Sign in to follow this  
rayban

MATT BOMER CONTROVERSY

57 posts in this topic

Matt Bomer was once mentioned for the lead role in "Fifty Shades Of Grey".

 

If he was seriously considered, to my knowledge, he was not offered the role.

 

But I don't believe that he wanted that kind of career.

 

But I do wish that he'd be offered the lead in a big-screen (heterosexual) romance.

 

He is so beautiful. what woman would not be intrigued?

 

And, if the film was a success, he would've been instrumental in a casting revolution.

 

Let's not pigeonhole one of the great beauties of our time.

 

To my way of thinking, the line of reasoning - "Oh, he's gay AND he's taken!" - simply does not apply anymore.

 

  tumblr_inline_n6p8lg9LNx1ri54q5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not pigeonhole one of the great beauties of our time.

 

To my way of thinking, the line of reasoning - "Oh, he's gay AND he's taken!" - simply does not apply anymore.

 

Not sure what you mean by this, Ray. Are you saying that women can still fantasize about having him, and that's why he should be cast in heterosexual love stories? 

 

Shouldn't his first consideration be whether or not the script is any good? And shouldn't producers and casting directors look more at whether has the technical skill to pull off a role, regardless of his personal life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean by this, Ray. Are you saying that women can still fantasize about having him, and that's why he should be cast in heterosexual love stories? 

 

Shouldn't his first consideration be whether or not the script is any good? And shouldn't producers and casting directors look more at whether has the technical skill to pull off a role, regardless of his personal life?

Jarrod, yes, I firmly believe that women can still fantasize about having him.

 

And he is a very good actor, he would be believable in a heterosexual role.

 

He played a heterosexual man in the "Magic Mike" movies.

 

If I can fantasize about having an Errol Flynn or a Brad Pitt, why can't a woman or women fantasize about having a gay actor?

 

The thrill of a "challenge" can play into it all, right?

 

But Matt Bomer's beauty is so exquisite - well, to me, it would be a great plus to cast him in a heterosexual role.

 

I'd like it to be a romantic comedy with a reigning Hollywood beauty.

 

Only the big screen can encompass the full extent of his extraordinarliy good looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time I watched him on screen was in the early 2000s on Guiding Light. He played a young man who acted as a paid male escort for older women. The story didn't exactly work, and he was killed off the show. 

 

Maureen Garrett, the actress who played his stepmother on the soap, has since come out of the closet. She and her partner were raising two children together at the time (I think those kids are now raised). When I look at Bomer's scenes with her, especially the ones where his character died, there was good stuff the two of them put across for viewers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bomer's  career is doing well even after he came out - he has the lead in "The Last Tycoon". I would love to see him in a major movie role straight or gay- that face was made for the movies

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jarrod, yes, I firmly believe that women can still fantasize about having him.

 

And he is a very good actor, he would be believable in a heterosexual role.

 

He played a heterosexual man in the "Magic Mike" movies.

 

If I can fantasize about having an Errol Flynn or a Brad Pitt, why can't a woman or women fantasize about having a gay actor?

 

The thrill of a "challenge" can play into it all, right?

 

But Matt Bomer's beauty is so exquisite - well, to me, it would be a great plus to cast him in a heterosexual role.

 

I'd like it to be a romantic comedy with a reigning Hollywood beauty.

 

Only the big screen can encompass the full extent of his extraordinarliy good looks.

 

Well here's the thing. Matt Bomer is a gorgeous man, and I don't see why he can't be cast in a straight role.  Women would still go for it. Fans fall not only for the looks but the persona - it could be if they met him, he wouldn't appeal to them. But on the screen is a different story. I knew Rock Hudson was gay but I always enjoyed his movies.  It used to be we didn't know about the sex lives of these individuals. As far as the actual acting is concerned, it should still be that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Ruffalo, the actor, is the executive producer of a new film about a trans gender woman who becomes involved with a Mississippi widower.

 

It is based on a play by Tim McNeil.  The trans gender woman is a Los Angeles sex worker.

 

Mark Ruffalo has decided to cast Matt Bomer in the lead role.

 

Mark Ruffalo and Matt Bomer starred together in the first-rate TV adaptation of Larry Kramer's play, "The Normal Heart".

 

But controversy is already bubbling up, because Matt Bomer is a man - yes, an openly gay man - who has been chosen to play a trans gender woman.

 

The reasoning seems to be - with so many trans gender women already available in the acting community - why can't one of them be given the leading role?

 

Personally, I think that Matt Bomer, although an openly gay man who lives with his husband and three children, would be absolutely terrific in the leading role.

