Back in the '80s, closeted gay funnymen like Eddie Murphy were limited to prankster roles, and it worked fine. Can you imagine, after his comedic success in Beverly Hills Cop, casting Murphy as the detective in Basic Instinct? The idea that somebody green-lit an erotic thriller starring a crypto-homo joker just goes to show how desperate Hollywood studios have become by 2015.
I still remember how mind-bending it was to see Smith land all those big roles in the '90s, when his only talent was mugging for yuks as the Fresh Prince. Did audiences really take him seriously? Or was his appeal a meta- kinda thing, like they realized he couldn't play any other role than Will Smith (TM), but how hilarious is it to see Will Smith (TM) cosplaying as a caricature of a soldier, a g-man, or a lover of women?
Nothing says stoic badass like kabuki-esque face-scrunching
Gay adopter Peter Pan-ishly mirrors his toddler's expression
"The Greatest" as a brooding gay bullycide victim
His case generalizes to all closeted homo actors: lacking grown-up empathy, they can only play one role -- themselves -- and it will therefore be one variation or another on the theme of Peter Pan (the defining trait of gay men).
Eddie Murphy and Will Smith are adorable lil' stinker pranksters. Cary Grant and George Clooney are mirror-gazing playboys who, for whatever reason, can never be charmed into a long-term relationship with a woman. Tom Cruise plays a bit more grown-up of a role, as 12 year-old ultra-intense ultra-panicky action LARPer.
Fortunately for Hollywood, audiences these days don't care how hamfisted the on-screen performances are, as long as the star has instant brand recognition. Indeed, the fundamental appeal of these stars is that their brand of acting is so limited that you know exactly what to expect. Hence the box office bomb when Will Smith isn't doing Will Smith (TM).
Viewers no longer want to go in with an open mind and feel like being pleasantly surprised, accepting the characters on their own terms. Nope: the actors are only meant to be action figure dolls who do exactly what the spectators had already wanted them to do before entering the theater.
It used to be said that contemporary video games were a pale imitation of film, but now we see that film has become a pale imitation of video games. No controller required, folks -- we already know what actions you'd make the characters perform. Just sit back and enjoy the game playing itself.
My boss wonders why I care about pop culture, what I (or anyone) can get out of it.ReplyDelete
Well, the spate of dopey casting that happened around 1995 reflects the beginning of our continuing fall from taste. Amazing how the alternative dorks, bossy or dull chicks, and no talent pretty boys of the 90's and beyond were supposed to be an improvement on the "excessive" and "superficial" 80's.
I watched Excalibur again today and the actor who played Arthur wouldn't get to be an extra if the movie was made today. As you've pointed out, it wasn't uncommon in the 70's/80's to cast more homely actors if for no other reason than to remind the audience that character is more important than cosmetic beauty.
We'll have to wait for rising crime to see wholesome charisma first, pretty boy looks second casting.
In the Satanic panic era, the audience wanted to cheer for amiable actors who they felt were honest and resilient. Now that there's so little danger or menace in life we're gonna have to deal with irrepressible fops/cryptic perverts on the screen. This'll change when things ought to get a bit more restless around 2020....
"This'll change when things ought to get a bit more restless around 2020...."ReplyDelete
Cocooning is the real sickness, destroying the potential of humanity. I don't believe that cocooning is part of the natural cycle, so hopefully it will dissipate before 2020. Even Turchin argues that we should try to stop the inequality cycle, so why not cocooning too?
I didn't think any of his kids were adopted. Wikipedia doesn't say anything about that.ReplyDelete
I don't get the "bullycide" reference. In Ali he's up against large bureaucracies like the government and boxing commission, but it's not really comparable to "bullying". He's still regarded as the "people's champ" (at least until he loses a comeback bout treated as relatively unimportant). And he's brooding because it's a Michael Mann movie.
I didn't mean his kid was literally adopted, but that he looks like he's playing a gay adopter rather than a normal grown-up father.ReplyDelete
In Ali, Will Smith is doing his best to look badass and underdog, but in his Peter Pan homo mind, that must mean acting like a brooding teenager who's the constant target of bullies at school. Look at how emo that look is -- frowning rather than glowering.
