Is It OK to Have a 'Normal' Gay Guy as a Main (But Not Lead) Character

Best gay character: Agent smecker from boondock saints. now he´s badass.

But I agree that his sexuality should only be shown if it adds to the story and has a purpose. If it´s just there, i see no point.

I love in boondock saints how smecker always looks the other cops up and down, checking them out. :P
 
I didn't read all the replies (and stumbled on this thread quite by accident) but to the original poster: huh?

Who exactly thinks homosexuality is a hot button issue nowadays? The way you're describing gay people you're making them sound radioactive. Here's a little opinion of mine: people are people and anybody can be attracted to anybody. It's quite possible you will or have been attracted to a male in some way at some point in your life. Maybe not. If you have, why not write about that? Did it scare you? Did it conflict wiht your beliefs?

If not, why even write about it? Do you even know any gay people personally? You shouldn't use characters or humans as some sort of revenge or ways to piss people off. That's teenager stuff (sorry, don't know your age). You want to really write something that will shock, confuse, and piss people off? Write and film something about your life. About things you only understand in a way that only you can. Dare to be vulnerable. Dare to be boring, even. Your friends wont get it, your family wont get it, but if it's truthful and genuine, that will shine through and can never be brought down by criticism. Just a thought.

And to the greater overlying question of the thread: yes, REAL PEOPLE is what we need in films. Real emotions. Unsure people. People wondering why. Being scared. Laughing then crying then getting angry. Then getting bored. Not people flipping through the air shooting two guns and smirking. And don't worry about trying to get your script optioned. Take your camera and go make something. All the other stuff- the gay carictures, the silly action films where no one seems real- it's all just stuff trying to distract you. Be yourself.
 
Charli said:
As a screenwriter, the first thing you ask is:

How does this move the story FORWARD?

A character, especially the LEAD CHARACTER, of any story is looked under the microscope. Every quirk, misunderstandings, every word.

The thing is not whether or not your character is gay, it's HOW DOES IT MOVE THE STORY FORWARD?

How does any type of quirk your LEAD CHARACTER have make me want to turn the page? Does he have a disorder? As Good As It Gets.... that moved the story, FORWARD.

That's all you need to think about.

Charli
Click to expand...


This is perhaps some of the worst advice I've ever heard. Why on earth create characters if they're just intended as a plot device? That's awful writing guaranteed.
 
jpastuch said:
I didn't read all the replies (and stumbled on this thread quite by accident) but to the original poster: huh?

Who exactly thinks homosexuality is a hot button issue nowadays? The way you're describing gay people you're making them sound radioactive. Here's a little opinion of mine: people are people and anybody can be attracted to anybody. It's quite possible you will or have been attracted to a male in some way at some point in your life. Maybe not. If you have, why not write about that? Did it scare you? Did it conflict wiht your beliefs?

If not, why even write about it? Do you even know any gay people personally? You shouldn't use characters or humans as some sort of revenge or ways to piss people off. That's teenager stuff (sorry, don't know your age). You want to really write something that will shock, confuse, and piss people off? Write and film something about your life. About things you only understand in a way that only you can. Dare to be vulnerable. Dare to be boring, even. Your friends wont get it, your family wont get it, but if it's truthful and genuine, that will shine through and can never be brought down by criticism. Just a thought.

And to the greater overlying question of the thread: yes, REAL PEOPLE is what we need in films. Real emotions. Unsure people. People wondering why. Being scared. Laughing then crying then getting angry. Then getting bored. Not people flipping through the air shooting two guns and smirking. And don't worry about trying to get your script optioned. Take your camera and go make something. All the other stuff- the gay carictures, the silly action films where no one seems real- it's all just stuff trying to distract you. Be yourself.
Click to expand...


je concur
 
I think it's totally cool to make the character gay "just because." The default in imitative, unoriginal storytelling is to make everyone a white American heterosexual male. So unless there's some "reason" to make the character, like, Black, or a woman, or Asian, or gay, the unoriginal voice avoids it. Life is full of people who just "happen to be gay." As the artform and society mature, they become increasingly able to accept characters from a range of backgrounds without making those details critical to some story point or cause. In The Wrestler, Rourke's daughter is gay. It's barely referenced. It does add to the reality of the fabric the writer has woven. It contributes something to Rourke's character in unspoken ways. But in a lot of respects, the character "just happens to be gay." And that's not to say that there isn't still a lot of room for characters who are gay and whose orientation does impact on their character choices and the plot. Just don't shy away from writing good characters of all descriptions no matter what their purpose in the story might be.
 
