about that. (I've been convinced for years that the extreme right and the extreme left meet: they share an attitude, if not a particular ideology. But the methods and the end goals are the same: ideological purity. According to their criteria.)
(Sidebar: I'm reminded of nothing so much as those trans activists who start foaming at the mouth when a cisgender actor dares to take on a trans role. My response: "They're actors. They make their livings making us believe they're someone else." The end result of their reasoning, as far as I can see, is that no actor is allowed to take on a role outside their real life persona. Sure, I think trans actors and actresses deserve career opportunities -- but should they not be allowed to take on cisgender characters?)
Meanwhile, our real enemies are working hard to take away everything we've won.
No comments:
Post a Comment