The rest of his looks in Ali show eyebrows raised straight up in surprise, like he's a little kid playing dress-up as a boxer, not like someone who's really had to keep their cool under pressure.
Smith also has a pretty weird laugh. It has always sounded phony to me. Can't find a good example of what I mean, but you can hear it around 0:10 here:ReplyDelete
To be fair Ali wasn't exactly a glowering intimidator himself. He played the black jester role, he was just really nasty and vicious with it. Roberto Duran once said he could kick Ali's ass in a street fight. While that might not be the case, it gives you an idea that Cassius Clay's cartoonish braggadaccio didn't phase true hardcases.ReplyDelete
I appreciate your insights but I guess I look at most of the films Will Smith has been in as cartoons. My impression of him is that he seems like a nice guy with some charisma. Now if the plot of the movie is kind of ridiculous(Men in Black), then debating the fine of points of expression seems pointless. Frankly, non white people seem a little strange to me. Basically, black men who are really into fashion I just don't get. I mean when a white guy is effeminate, I usually recognize that pretty fast but when the guy comes from another culture I am never quite sure if I am reading the person or the culture. I am not arguing with you but how do you know you know if your gaydar is being confused by cultural or racial differences?ReplyDelete
mark, don't you know agnostic's gaydar is infallible? If Sandra Bullock makes it go off, then that must mean she's not a woman but a gay man.ReplyDelete
More seriously, agnostic has more recently pronounced rap to be the "gayest genre out there", with not only Smith but also Rev Run, Puff Daddy, Kanye West, Pharrell and "it seems like most of the hip hop world". So race may be interacting with other signals he picks up on.
It is more difficult to spot unusual mannerisms when you aren't so familiar with what "usual" is for their group. And I tend to avoid Will Smith movies, so it wasn't an impression from having sat through hours and hours of his mannerisms in recent times.ReplyDelete
I read about his sham marriage with closeted lesbian Jada Plinkett Smith at Blind Gossip, and thought it sounded plausible, based on Smith's lil' stinker / prankster / Peter Pan personality that I remember from years of tuning into the Fresh Prince. Lo and behold, he has flaming mannerisms, over-smile, and the rest, on top of his Peter Pan nature.
Google Image Search "will smith kiss slap gif," there are video clips of it too. Some male reporter at an event came up to him and hugged him close, then kissed him on both cheeks. Smith just looks confused and amused, and only gives a limpwristed slap in return. It looks like a backhand, but is really more like brushing the back of his fingers against the guy's cheek.
You can see him laughing and chuckling through the whole thing, unlike a normal straight black guy who would've gotten angry and knocked him out.
Also GIS "will smith kiss son." He kissed his teenage son on the mouth (on live TV), and it isn't even a barely-there smooch. He's holding his chin in his grip, staring straight down into his horrified son's eyes, and looks intent and focused.
I hate to think how many times he's raped his own son.
All that homosexual degradation over the years has utterly hollowed out whatever basic human soul he may have had. Hence the dead-inside vibe he now gives off, and the move to tailor the roles he gets to mesh better with his current decrepit state.
I pay no attention to rap music, all of those came directly from Blind Gossip, often linking to Hollywood Street King, an industry insider who focuses only on black celebrities.ReplyDelete
The anti-empirical bent of the "big data" crowd is surprising. I claim Kanye West is a fag, and they shrug it off like it's not interesting or so untrue they can't be bothered to look into it. But it's right there, including who his gay lover is -- Riccardo Tisci, the designer for Givenchy. Everybody who's into rap music has always sad Kanye gave off a gay vibe anyway, so it's not that wild of a claim to begin with.
My gaydar isn't infallible, if anything it is more forgiving. If I assumed every celeb was gay until proven straight, I would have all sorts of false positives but no false negatives.ReplyDelete
I haven't had a single false positive yet, although I believe I misjudged Tom Cruise as straight. I also wouldn't have picked out Rob Halford as gay.
It only seems as though I jump the gun and accuse everyone of being gay because most people don't make a judgment call on anybody. Whereas I've tried to bring the crypto-homo infestation of the mass entertainment world to light since I stumbled onto it.