Last edited:
jpastuch said:
This is perhaps some of the worst advice I've ever heard. Why on earth create characters if they're just intended as a plot device? That's awful writing guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Not really. Story and plot growing from and driven by your characters does not mean that you have reduced your characters to 'plot devices.'

It would be fun to compile a list of well-told, affecting stories in which the characters are not essential to the growth of the story and unfolding of the plot. I have to admit that right now, I can't think of any.
 
Sad Max said:
It would be fun to compile a list of well-told, affecting stories in which the characters are not essential to the growth of the story and unfolding of the plot. I have to admit that right now, I can't think of any.
Click to expand...

I agree. In the best stories, most characters are relevant to plot (though we can start the list of exceptions, because there are some!). But I for one wasn't arguing that the character should be irrelevant to the plot, but that character traits such as race, gender and sexuality don't have to always serve the tedious function of advancing the plot. Often characters serve to reveal other characters' motives and point of view, which is just as important as "plot."

As for examples of characters who don't advance plot, here's one that comes to mind:

Mike Yanagita in Fargo - the scene where Marge goes to meet Mike Yanagita, the guy from high school who weaves a strange tale and admits his infatuation for Marge in a hotel bar. No one could identify what the scene was doing for the story. But it was strangely sad and affecting. Of particular interest for this discussion, the character also "just happened to be Japanese American." His ethnicity was irrelevant to both plot AND character. It was never mentioned nor had any bearing on the relationship with Marge. It was a character detail that added a sense of reality and originality. He could have been white. He wasn't.
 
Last edited:
I think his ethnicity served the purpose of further adding to the surreal quality of the film. There's something odd about a Japanese-looking fellow with a Japanese name who speaks in that peculiarly American, very identifiable regional accent and slang.
 
Really?! Odd? That's odd. I mean, you live in LA. There are like hundreds of thousands of Asian dudes who speak with an American accent. Mike Yanagita was one of millions.

I think your comment highlights why films tend to repeat the white American straight male. Our belief in what is normal is skewed, and many unoriginal movies like to cater to that skewed set of beliefs. Sells tickets.

But actually, on second thought, you're right about the uniquely regional accent. There is something that reminds us that things aren't what we expect, and the directors are playing with our distorted expectations. So I totally see what you mean now in that respect. Still, Mike Yanagita was supposed to be an example of a character that doesn't advance plot. As you point out, he advances "theme."
 
Last edited:
sean90291 said:
Really?! Odd? That's odd. I mean, you live in LA. There are like hundreds of thousands of Asian dudes who speak with an American accent. Mike Yanagita was one of millions.
Click to expand...

Not around Fargo. Which was my point (although maybe there's actually a big Japanese-American population around that part of the country, and it just seems odd to me, because I don't know it).

sean90291 said:
I think your comment highlights why films tend to repeat the white American straight male. Our belief in what is normal is skewed, and the movies like to cater to that skewed set of beliefs. Sells tickets.
Click to expand...

I don't know that 'normal' is the word, when (for a little while longer) the 'white male' (and female) are actually representative of the country's majority population, and to some degree or other its majority culture. Maybe 'usual' is a better word.

sean90291 said:
But maybe you're right about the uniquely regional accent. There is something that reminds us that things aren't what we expect. I see what you mean in that respect.
Click to expand...

For me the accent is really what created the effect. If he'd been a Japanese-American guy speaking with a sort of coastal non-accent, I don't think the effect would have been the same.

