When I watch a queer story I assume, until I discover the contrary, that the queer characters are played by queer actors, be they gender queer or queer in terms of sexuality. I make this assumption in order to immerse myself in, and thus enjoy, the film or series. If I can’t immerse myself then I won’t enjoy it, and the idea of members of a marginalised group losing roles representing that group to the supreme demographic is so unjust, and unnecessary, that it colours my experience negatively, and distracts from the story being told.
No, it shouldn’t matter who someone loves, but think of this in terms of the old, racist practices we have eliminated. You would never see a white actor cast to play Othello any more, as happened in 1951’s The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice. Orion Welles was an utterly shite choice to play Othello, perhaps one of the most well-known black characters in the history of stagecraft. Non-white people from a range of cultures have been oppressed, marginalised, criminalised, enslaved, and exploited for time immemorial. Today, the very idea of a white actor portraying a coloured character is, rightfully, an unthinkable thing.
Keep in mind also the fact that being known to be queer can be all the reason needed to justify in someone’s mind the idea that they should receive a beating, or even die. Being a queer person of colour makes these attacks even more likely. Also, don’t lose sight of the fact that the telling of queer stories has been deemed obscene, disgraceful, or immoral until not that long ago, and is illegal in some jurisdictions, even now.
No, I won’t lose my shit if a straight actor plays a queer role, but I will not watch any subsequent works if they do it badly, insincerely, or unconvincingly, and if a production house keeps casting such straight actors I will cease to support their work.
By “insincerely,” I mean while holding anti-queer views or prejudices, or while being unsupportive or dismissive of queer rights. The right to live free of violence, hate, or prejudice, just for starters. By “unconvincingly,” I mean in such a way that their discomfort with queer intimacy is apparent, or that they otherwise can’t convince me that they’re queer. By “bad,” I mean that they’re just a bad actor. Failing in any of these, and yet still being cast in place of a queer actor makes you an abhorrently bad choice, and a queer-phobic one at that. This is because it shows that the terrible straight choice is preferred over any of the genuinely queer alternatives. That’s unacceptable.
This isn’t the case for a large part of the fans of queer media. Huge numbers are straight, and think it’s fine for queer roles to be taken by straight actors, so I’m not trying to speak for everyone here. I’m writing to present one of the possible perspectives that might be thought to carry weight on this subject.
The thing that prompted me to put this down in writing is recent discussions in YouTube videos about the actors cast in productions within Boy Love/Girl Love industry. Actors in this industry coming out as straight, expressing anti-queer sentiment, or behaving badly, and as such casting a bad light on queer storytelling, can cause dissatisfaction in fans of their productions, and sadly, these days, that often means a few sasaengs/Stans to hunt them down and harass them, or worse. That’s not cool, to put it nicely.
As the BL/GL industry shows sign of improving quality, larger budgets, and better and more diverse stories, the stakes are going to become higher. Getting it wrong with bad casting is, in more and more instances, going to prove expensive, and will reach larger and more diverse viewerships. A short-form vertical drama might bring a forgiving audience, but recent, high-budget, well-written queer dramas raise expectations for long-form landscape dramas. Terrible, hammy acting, awkward and embarrassingly bad love scenes, and obviously uncomfortable straight actors are going to be forgiven less and less.
I’d like to suggest to those producing queer stories, be they within the BL/GL industry, the studio system, or independent production houses, that they do the following:
Firstly, cast queer actors to play queer characters as much as possible, and be consistent about it. Selecting candidates to ensure you have trans people playing trans people, homosexual people playing homosexual people, etc. as much as is viable helps you eliminate a lot of intimacy headaches; makes homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise hateful PR crises much less likely; doesn’t make you look like exploitative, money-grubbing creeps to the queer community; and ensures that, in that aspect, at least, you are doing the right thing. You are making money off the back of our queerness, so it doesn’t seem a lot to ask.
Secondly, if you must cast a straight or cis actor in a queer role, ensure that we can all see why. That is, only do so when that actor brings something truly extraordinary to the part, and whose only drawback is their lack of queerness.
Thirdly, never repeat your mistakes. If you cast a straight actor and they failed in any way to produce the goods in film, don’t keep on casting them, or any other unexceptional straight or cis actor in queer roles. An unskilled but charismatic queer actor is forgivable in a queer role. A similarly situated straight one is not.
Fourthly, keep in mind that, aside from your queer audience, you also largely attract straight, cis women. Bear in mind that they also commonly experience prejudice. Keep your representation of women pretty solid too. Don’t so frequently make the villain a bitter ex-girlfriend or the female pursuer of the gay male lead. It’s just a rubbish trope, most particularly when such a large part of your market finds she is represented by the characters we all love to hate.
Fifth, try to mix up your leads and love interests a bit (Thailand in particular), for all our sakes. This will help avoid shipper disillusionment, which we all know can get ugly, because the less grounded fans won’t just assume that your on-screen lovers are also lovers in real life so much. It also means unequal pairings wouldn’t scuttle the careers of talented actors who always have to play opposite wood blocks, unconvincing straight people, or terrible kissers. I’ve seen some solid performances let down and detracted from by being tied to terrible acting partners, and having two careers tied by the hip may cause talent to sink, or crap to float, neither of which is helpful. It also means your actors will become more versatile, new pairings will show up good chemistry more often, and you may pass more talent before your audiences’ eyes, without relying on familiarity with a couple to get eyes on dramas. Surprise us.
Sixth, and lastly, don’t set impossible standards for your straight actors. It’s absurd to expect a straight actor to keep up the pretence of queerness off set. Fan meets where actors can’t be themselves are about as authentic as a chocolate fish, and are a really stressfully bad way to manage expectations. The revelation that a straight actor is playing our favourite queer roles will be much easier to manage, and much less scandalous, if the poor actor isn’t forced to be in character every time they appear in public. It’s only scandalous because you make them lie. Transparency can be your friend, and those for whom queer representation is important can make informed decisions about what to watch, and not watch. It also means we won’t have to watch as talented, apparently queer actors turn out to be straight and flee into straight media as soon as they get their big break. That isn’t a good look.