That came from my original survey of gay give-aways, and what few principles they could all be reduced to. Everyone who's been around gays (i.e. in an infested metro area) has basically agreed with those assessments.
Again it boils down to, are you empirical or cerebral? Gays stand out at 3, 4, 5 standard deviations for most of their defining traits, so you'd have to be color-blind and tone-deaf not to notice, or not have the opportunity to notice because there aren't many where you live and work.
" bring the crypto-homo infestation of the mass entertainment world to light since I stumbled onto it."ReplyDelete
Talk about burying the lead. Really, drew a frightening mental picture with that sentence. Will Smith and Eddie Murphy both made a ton of money when they were paired with their opposite(Nolte/ Tommy Lee Jones) unless you have been doing more research. Really, do appreciate your blog but was wondering if you could think of an effeminate actor that you don't think is gay. I have got to stop now, I have to find out when the Glee finale will be on.
My two cents about some of the gay celebs in this post:ReplyDelete
- Will Smith: he does seem like a red (rainbow?) flag being raised over a decaying land in terms of homos being thrown at us starting in the 90's. I actually think that the actor who played Carlton (Alfonso Rabeiro?) was more likeable even though he was supposed to be a dork. I liked him in a 90's movie I saw a while ago where he had more to work with.
- Tom Cruise: I do buy the stories about Scientology blackmailing gay (bi?) celebs so that they don't defect and badmouth the church. The church is a total joke, now more than ever before. I don't think Cruise is naive or crazy enough to really believe that stuff.
Other than Top Gun, was he in any big hits in the 80's? I think that the action scenes and soundtrack fueled that movie and the not so macho (but not an obvious poof) Cruise couldn't derail the movie. I must say that the hero's foil (Val Kilmer) would've made a better hero than the nominal hero (Cruise), like how with Fresh Prince Rabeiro would've worked better than Smith.
Both Cruise and Kilmer got their shot at swashbuckling in the 80's fantasy boom. I loved Willow as a kid and Kilmer was great as a cocky rogue who learns to be brave and selfless. Cruise in Legend? Well, the movie didn't quite gel and most were quick to blame the story and director Ridley Scott's style. Maybe they missed how Cruise just wasn't the type of guy to the next Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Conan, or Indiana Jones.
- The best performance for George Clooney was his turn as a criminal in From Til Dusk Til Dawn. It can't be too tough for a guy who's already an outcast via his sexuality to get into the role of a psycho. See none other than Anthony Perkins, who's roles dried up in the 70's and 80's though he did do the 80's/90's Psycho sequels which are much better than other horror sequels.
- Halford is an outlier, isn't he? I couldn't tell you where I first heard this, but I seem to remember him saying in an interview that he dated girls early on. He probably had an easier time picking up chicks than a lot of the straight dudes.
"Will Smith and Eddie Murphy both made a ton of money when they were paired with their opposite(Nolte/ Tommy Lee Jones)"
Hah! It turns out that the straight man was literally the straight man. The joke's been on us since the mid 90's. Maybe the current sick crap we're dealing with has driven talented people like Kilmer and Nolte to self-medicate. Men who in the pre 90's would've felt wanted and appreciated enough that they wouldn't have made fools of themselves.
Is there ever gonna be a study about how the post 1992 hatred for normal, hetero guys (esp. white guys) has pushed promising men over the edge? Just look at photos of men (or even teen boys) in the 70's-very early 90's. They sure look more inspired and confident than the confused and frightened guys you see now.
"was wondering if you could think of an effeminate actor that you don't think is gay."ReplyDelete
Johnny Depp, Rob Lowe, Brad Pitt.
They're pretty boys, concern themselves more than a normal guy does with their appearance, and don't play macho roles. But they don't give off the telltale Peter Pan infantilization of homos.
Johnny Depp may come off as someone more comfortable escaping back into an earlier stage of life, like he's awkward in a grown-up state. But he doesn't involuntarily behave like some version of a toddler or child like queers do.
Brad Pitt also seems more awkward and submissive than infantilized.
