Disney under fire over gay character

As far as I can tell, half the rage is because the character has been reported to be "hugely effete, very camp and very funny". If Disney want to break ground and receive praise, they could write a character who doesn't initially sound like a basic '70s stereotype, or at the VERY least cast an actor with the skill to bring an enormous amount of depth to even the most shallowly-written role.

As for the wider argument of whether it should have been a gay actor... I'm going to say yes, in this case. Of course gay actors can and do play straight characters, and vice versa, but if Disney are going to make a fuss over "look! Gay representation! Isn't that GREAT?", then it would have been a really nice move to cast a gay actor, really commit to the thing and really show that even the universally wholesome House of Mouse don't want actors to hide their sexuality. People look up to Disney, whether they should or not, and this could have been a really positive step forward. At the moment, it doesn't sound promising.

As ever, I'm willing to be proven wrong - maybe Jack Whitehall has learned to act? Maybe the character will actually be genuinely great? - but I can fully understand the initial dismay echoing around the internet today.

I'm falling back on my usual rules:
- sexuality is not relevant to acting ability, gay actors can play straight and straight actors can play gay
- don't judge something before it has even been made, let alone seen by anyone
- click-bait journalism means that casting stories are spun to generate the most possible hits and very often are not accurate
- anything published in August (aka silly season) will be even less reliable than usual because all the news outlets are scrabbling around for stories
- Twitter is where nuance and reason goes to die

Edit: I've just seen that the source for the initial story is The Sun. FFS, people, haven't we learnt anything from every single 'next Bond' story they have ever published that turned out not to be true?! They're not a reliable source for film news! 

Oh, pass, I have been at work in between dipping in and out of forum-posting and haven't read *everything* on the topic yet. It would still be nice for previously stated reasons though. Here's a much better written article on the subject that manages to say everything I wanted (and pretty much failed) to say: www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/jack-whitehall-being-cast-as-disney-first-major-gay-character

oh please, is it now obligatory to state your sexual orientation before going to an audition?
are now only gay people allowed to play gays? well, then only white straight people will play white straight ones
and so one
oh please

I'm falling in the category of 'of course we should wait until it's done to be OUTRAGED'

However I do reserve the right to go 'Ugh Jack Whitehall' when he's cast in ANYTHING other than being himself because, as @baemax rightly points out his acting ability is slightly....limited.

Couldn't care less that he is straight, if we get into only gay people play gay roles and straight play straight we are getting info dangerous territory. And we aren't that far from that as it is with recent 'outrages'

However, and I usually hate the Twitter brigade, the fact that they seem to be having their first gay character as a stereotype from about 40 years ago for cheap laughs is a much bigger issue. It's bad enough theatre promotes these stereotypes, but for Hollywood to do it which reaches far more people is hugely disappointing

Twitter isn't one seething mass, btw, though I appreciate it may seem that way. It's reasonably representative of wider society's views, so a good place for journos/bloggers/whoever to gather opinions without having to talk to people, unless it's important for your article that you have the opinion of someone who thinks Twitter is dumb and would never set digital foot in the place.

Thanks for your searing insight there, what a terrific contribution to the conversation.

I wish more production companies would look at Captain Holt from the TV show Brooklyn Nine Nine for an example of how to get LGBT representation done correctly. The character is gay, but it is only ever mentioned in passing briefly every few episodes, where there is a reference to or scenes including the characters husband. Him being gay is such a minor part of his character - he's just like all the other guys, apart from he's married to a man.

Oh, and the character is played by a straight man

I know we should 'wait and see' but from the short description of Jack Whitehall's character it sounds like he's going to be playing an ancient stereotype.

I mean it's SUCH complex concept, the whole 'see women, I'm attracted to them, see men, I'm attracted to them too' you'd see why people struggle right. I mean I felt like I needed a whole other degree, just to understand this one facet of my personality. 

But seriously yes, all for the casual 'oh and I'm married to a/dating a [insert gender of choice] here' Russell T Davies, one of our I think it's fair to say pioneers of LGBT representation on tv said (to paraphrase) he really wanted to get to a point where he could just write a detective show where the detective comes home and casually greets his husband and that's it, no big deal. 

So to go back to the original point, I've more of an issue with Disney being potentially lazy in it's storytelling than I do with who is playing the part. (But I maintain, someone who could act would be GRAND) 

Never seen this but it would be great if a straight character was played by a gay actor. Perhaps this already the case - we will never know.

Historically, and quite rightly so, there are many examples of actors who aren’t heterosexual playing characters with different sexual orientations.

Pam St. Clement in EastEnders
Jim Parsons in The Big Bang Theory
Sarah Paulson/Cheyenne Jackson in American Horror Story
Cynthia Nixon in SATC

It doesn’t rightly matter in any case. It’s only when it’s done in reverse as a punchline that the rampant heteronormativity in society is reinforced.