Meanwhile we’ll continue fighting for fundamental human rights, right? The point is that LGBT actors are consistently shut out from playing anything but LGBT parts, so why should straight, cisgender actors take those roles too?
-
-
-
You right.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well yes. It is sort of the point of acting.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Shes right
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Urgh. We are all to blame for dramatising this sort of thing in the first place. It’s the representation on screen that matters the most at this time.
-
Absolutely. In the early AIDS movies Campbell Scott and Tom Hanks etc were brilliant. Much more important the roles were encompassing and moving than they were played by gays. The more often we have gay characters in successful movies, the more opportunities for gay actors.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Well, that's the whole point of acting, isn't it?
-
You’d think that’s the whole of ‘acting’
how dumbdumbdumb our times...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Poor Jim Caviezel is feeling guilty now for not being the Actual Son of God! Acting is Acting. Now if Will Ferrell had gotten the Passion role, we would have an issue.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.