Rob Lowe's gay counterpart is George Clooney -- women want him, but he doesn't feel like settling down. Major difference is that Clooney gives off the "I'm such a lil' stinker" vibe way too often, whereas Lowe comes off as an adolescent or young-adult horndog who still wants to cat around, to mix metaphors.
The main thing to bear in mind is that "effeminate" and "infantilized" are highly correlated, since females are more child-like. But gays are not just vaguely effeminate -- they are distinctly infantilized, prone to public tantrums (unlike Depp, Pitt, and Lowe, but like Kanye West).
So, rather than judge by being effeminate, judge based on infantilization. I mean that literally, not figuratively -- gays come off as adult-sized toddlers, not merely normal men who are delaying adult milestones. They aren't even through adolescent development, when you shed your "girls are yucky and have cooties" mindset, and begin relating to others rather than making everything about you.
"Again it boils down to, are you empirical or cerebral? Gays stand out at 3, 4, 5 standard deviations for most of their defining traits, so you'd have to be color-blind and tone-deaf not to notice, or not have the opportunity to notice because there aren't many where you live and work."ReplyDelete
In times of greater danger and higher testosterone, people just, you know, had a feeling that some guys weren't quite right even if they couldn't quite discern what made them uneasy.
Now that we've got both low crime and high inequality/decadence, many people (even those who ought to know better) are playing dumb.
The "cerebral"(e.g. your head is up your ass) crowd either lashes out at "offensive" stereotypes (the truth hurts, after all) or admits to differences but glibly explains them away. "So what if he's got a weird face and voice, so what if he sucks dick, it's none of my business and we all need to grow up and get along anyway".
We've all got some blame to take for the modern revival of Hell-on-Earth culture but most of us would rather just cloak this junk in the nobility of "progress" than take a good look in the mirror and realize the way that our pride, greed, and hedonism has scorched everyone.
I still remember how mind-bending it was to see Smith land all those big roles in the '90s, when his only talent was mugging for yuks as the Fresh Prince. Did audiences really take him seriously?ReplyDelete
The first time I felt really old was watching Independence Day. At first, I'm laughing out loud in the theater. But then, as I realize that I'm the only one in the room who thinks its a spoof, I'm holding it in. By then end, I'm depressed. How can anyone have taken that seriously?
But, it's not meant to be a spoof, is it? Here is somebody else who suspects it's a spoof. But it ain't exactly the consensus.
With the Austin Powers movies (well, the one I saw), it's just the opposite. Why are all these people laughing? What kind of sense does it make to make a spoof of a spoof? The movie is, at agonizing length, the director demonstrating that he gets the joke in James Bond movies. Which, I guess is an accomplishment, since most people don't seem to.
Since then, I met a youngster who thinks Dances with Wolves is better than Little Big Man. Kills self.
"Johnny Depp may come off as someone more comfortable escaping back into an earlier stage of life, like he's awkward in a grown-up state. "ReplyDelete
I'm pretty sure he was cast as the boyfriend in A Nightmare On Elm Street so that the audience would have an easier time believing in Nancy as the last teen survivor. Hell, he even gets a slightly dorky name, Glen. Not Tony, or Scott, or, well, Johnny.
In order of least dorky to most dorky: Rob Lowe, Depp, Brad Pitt. Lowe was the most popular in the 80's while Pitt didn't have a career until the 90's. It's not an age/opportunity thing either; Lowe is actually a year younger than Pitt. Young people did look older in the 80's; I didn't realize how young Lowe was when he got lots of work in the 80's.
"The first time I felt really old was watching Independence Day. At first, I'm laughing out loud in the theater. But then, as I realize that I'm the only one in the room who thinks its a spoof, I'm holding it in. By then end, I'm depressed. How can anyone have taken that seriously?"
LIke I say, since the 90's the joke has been on (most) of us. More so for the PC crowd than the type of person who reads this blog. The director of Independence Day is gay, go figure. Too bad we can't blame all of the epic(ally dull) blockbusters on fags though that director has churned them out for years.