In fact, since I tend to associate that region, and its characteristic dialect (and to a lesser extent food and faith-communities) with people descended from Northern European 'white people,' a black or latino 'looking' person speaking in that dialect would probably have seemed odd, too ( even though there are almost certainly black and latino people, who do).
 
Hm, it never struck me as odd, unusual or even abnormal that Mike Yanagita wasn't speaking in Japanese or with a Japanese accent. I think your reaction helps clarify what the directors were going for thematically, though. I guess I have too many friends who are Asian and talk just like me, so I didn't notice.
 
If he'd been speaking Japanese, or in Japanese-accented English that would have been much stranger, considering the context.

And it wouldn't have made very much sense; why would someone who grew up and went to high school in Fargo speak with a Japanese accent...?
 
So I don't really get your point then. It's either strange or it's not. What would have NOT been strange for Mike Yanagita?

It does highlight how any time you choose anything other than the white straight American male in your casting (or writing), it starts raising questions in the audience about the significance. Even if you've done it simply "colour blind." I guess there is no "colour blind."

I just did a google search for Mike Yanagita and Fargo, and found an article written by an Asian American who found the character offensive because it serves as another example of the emasculated Asian male--a nerd without any kind of sexual power. We all read everything very differently, based on our own perspectives. And when you write your characters, I guess you have to ask yourself what impact the choices will have on the viewer. I guess in the end, there's no such thing as any character just "happening to be Asian/Gay/Black/White" in a script, because even if you write it that way, the audience might not see it that way. And in fact, even if he's a white guy, you're making a choice about the audience's expectations.

The originator of this thread is asking just that question: what's the impact of having a guy who just happens to be gay in the script. I think we begin to see the ramifications here.
 
"I think his ethnicity served the purpose of further adding to the surreal quality of the film. There's something odd about a Japanese-looking fellow with a Japanese name who speaks in that peculiarly American, very identifiable regional accent and slang."

Yikes. Just shot yourself in the foot. They could have removed that entire character and scene and the plot would have moved foward. Get out of the way surreal atmosphere, no time for you! We have to get to the plot points!

Ever heard of a film called Slacker? (or Waking Life for that matter!). Or Mutual Appreciation. There are characters and emotions and thoughts in these films, but no "plot". No story. Just moments. My point wasn't that characters aren't important to a plot or story- or that characters aren't important (the opposite) -it's that a film shouldn't be focused on simply telling a story as quickly and tightly as possible. That's boring. Film can offer so much more. Film can offer moments in time. Look at films by Bergman or Tarkovsky or Jim Jarmusch or Agnes Varda or Jean-Luc Godard. There is an infinite amount of ways to create in any type of artform. Yes, you can tell a story. But you don't HAVE to. You don't have to do anything. The possibilities are endless. Doesn't that sound so much better than somebody telling you to follow the rules?

And who cares what hateful extremists want for gay people? Fine, ban gay people from your insane church. Who cares? But don't try and stop them from having the same legal rights as other people. Some people still hate black people and for them, black people LIVING is a hot button issue. But why even think those people matter when they themselves can't treat humans with dignity?
 
^ the last paragraph suggests to me that this post is going to just disappear.

But before it does, I'm mostly in agreement.
 
Well, I don't know if you mean you agree with some of points or agree that it should disappear, but if the thread gets locked for that it's a bit silly. I don't hate people for having religious beliefs, nor do I want to rant and argue off topic, but we're still talking about homosexual characters. The fact that someone would worry about offending (or purposely fueling, in the original poster's case) people's hatred for homosexuals by writing a "normal" character, well, that IS just plain crazy. And a bit sickening.

All this is making me think of the film Shortbus. How many people, both extremist and not, must have been angered by that? But the director (and actors) bravely captured actual sex in relationships and its REAL consequences on everyday people. The film doesn't go for shock values or cliches either. It's not for everyone, sure. But what is (besides air and water)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top