 

He won an Emmy for his performance in "The Normal Heart", he is an excellent actor, and he has an androgynous quality, anyway.

 

Hopefully, the controversy will die down and the project will go forward.

 

Matt Bomer is a bankable name now - and his participation will give the project a high-profile frame of reference.

 

If it does happen, I am predicting acting awards for Matt Bomer.

 

Incidentally, Matt Bomer is one of the most beautiful men alive.

 

Looking at him, appreciating him, is already "an experience".

 

matt-bomer-height.jpg

 

This kind of thing depresses the hell out of me.  Gee, it used to be called acting.  Whatever happened to hiring someone to play a transsexual who wasn't one?  Or a physically challenged person who wasn't one?  Casting should be wide open - meaning there's no reason why a physically challenged person can't play a role that doesn't have anything to do with their physical challenge. It's so aggravating. I always remember - this isn't the same thing - that Lou Gossett had the role in Officer and a Gentleman because his agent submitted him even though the cast list didn't specify an Afro-American actor. That's how casting should be, so that everyone has an opportunity.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing depresses the hell out of me.  Gee, it used to be called acting.  Whatever happened to hiring someone to play a transsexual who wasn't one?  Or a physically challenged person who wasn't one?  Casting should be wide open - meaning there's no reason why a physically challenged person can't play a role that doesn't have anything to do with their physical challenge. It's so aggravating. I always remember - this isn't the same thing - that Lou Gossett had the role in Officer and a Gentleman because his agent submitted him even though the cast list didn't specify an Afro-American actor. That's how casting should be, so that everyone has an opportunity.  

 

I agree.   Anyone that doesn't must also believe that transgender individuals should ONLY BE cast in transgender roles.   (but of course they never see that side of this).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of thing depresses the hell out of me.  Gee, it used to be called acting.  Whatever happened to hiring someone to play a transsexual who wasn't one?  Or a physically challenged person who wasn't one?  Casting should be wide open - meaning there's no reason why a physically challenged person can't play a role that doesn't have anything to do with their physical challenge. It's so aggravating. I always remember - this isn't the same thing - that Lou Gossett had the role in Officer and a Gentleman because his agent submitted him even though the cast list didn't specify an Afro-American actor. That's how casting should be, so that everyone has an opportunity.  

 

I think this is a much trickier issue than people realize. It's not exactly about everyone with equal opportunity. If that were the case, then tall people should have a shot at roles for munchkins and a white guy should have been able to play Sidney Poitier's role in GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER. Hollywood is not the land of equal opportunity, and when it comes to casting very specific roles, it shouldn't be. Anyone who logically fits the description of the character type and also has the talent to pull it off should be allowed to audition for it. But saying that everyone under the sun should be brought in to have a shot at the role is just not practical.

 

I am going to create a new thread in the near future when I have time to digest a few things, but I watch several British serials each day and some of the straight actors who play gay roles and some of the gay actors who play straight roles are not convincing. This happens in American soaps too, but because the British soaps truly foreground gay couples it's a little easier to look at what's going on in the British shows. In my opinion it destroys the integrity of the story when you have an unbelievable casting choice "acting" something they are not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a much trickier issue than people realize. It's not exactly about everyone with equal opportunity. If that were the case, then tall people should have a shot at roles for munchkins and a white guy should have been able to play Sidney Poitier's role in GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER. Hollywood is not the land of equal opportunity, and when it comes to casting very specific roles, it shouldn't be. Anyone who logically fits the description of the character type and also has the talent to pull it off should be allowed to audition for it. But saying that everyone under the sun should be brought in to have a shot at the role is just not practical.

 

I am going to create a new thread in the near future when I have time to digest a few things, but I watch several British serials each day and some of the straight actors who play gay roles and some of the gay actors who play straight roles are not convincing. This happens in American soaps too, but because the British soaps truly foreground gay couples it's a little easier to look at what's going on in the British shows. In my opinion it destroys the integrity of the story when you have an unbelievable casting choice "acting" something they are not.

Harvey Fierstein gives a superb performance in the movie, "Torch Song Trilogy", because he lives and breathes the appellation, "homosexual".

 

A straight actor, no matter how talented, could NOT have duplicated Harvey Fierstein's performance.

 

I remember the actor, Tony Bill, saying that, in the film version of "Torch Song Trilogy", only a gay actor should be used for the lead  role.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey Fierstein gives a superb performance in the movie, "Torch Song Trilogy", because he lives and breathes the appellation, "homosexual".

 

A straight actor, no matter how talented, could NOT have duplicated Harvey Fierstein's performance.

 

I remember the actor, Tony Bill, saying that, in the film version of "Torch Song Trilogy", only a gay actor should be used for the lead  role.

