This video talks primarily about the way that a lot of gatekeeping discourse in queer circles actually hurts closeted and questioning people, and how some of it copies transphobic narratives about trans women, ect.
I have been thinking about this for AWHILE now. I remember having an argument with my girlfriend (who has since changed her mind about the issue, though her position is now apathy) and my now ex-best friend (not over this argument, lol, much bigger issues) about the whole "only queer actors should take queer parts" issue. And for some reason at the time I didnt think of the "that would seriously hurt a closeted actors by basically becoming forced outing" at the time (but I thought of it before Sarah mentioned it in this video lol, it was bringing it up to my girlfriend that made me learn that she had shifted her position).
The thing about "men wearing skirts are predators looking to take advantage of women" seems especially toxic to me because it is literally the SAME thing said about trans women just targeted towards GNC men who still identify as cis instead. Its one of those things that for me should seem bad ON ITS FACE in a way to the people saying it, sort of like how I was shocked to see people who say they hate TERFs echoing ace exclusion discourse) .
I've also been against faux-progressive/social justice language being used for bullying and gatekeeping for a long time now.
So this is just another manifestation of that.
Still watching the video but this part of your comment really reminded me of something I've tried to work through. Maybe you can help. So race is different, for a lot of reasons I don't want to get into.
spoiler
Blackface just as the beginning.
But I feel like as soon as you hit the inverse-implying a queer actor can't play straight -theres just a visceral "no".
Now on the one hand, I am sympathetic to the material reasons we should want queer actors in queer roles (just getting more jobs, full stop). So like when we just think of things like jobs, it feels like if a straight person takes a role from a queer person, that's bad for the queer actors income. There's also more lib representational concerns, but I'm less invested in that
However there's also a more aesthetic/theoretical concern. I can't exactly articulate it but perhaps it's because in performance, isn't part of it sympathetically understanding someone who isn't you? So to imply a queer actor can't understand the straight experience or vise versa is a stake in the heart of empathy more generally. Obviously "sincere" queer art has a certain cache, but all art is lies that lead to the truth. (I recognize this is only one school of acting/fiction theory, but it's the school I buy into so that might be it).
I guess part of what bugs me is there's this whole thing about making art "real" and that somehow the more "real" it is the better it is. Here's the fucked up example that I think brings this out. The animated Disney films from the 90s are legit art. Meanwhile every "live action" remake has been shit, even if it's more "realistic". Good art doesn't rely on realism as such.
Obviously casting a queer or straight actor isn't exactly the same as this, but there's a similar impulse behind it (i.e. a queer or straight actor being cast "cis" to their sexual orientation is somehow "more" real than the alternative, and "real" or "authentic" is the metric of quality).
I'm a bit drunk, so feel free to just ignore these ramblings. But if any comrades want to give some clarity on this thorny issue I'd appreciate it.
Video has been great btw.
I don't have a good cleanup to this, except to quote some Shakey from A Midsummer Night's Dream
I don't really have much to add here. The "queer roles should be for queer actors" thing is a pretty small part of the video, she just mentions at one point that an actor who played a bi character in a TV show was harassed because of that and then was basically forced to out himself as bi as a result. And for me, the MAIN concern behind the idea that that should be policy is my fear of forced outing. I want to support my closeted and questioning comrades as I was questioning for a long time.
But yeah, idk I know you were more thinking aloud then stating an opinion but I still come around to saying "I agree with what you said here" anyway? Lol sorry. Hoping someone comes around that can help you more.
Oh yeah I finally got to the forced outing and that's really way bigger a concern than my aesthetic ones. It's just such a thorny/knotty issue, made worse by art under capitalism.
Also yeah, I'm just pondering here.
but I appreciate your reading and agreeing.
[he/him] I agree with how you talk about making art "real" (well, everything you said, really), and I had the same thought I had while watching the video... I think people might want to use the word relatable instead (like, general society, not you specifically). In the video's case it was her use of "rep" or representing. I think what people might be really looking for in media/art is to relate to others and for validation, but aren't finding the right words for it, and the words might then be used in a different way than originally intended. Like how when watching a show I might feel like a person really "represents" the struggles I've experienced but later on bad behavior makes me question if that person is a good "representative" for my situation. It's harder to do that with "relate".
It also seems really strange to even consider keeping a queer actor from a straight role... They have their entire life before coming out as experience "acting" in that type of role. Maybe that even makes them more qualified than a straight person because they might be much better equipped to define where the line is between themselves and the character.
I dunno if this all makes sense but the video and comments here have lit up a part of my brain that I'm having fun exploring.