The utterly depersonalized character of modern so called entertainment is quite a good fit for fags (and ill developed straights). Until I just looked it up I had no idea that Brad Pitt is a '63er. I thought he was a stolid X-er, not a let it all hang out late Boomer. But right now we value tepid males who will sell to the flimsy psyches of Millennial girls who don't even want to engage with an alpha on screen, let alone in real life. Remember that movies are targeted mainly to the 7-29 crowd. Which is part of the reason movies have really gotten awful since the mid 2000's. The 90's were bad but they were better than this.
agnostic The anti-empirical bent of the "big data" crowd is surprising. I claim Kanye West is a fag, and they shrug it off like it's not interesting or so untrue they can't be bothered to look into it.ReplyDelete
It's not really anti-empiricism, just disdain for lurid "Hollywood Confidential" gossip mag creepers (http://akinokure.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/mid-century-unwholesomeness-gossip.html). Such people are seen as unintelligent and gullible, lurid fantasists.
"Such people are seen as unintelligent and gullible, lurid fantasists."ReplyDelete
In other words, the same dismissal given to people who pursue other taboo topics like race, homosexuality, Jewish plots, etc. The attitude of "nothing to be seen, so I don't need to look" doesn't come from anti-empiricism, just disdain for lurid trashy pursuits.
And now back to my sober, good-taste review of How These 17 Video Games Will Shake the West To. Its. Foundations.
LOL again at the idea that you'd have to be gullible and unintelligent to buy the idea that Kanye is a fag.ReplyDelete
It's the moron mainstream audiences who don't sense that something "just ain't right" about Will Smith kiss-raping his teenage son on live TV. Like, until you see him actually butt-raping his own son on live TV, the rigors of skepticism require deferral of judgment.
The opposite of "gullible" is "suspicious," but really-existing skeptics aren't suspicious at all. When they don't agree with some claim, it isn't because they intuitively sense bullshit. It's just because it disagrees with a gut-level belief or preference of theirs, so obviously it's wrong.
Both processes are gut-level, but sensing bullshit is impersonal -- "Bullshit is around". The really-existing skeptic's reaction is personal -- "But I think immigrants are awesome, so how could immigration be a net burden to society? Color me skeptical."
In this way, skeptics end up swallowing all manner of bullshit -- Kanye West is the epitome of hetero masculinity, Jesus of Nazareth was a mythological creation rather than a real person, etc. You can't find more gullible morons than self-styled skeptics.
"Also GIS "will smith kiss son." He kissed his teenage son on the mouth (on live TV), and it isn't even a barely-there smooch. He's holding his chin in his grip, staring straight down into his horrified son's eyes, and looks intent and focused. I hate to think how many times he's raped his own son."ReplyDelete
How many times have you whacked off to that GIF?
How many times have you been kiss-raped by Will Smith?ReplyDelete
The straightest man in the world:ReplyDelete
Zero, because I'm a woman with no familial relation to him.ReplyDelete
How many hot, lonely, sweaty nights have you fantasized about being ass raped by Will Smith?ReplyDelete
We want to hear from a source who knows: when Will Smith ass raped you, did he kiss-rape you first?ReplyDelete
I am female, so he never kiss or ass raped me. I think you're more his type.ReplyDelete
When a faglet like you impersonates being female on the internet, is it because you're a tranny, or because you're still ashamed of being a fag, even on the internet?ReplyDelete
As exciting as it is to hear from closeted homos pretending to be female, you're banned.ReplyDelete
agnostic In other words, the same dismissal given to people who pursue other taboo topics like race, homosexuality, Jewish plots, etc. The attitude of "nothing to be seen, so I don't need to look" doesn't come from anti-empiricism, just disdain for lurid trashy pursuits.ReplyDelete
Does any of that stuff you said just over a year ago about "Mid-century unwholesomeness: Gossip, celeb, sex scandal magazines" still stand to you? Is it different now you're reading "Blind Gossip"? Might people not want to avoid that because they sense it is deeply unwholesome? Might people not want to embrace it, even if it doesn't make sense in their gut, because it discredits and gives a deep wrongness to actors, directors, etc in movies or eras they have committed themselves to hating that actually aren't that bad?