I think it all depends on the role - personally I never believe Al Pacino as Cuban in "Scarface"- there are certain traits that no matter how talented an actor can pull off.  The sexuality question is trickier-  there is not doubt that gay actor playing a gay character will bring an added dimension to the role but in the other hand Heath Ledger who was straight is heart breaking real in "Brokeback Mountain"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Matt Bomer played a gay man in "The Normal Heart" - a gay man who was in love with his partner and who was dying of Aids - he was heartbreakingly REAL.

 

He didn't have to pretend to be "gay" - he was "gay".

 

That fact made all the difference.

 

You remember the performance - because it wasn't "faked".

 

Yes, a talented straight actor might've been able to take on the role.

 

But not with the "natural depth" that Matt Bomer had.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Matt Bomer played a gay man in "The Normal Heart" - a gay man who was in love with his partner and who was dying of Aids - he was heartbreakingly REAL.

 

He didn't have to pretend to be "gay" - he was "gay".

 

That fact made all the difference.

 

You remember the performance - because it wasn't "faked".

 

Yes, a talented straight actor might've been able to take on the role.

 

But not with the "natural depth" that Matt Bomer had.

 

Great post, Ray. Excellent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Matt Bomer played a gay man in "The Normal Heart" - a gay man who was in love with his partner and who was dying of Aids - he was heartbreakingly REAL.

 

He didn't have to pretend to be "gay" - he was "gay".

 

That fact made all the difference.

 

You remember the performance - because it wasn't "faked".

 

Yes, a talented straight actor might've been able to take on the role.

 

But not with the "natural depth" that Matt Bomer had.

 

I don't agree,  but if what you say is true then Bomer shouldn't be able to play a non-gay man because then he would be faking it.

 

The job of an actor is to fake it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree,  but if what you say is true then Bomer shouldn't be able to play a non-gay man because then he would be faking it.

 

The job of an actor is to fake it.  

 

How can an actor fake something he is not even vaguely familiar with? Special effects give the illusion of "reality" but acting should bring us a sense of emotional realism.

 

Gay men playing non-gay men takes us out of the story just as much as non-gay men playing gay men. They're usually not convincing. Their own real-life persona overtakes the character. The only time someone can get away with it is if he/she is an unknown-- where the audience hasn't had time yet to be exposed to their persona and wouldn't have enough knowledge if they're trying to play against type.

 

I think one of the main reasons Bomer's character was written out of Guiding Light was because when they hired him he was an unknown and was supposed to be an all-American straight type of guy. It became clear after a year, once the audience figured him out as an actor, that he was miscast. So the producers made the character turn evil overnight (going back to the argument that gay men are assigned villain roles if they can't be traditional romantic heroes) and he was killed off a short time later. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can an actor fake something he is not even vaguely familiar with? Special effects give the illusion of "reality" but acting should bring us a sense of emotional realism.

 

I also think gay men playing non-gay men takes us out of the story just as much as non-gay men playing gay men. They're usually not convincing. Their own real-life persona overtakes the character. The only time someone can get away with it is if he/she is an unknown-- where the audience hasn't had time yet to be exposed to their persona and wouldn't have enough knowledge if they're trying to play against type.

 

I think one of the main reasons Bomer's character was written out of Guiding Light was because when they hired him he was an unknown and was supposed to be an all-American straight type of guy. It became clear after a year, once the audience figured him out as an actor, that he was miscast. So the producers made the character turn evil overnight (going back to the argument that gay men are assigned villain roles if they can't be traditional romantic heroes) and he was killed off a short time later. 

 

Laurence Olivier explained all of this to Dustin Hoffman.   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurence Olivier explained all of this to Dustin Hoffman.   ;)

 

Well, Laurence Olivier asked Dustin Hoffman if he had ever tried acting, which is the opposite of what you're saying. Hoffman stayed up all night because his character did which Olivier felt was ridiculous. It is not necessary for an actor to be gay to play gay. If what you're saying about Matt Bomer is true, he wouldn't have been cast or been able to do White Collar for as long as he did it, nor be cast in "The Last Tycoon."  And Rock got away with it with the general public for years.

 

Referring to Hoffman, you're talking about method acting, which I personally don't like and never used.  Marlon Brando said when he had an angry scene with Julius Caesar, he would use as his subtext fighting with his father. Whoever quoted him said, did he really think a fight with his father rose to the same level? No it didn't. That's why imagination and knowing your character is so important. It's also why Brando wound up with Stella Adler, who did not teach method.

