McDreary Operates On Gays' Anatomy

For the November 13th issue of The Hollywood Reporter, TV writer Andrew Wallenstein wrote a politically limp-wristed and journalistically fey piece on the IMO welcome news that both Neil Patrick Harris and T.R. Knight are gay. He gets it so wrong I felt like doing exploratory surgery on his reasoning and his (unintentional?) agenda instead of just shrugging it off like most people do when reading more than a few paragraphs in a trade publication. Let's operate!

"Knight, Harris outing a product of the times

"by Andrew Wallenstein

"If only Rock Hudson were alive today to meet Neil Patrick Harris or T.R. Knight. Were this silver-screen legend told that gay actors known for playing heterosexuals on television would one day issue headline-grabbing declarations of their sexual orientation, he probably would have had to see it to believe it.

"The self-outing in recent months of Knight, of ABC hit drama 'Grey's Anatomy,' and Harris, of up-and-coming CBS sitcom 'How I Met Your Mother,' seems evidence of how far Hollywood has come from the days of Hudson and Montgomery Clift, who remained closeted in fear of ruining their reputations during a less tolerant era. But I wonder whether they would consider this progress."

First of all, who cares what Rock Hudson would think? At worst, he was a complete jackass, judging by his callous treatment of other gay men (ask his lover, the one he didn't warn that he had this new mystery disease called AIDS). At best, he was an unfortunate product of his time, a man addicted to fame and not above faking a marriage to maintain it. Sure he'd be surprised. So would Rudolph Valentino, James Dean and Alla Nazimova. So would plenty of non-gay people who died before being "openly gay" came into existence. People of the past might not consider a lot of things progress. Rock Hudson probably wouldn't consider civil rights progress—he was a raging Reaganite. And Clift mighta had a can on him that just wouldn't quit, but his name shouldn't be the first to pop up in discussions of the social mores of 2006.

So...point?

More annoyingly, why does Wallenstein insist on dubbing Harris and Knight's confirmation that yep, they're gay, "self-outing?" It's as if he wants to paint the act in negative terms, negative to the many people who are still big pussies about outing people, including not only intolerant right-wingers but also more fair-minded folks, like your grandma, your best friend and GLAAD.

"Television, by and large, has had a good track record with gays and lesbians in recent years. Gay-friendly programming has flourished to the point where, between 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' and 'The L Word,' homosexuality is practically a cliché. In addition, Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres have both proven that coming out was not the end of their careers."

So because the television industry has given us Queer Eye and The L Word, we shouldn't expect its participants to be honest about their identities? Sorry, the shoes and the tongues, respectively, are not enough. Also, when someone tells you an issue is practically a cliché, it's usually to dissuade you from pursuing it—find out why before swallowing hook, line and sinker that gay issues are no biggie in a time and place where states are voting anti-gay discrimination into their constitutions. You can't TiVo freedom.

"The same will likely hold true for Harris and Knight. But don't let the cheery tone of their outing statements fool you into thinking they did this voluntarily. Both men were subjected to gossip-mongering on the Internet that has become so ubiquitous that it is virtually impossible for even a minor celebrity to ignore or keep his or her sexuality a secret anymore. An actor may not want to come out, but the truth still will.

"Up until relatively recently, agents and publicists could be counted on to keep clients closeted if they so chose. That just isn't feasible anymore in a culture where a celebrity's personal life is just another stage for mandatory performance."

I'm guessing that Wallenstein might think he is coming at this issue from a stance that it's wrong to out people because it's an invasion of privacy. He may have a point in stating that these men did not wake up one day and decide to come out of the closet—in both cases, specific stories directly preceded their coming-out declarations. However, and I will argue this to my dying day, I see absolutely no reason to believe that speculating whether or not someone is gay or is in a gay relationship is in any way an insult or "gossip mongering." It's really an insult to any pop-culture consumer's intelligence to argue this when you can go to the newsstand right now and buy the latest issue of The National Enquirer and read in lurid detail about Rachael Ray's husband paying a dyke up to $500 a pop to spit on him and rub her feet all over his sometimes nude body while Rachael was off building her brand. That is just one example of a story about a straight star that no one—NO ONE—is complaining about being invasive or harmful to that couple's privacy or to either of their careers. I don't know what Mr. Rachael Ray does for a living, but how could it not affect his business profile for people to be imagining him covered in somebody else's saliva? How could it not affect Rachael Ray's business profile for people to realize she's one degree of separation from said saliva?

The argument makes me so mad I could...spit.

Also, the Internet has definitely increased the virulence of rumors, but the outing of minor stars is not brand new. Lizabeth Scott comes to mind.

"Harris and Knight might appear to be challenging Hollywood's conventional wisdom that actors disclosing their homosexuality risk having their off-screen persona cloud audience perceptions of any roles they play onscreen. But a closer inspection of their current TV roles undercuts their significance."