Thank you for your response. I don't sense the three actors you mentioned as particularly effeminate(Lowe, Depp,Pitt) but I wouldn't quibble with that. I guess the methodological complaint would be that you are hearing a rumor and then looking for a conviction. Frankly, it would more impressive if you outted someone who was rumor free. Anyway, I saw Bradley Cooper in American Sniper and found him totally convincing as married macho Kris Kyle. The only thing that threw me off was hearing him tell how difficult he thought playing this macho dude would be. I mean actors play crazy people(Silver Linings Playbook), geniuses and dullards so why would playing a macho sniper be that difficult? Finally, I looked at previous posts and noticed that you think gay actors have trouble conveying certain emotions with their face. That is a pretty big problem for an actor so why do you think the gay actors have been so successful.ReplyDelete
"Finally, I looked at previous posts and noticed that you think gay actors have trouble conveying certain emotions with their face. That is a pretty big problem for an actor so why do you think the gay actors have been so successful."ReplyDelete
Because the filter on who gets to act in movies is "who is willing to get assfucked by the producers" not "who can convincingly play the role".
"Might people not want to embrace it, even if it doesn't make sense in their gut, because it discredits and gives a deep wrongness to actors, directors, etc in movies or eras they have committed themselves to hating that actually aren't that bad?"ReplyDelete
You're trying to make it sound like the mainstream worship of crypto-homo celebs is akin to Mercerism from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And that I'm going all Buster Friendly on their last-ditch attempt at religious communion.
Except that the whole point of Mercerism was to identify and empathize with a suffering figure. My posts aren't about "Was Jesus of Nazareth a homosexual?" or "Was Mohammed a very convincing post-op tranny?"
Devout fans of Will Smith and the lead from Harry Potter are valorizing and worshiping a bunch of profane, untalented nobodies. Far from drawing out a yearning for empathy from the audience, their crypto-homo influence has only served to normalize the abnormal, to promote deviance.
Like, nothing wrong with kiss-raping your own teenage son on live TV -- you're Will Smith? You get a pass. Nothing wrong with joining Scientology, pass. Nothing wrong with not vaccinating your kids for anything, pass.
Nothing wrong with starring in a movie that tried to humanize a gay chickenhawk who couldn't write poetry for shit like Allen Ginsberg. Nothing wrong about campaigning for gay marriage, AKA a back-door effort to normalize and sanction extreme deviance.
The Fresh Prince and Harry Potter are open targets, especially given how weirdifying their off-screen influence has been.
"They're pretty boys, concern themselves more than a normal guy does with their appearance, and don't play macho roles."ReplyDelete
Brad Pitt doesn't play macho roles.
Hi Agnostic, I've been reading your sociological musings and you've reawakened an interest in me in this subject. Your theory on closeted v open generations/cultures is a good one. Possibly related to technological change.ReplyDelete
Its funny you say Murphy and Smith are gay. I never even considered it. I suppose its a lot harder for me to tell if a minority person is gay. Maybe the gregariousness, is just low IQ, or culture or absent fathering etc. With Murphy theres a decent track record here: http://dating.famousfix.com/tpx_760/eddie-murphy/dating
This holds true with asian guys as well in particular. Really hard to tell. Some cultures people aren't really invited to be gregarious as a general rule.
RE Murphy its just hard to imagine a gay person going through that much trouble arranging women to hold his hand in front of papparazzi. Usually a closeted man will organise a sham marriage and that will be that. He could be bi though.
Also, have the divorce rumours changed your mind on Smith? Jada seems wound up about him being friendly with Margot Robbie. Not what youd expect from a dyke.
With Clooney though, I just don't see it at all. This is the most left-field thing in the entire blog. Generally speaking female attraction is a truer test of outing a gay man that any man's gaydar. Women can tell far better than guys because its their job to get guys. Women are attracted to the guy, so he must be a viable mate. On the other hand, women don't seem to be a wild about Smith and Murphy and their dating histories reflect that too.
Open to hearing more on this though. Generally an interesting topic more generally on the homosexualisation of pop culture - reality tv, homo humour shows like Big Bang Theory, newstertainment v old style newscasting, human interest crap etc.