 

My friend Diane was straight (she has since passed away) and played a lesbian in a play called "Last Summer at Bluefish Cove." She was a big hit.  What someone is referencing above, as far as I'm concerned, is bad acting or bad direction. Harvey's situation is different - he wrote that play for himself. Look at all the straight actors who have done La Cage, including the original cast.  Dozens of straight actors have played gay people convincingly, and vice versa. I'm always surprised when I meet actors who are completely different in person than they are on screen or in specific roles. I shouldn't be surprised after all this time, but I am. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree,  but if what you say is true then Bomer shouldn't be able to play a non-gay man because then he would be faking it.

 

The job of an actor is to fake it.  

 

I agree.  It's what acting is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laurence Olivier explained all of this to Dustin Hoffman.   

 

I think Olivier was being slightly facetious at Hoffman's expense. Obviously he knew you had to invest emotional realism into the roles you played, or else his Hamlet would have fallen flat. There is no way even Olivier could have played a character if he didn't find some of the traits identifiable on some level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bomer's  career is doing well even after he came out - he has the lead in "The Last Tycoon". I would love to see him in a major movie role straight or gay- that face was made for the movies

 

I just watched part of The Last Tycoon last night.  As a bit of trivia, Norma Shearer wanted Tyrone Power to do Monroe (Thalberg) in the '40s but it didn't happen. I saw the film with Robert DeNiro and two things struck me. One, it was one of the worst things I'd ever seen; all I can remember is a Casablanca-type scene in a movie Monroe was watching that was embarrassing.  Second, I had forgotten, if I ever knew, how very good-looking Robert de Niro was back then.  

 

Watching Bomer, I thought he did a good job but did not have the gravitas of De Niro, who really for me captured the essence of Thalberg. De Niro really sticks in my mind in that role. There was one good part of the De Niro film (the Bomer story right now seems quite different) - he's watching this god-awful scene with Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau, and Moreau ends the scene with the line "Nor do I." There is silence and then De Niro says quietly, "'Nor do I. Nor do I.' When has anyone ever said to you, 'nor do I?' The scene has to be completely reshot, it's awful. I want four writers assigned to it tonight." 

 

Fitzgerald is hard to put on film - I'll be interested to see where this version goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey Fierstein gives a superb performance in the movie, "Torch Song Trilogy", because he lives and breathes the appellation, "homosexual".

 

A straight actor, no matter how talented, could NOT have duplicated Harvey Fierstein's performance.

 

I remember the actor, Tony Bill, saying that, in the film version of "Torch Song Trilogy", only a gay actor should be used for the lead  role.

 

Well, there are certain things described in a cast breakdown that one must adhere to. Munchkin would be one, "black person engaged to a white woman" would be another.  I'm talking about just casting white people in an office setting, or having a white man or white woman cast for no special reason, or an attorney being a man when there's nothing in the script that says he has to be. These things are done every day because it's fast and requires no thought. It's like putting a robber in a hoodie, or in the old days, camouflage so you'd know he was a drug-addicted Vietnam vet. No reason someone in an office can't be in a wheelchair, for instance. 

 

Casting against type is a whole other subject and quite interesting if done right. I think Liz Taylor as Martha in Virginia Wolff is a good example. An example of it done pathetically is when john C. Riley was cast as Stanley Kowalski.  I'm sure the director thought well, you know, when you think about it, Stanley would look like that. Yeah, maybe A Stanley, a blue collar worker in New Orleans of Polish extraction who bowls and plays cards would look like that but take a look at the play why don't you. THIS Stanley is macho and sexy - he's the New South stomping out the old.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey Fierstein gives a superb performance in the movie, "Torch Song Trilogy", because he lives and breathes the appellation, "homosexual".

 

A straight actor, no matter how talented, could NOT have duplicated Harvey Fierstein's performance.

 

I remember the actor, Tony Bill, saying that, in the film version of "Torch Song Trilogy", only a gay actor should be used for the lead  role.

 

No, Harvey Fierstein gave a superb performance in Torch Song Trilogy because he wrote it for himself. Not only could a straight actor not duplicate it but probably a gay person couldn't either.  Harvey created that show and did it as a workshop, an off-Broadway show, and then finally it went to Broadway - years. He wrote the second act for my friend Diane Tarlton, whom I mentioned elsewhere, a great actress who died about 11 years ago. And as I mentioned, she played a gay character in a play called Last Summer at Bluefish Cove and was brilliant. She was straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am NOT saying that a straight actor cannot play a gay man.

 

I AM saying that a gay man could play it better.

 

Why is the film version of "The Boys In The Band" so very compelling - even after all these years?

 

The reason is that almost all of the actors are GAY MEN.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us