In other words, this very positive thing these actors did—addressing a question about their sexualities with the simple, non-TMI truth rather than hiding in shame, having sex partners sign nondisclosure agreements, buying brides—is really not so positive, so don't get too fucking excited.

"Take Knight, for instance. As Dr. George O'Malley, Knight is practically one of the girls on 'Grey's,' playing a confidante not unlike Sanford, Carrie Bradshaw's gay best friend on 'Sex and the City.' Also, O'Malley's heterosexuality is evident only in its thwarted nature; he is bumbling his way through a budding relationship in the character's current story line."

O'Malley is nothing like Sanford. If Wallenstein thinks bumbling heterosexuality is the same as homosexuality (or that homosexuality means being "one of the girls"), it makes his 2003 piece on anxiously seeking Jewish women in L.A. rather more illuminating that he intended. Also, he refers to Sex & the City in that story...again. Who's he callin' "one of the girls?"

"Harris might represent a more interesting test case. On 'Mother,' he plays the lecherous lothario Barney Stinson, who rarely goes an episode without a physical display of his womanizing ways. Still, Harris doesn't have to be believably hetero here because 'Mother' is a broad comedy and his role is essentially a caricature."

Not only is Harris gay and too weak to stand up to gossip-mongering, he's also taking the easy way out with his craft by playing a caricature. Nice. I don't think Harris's character is a caricature any more so than any of the people on The New Adventures Of Old Christine or whatever other sitcoms are still on the air. Wallenstein is subtly inventing rules as he goes along—talk-show hostesses can be openly gay, the actors whose parts dip into caricature can be gay and girly-man characters can be played by gays, all without changing the supposition that the American public frowns on openly gay actors. The question must be asked: Wallenstein seems to be arguing that America's presumed intolerance for gay actors is an incontrovertible fact, but is he bemoaning or endorsing this state of affairs? I wonder if he would consider this progress?

"Neither Harris nor Knight are in the mold of the traditional leading man, and that's a huge distinction. That type of role is predicated on an actor's sex appeal to the opposite gender. Absurd as it sounds, on some level viewers have to believe the object of their affection could somehow reciprocate their attraction.

"Just imagine if 'Grey's' [SIC] resident heartthrob, Patrick Dempsey, who is not gay, had come out. Would McDreamy still be as popular, and would that affect the popularity of 'Grey's'?"

This is the It's-Never-Enough Syndrome. Finally, some extremely well-known and, frankly, beloved actors are on the record as being gay and Wallenstein moves the goalposts—the only true test of America's tolerance and imagination will be the coming out of someone that female viewers can easily picture mounting them. If female couch potatoes can still masturbate to him after he comes out, then and only then will people like Wallenstein be willing to retire the Gay-Is-Not-Okay Rule when it comes to celebrities.

"Given the rapacious tabloid climate in which Hollywood operates, it is perhaps inevitable that a sexy lead actor will be outed. And if the disclosures of Harris and Knight seem like a big deal, just wait and see what happens when someone more like a modern-day Hudson follows in their footsteps."

It's impossible to mistake Wallenstein's tone—he is arguing that when a famous heartthrob comes out, it will be a very big deal, and it will not go well. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's not. But arguing it as if it were a done deal sells us all short and pressures all you gay actors out there reading this (hi!) to stay closeted. That in turn influences all those gay non-actors out there watching you to stay closeted in numbers far greater than they would if our pop-culture landscape were peopled with a more representative number of proud gays.

Also, Wallenstein is at it again with the bashing of gossip, which if it ceased to exist would take the entire world of entertainment and half the fun of life with it.

And journalistically, his closing paragraph is unsound—it ignores the fact that not one but countless "sexy lead actors" have already been out-and-out- or all-but-outed. And I'm not just talking about Perez Hilton's nervy but ultimately playful comments about Jake Gyllenhaal and Matthew McConaughey. Outing and stories that insinuate the homosexuality of stars (one of whom just got hitched) are common. It's the response, "Yes, that's true," that is so uncommon.

I for one would rather writers avoid undermining the power of truth—as I feel Wallenstein's piece does in ways subtle and not so subtle, intentional and perhaps unconscious—so that more actors and other public figures will follow Knight and Harris out of the closet and lead our country out of the Victorian Era once and for all.

Comments

[Bufftuff]

EXCELLENT. I had read the piece and agree that the author is definitely splitting hairs. These guys, I feel, weren't doing damage control of their careers, just wrestling control over the matter. I am really glad that they both came out.
Yes, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. A really fickle world, as it is.

Really super blog posts. I really admire your take on various subjects.
Big hairy muscle hugs of thanks.

[Matthew Rettenmund]

Thanks! I could really feel that comment!