This isn't going to be my typical column. I'm asking you to go into this with an open mind and a willingness to accept that this is not meant to incite anger or upset people, but instead provoke contemplation or discussion. Even if you disagree with this, I hope you ask yourself (and can answer) why you disagree.
Last summer, Robert Downey, Jr. gained significant press (and an Oscar nomination) by playing Kirk Lazarus in "Tropic Thunder" (2008). Kirk dons modern blackface so that he can have the juiciest role in the fictional movie within the movie. Though his blackface is in no way explicitly offensive, it still caused a stir and many accused it of bad taste.
I want to keep that past paragraph in mind as I draw on another part of "Tropic Thunder": the fake trailers in the beginning. One of the first things we see in the movie, before the blacked-up Lazurus, is the same character playing a gay monk in a send-up of Oscar prestige films. Later in the film, the real black character (the one played by a black/straight actor) comes out as gay so the filmmakers can get a few jokes out of it. He throws on his own form of blackface as casually as Al Jolson does in the middle of a conversation in "The Jazz Singer" (1927).
A white man playing a black character is reasonably understood as pushing the line. A straight man plays a gay man and people don't bat an eye. Does this make sense?
With today's make-up technology, we can make people look any way we want them to. The idea of changing someone's race realistically (and not in the way of the glaringly offensive, white-lipped blackface), is now completely possible. The only difference between racial and sexual minorities is that one group is ostracized for physical appearance, the other for an internal characteristic. Both can be faked on screen, but should they?
Drawing the line between physical, external characteristics and internal traits may not be so easy. Was Heath Ledger kissing Jake Gyllenhaal not physical? Is a man in sequins and a boa internalized?
Over the past two decades, characters have been coming out of the closet and on the outside, the entertainment industry seems comfortable with the queer movement. "Milk" (2008) was nominated for best picture. Shows like "Queer as Folk" and "Will and Grace" lasted multiple seasons. Queer characters pop up in shows from "The Office" to "24." However, think for a second. The entire main cast of "Milk" was played by heterosexuals, as were the two gay males on "Will and Grace." "Queer as Folk" had three gay recurring actors, but the main two characters were played by straights.
Now, let's look at the two complaints lodged against blackface and see if they apply to "gayface." Firstly, there's the fact that it brings up offensive, racist stereotypes. Think about Hal Sparks. Is this straight man squealing and dancing about any different from Jolson singing about his "Mammy from Alabammy?" Sure, the show may have been created by a gay man and the actors are proponents of gay rights, but blackface was not just a product of the bigots of the time. Jolson considered himself a fighter for African-American rights, and even African-American actors would don blackface.
Secondly, there's the problem that white people in blackface take jobs from black actors (and there aren't enough black roles for starters). The only acceptable recent-blackface has been Fred Armisen as Obama, but that is only because the SNL cast is already set for the season. Most likely, NBC will hire a real African-American to play Obama for next year.
Think about "Milk." Penn did a great job as Harvey Milk, but I'm sure that certain white thespians could play an amazing Martin Luther King, Jr. Yes, I winced a little as I wrote that sentence. Penn has the talent, but does that make his decision right? Surely, there must be enough gifted gay actors out there who could have done justice to any of the main characters in "Milk."
And there are gifted gay actors out there, even gay closeted actors. You may have your Lances and Ellens, but we live in a world where even David Hyde Pierce (whose success is by no means based on sex appeal) didn't even come out until a year ago. That should say something about the social environment. For every Neil Patrick Harris that comes out, I'm sure there are a dozen who are staying in the closet. Is "gayface" just a way to make the closet more inviting? If the only socially acceptable performer for a gay role was a gay actor, would things change?
Am I proposing a mass upheaval of the system? It would be interesting to see, but unbelievably unrealistic. Honestly, I find myself questioning my own argument a little bit, even though I can't put my finger on the place where it falls apart. Maybe I just can't believe the society could be so close-minded, even though I can't disprove it. And maybe that might be the ultimate proof to the argument. Perhaps, in the end, I'm just as ingrained in the status quo as everyone else. Ultimately, I laugh along with Andy Samberg in "I Love You Man" (2009), but a minstrel joke in an old Monty Python sketch makes me uncomfortable for a moment. And I can't explain why.
--
Devin Toohey is a senior majoring in classics. He can be reached at Devin.Toohey@tufts.edu.
