Lee Pace, Labels and 'What are you doing writing about this play?'
The first half relates to this play. I've been around the
block with it enough times to know many people have strong opinions on who can
and can't be in/work on/like this play. Firstly, the only person with any say
in two of those categories is Tony Kushner. The latter nobody has say on.
As a woman, born in 1984, in the UK who through virtue of
those things does not identify as a gay American Man, I've had my share of
criticism for working on the play. The idea that somehow my 'understanding' or
'love' of it was different. That is was somehow driven of some teenage
'omgGaysAreSOcute' thing (I'm 34, and spent 4 years solid working on it,
BELIEVE me if that was the case the novelty would have worn off long before). I
utterly grant that my experience and understanding of the play is different and
while doing the PhD that was precisely the point. Those who had written before
on the play were largely white, middle class American gay men who were there at
the time. That is a valuable insight I would not be without. I want those
voices, we all need those records. But I bring something different. No less
valuable. No less (hopefully) contribution to the conversation.
I have been at conferences, had comments online and been
generally disregarded as a 'silly little girl'. Now this is not limited to my
choice of research, granted. But there was and is an undertone of ‘You aren't a
gay man, therefore your authority is less'. No. My experience is different. And
that I freely acknowledge. Just as I acknowledge I didn't experience the AIDS
crisis first hand. But analysis of something, much like bringing it to life as
art is not limited by experience.
Similarly, I heard comments about Marianne Elliott's
directing the piece. Few women have directed it over the years, and none of the
highest profile productions have been directed by women. Again, endemic of a
larger problem, for which I don't have space. But, the whispered undertones
that a woman couldn't understand a 'Gay play' in the same way are ludicrous.
The play is about people. The play is about humanity. As much as it's a-
perhaps THE canonical 'Gay play' what it boils down to is humanity. And lived
experience of that is universal, not matter who you choose to take to bed. Also,
frankly I dare you to go and tell Marianne Elliott what she can or can't do.
(but only if you let me watch).
Which brings me to the actors. I believe in gay people being
able to tell their stories, should they choose to. But I also do not believe in
casting, or creativity based on sexuality. Kushner writes as heart-breaking and
believable a story in his heterosexual characters as he does his gay ones. Do
we tell him he must eliminate the heterosexual story-line as he hasn't lived
it? Why then should we limit casting choices by sexuality?
Back in London Andrew Garfield attracted controversy with
some out-of-context comments on sexuality. And before the show was even
announced for Broadway there were mutterings from the depths of American social
media about his 'unsuitability' for an 'iconic' gay role due to...being
straight. Before anyone had seen his performance. Now in Garfield's case I'm
pretty sure he's never actually shot webs from his hands (or whatever Spidey does)
but he's universally acknowledged to be pretty good at that...so maybe we give
him the benefit of the doubt. There were actors in Angels I didn't know of before seeing the show. On googling them to
find out more about them top of my list was 'what theatre have you done' not
'who are you rumoured to have slept with' to gauge what I thought of their
suitability for the role.
And similarly, I had no idea who Lee Pace was when he was
announced (Sorry Mr Pace, I can be exceptionally dumb) but not for a moment did
it cross my mind to wonder what the extent of his first-hand experience being
gay was. Why? because it's unnecessary and intrusive. On being asked about this
Pace said (apparently controversially) ‘I don't know why anyone would care. I'm
an actor and I play roles.’ What Pace chooses to share or not share about his
personal life is both his own business and a separate issue. His private life
and his choices there should have zero baring on the perceived ability to play
a role. He’s been accused of ‘Homophobia’ by some for this statement, that in
dismissing the question’s relevance to his professional ability he’s somehow
belittling the gay community. In fact, I’d argue that moving past such
questions- the regimented boxing in of ‘are you gay is that why you want to
play this role’ is actually a progressive attitude.
I'm closing the professional segment of this by saying; in
other jobs I would never be assessed on my suitability to do my work in
relation to my sexuality. My own ability to work on this play does not relate
to my gender, age or sexuality and yet I've had it brought up repeatedly. Likewise,
the sexuality of the actors who perform in this play has zero bearing on their
ability to portray the parts.
My second half of this blog is the personal. What Lee Pace said
in the article was "I've dated men I've dated women' In no way did Pace dodge
the question. And even if he did, frankly that’s his business. ‘Coming Out’ is
a term I wish we could do away with, but it’s a difficult and often long
process for many people. Nobody has any right to dictate or accuse a person for
doing it rightly or wrongly. The media loves to commodify and yes even fetishize
“Coming Out” and anyone who doesn’t fit into a box is somehow ‘failing’ their community.
The words ‘I’ve dated men. I’ve dated women.’ couldn’t be clearer you’re not entitled to any
more than that- you in fact aren’t even ‘entitled’ to that.
And on a personal level, I will fight to the death anyone
who falls under the wide net of Bi/Pan sexual in any shape or form. Lee Pace,
having said he has dated both men and women, falls under that net (however he
chooses to self-describe, which again is his call). However, we do or don't
label ourselves, we all belong in a terrible no man's land (pardon the gender
binary) of not being wanted or understood by the heteronormative world or the
LGBTQA+ world.
Saying you like/have dated Men and Women is not ‘dodging’ a
question on sexuality as I’ve seen thrown about today. It’s being honest about
your life, and your sexuality. It is not a ‘betrayal’ or ‘homophobic’ it is not ‘regressing’ to a former time of ‘code
of a darker time’ (as one well known gay publication has said) it is simply the
honest truth for millions of Bisexual people. Why, in 2018 is it either so
hard, or considered so sinister that a person can be attracted to any gender? And
choose to live their life in relationships as such? Why also is it so vital to
everyone that we label ourselves so neatly? Why are we insulting or betraying
people by simply describing our lives and experience? If I describe my romantic
life, or my sexuality as ‘both men and women’ as Pace has done (and I do) am I
not rejecting gay identities, or labels. I’m simply saying they aren’t my label.
And so, Mr Pace I don’t know you. But I want to say there
are lots of us out there who have experienced that question. Or those
questions. Because it never stops at one. It goes on and on until you give the ‘right’
or ‘wrong’ answer that can be put into a box or quoted. Or used against you.
Not gay enough. Too gay. Hiding something. All the above.
And so, I say, your answer was perfectly valid. And you are
perfectly valid. To take on the role of Joe Pitt, and as a person.
And I also want to say thank you. Because it’s damn rare I
get to hear someone describing themselves as I do myself in terms of romance
and relationships. And for all the bleating about representation, all those
shouting about it seem to have once again forgotten us, the bisexuals. To have
someone in the public eye stand up and say those words so clearly is wonderful.
But I wish you hadn’t been pressured to say them.
P.S I really like your Dog and your Rooster.
Comments
Post a Comment