Recently
two Toronto theatre reviewers wrote homophobic reviews of Shaw Festival
productions.
This must be discussed.
Let’s
get the minor matter of sexuality out of the way. One reason that the gay liberation
movement was founded so many years ago was to eliminate the need for sexual
categories. The movement hoped society might someday evolve to a point where
such things would not matter. Unfortunately we have not reached that point. If
I were to reveal that the two actors who were victimized in these reviews were
gay, I know I would immediately stand corrected. There would certainly be actor
denials (‘My sexuality is irrelevant, and also a private issue!’) or I would be
accused of ‘outing’ them. So I won’t. However, the fact that I feel inhibited
speaking about the sexuality of these actors means that we haven’t come a long way, baby. Not at all.
To the larger issues.
Richard Ouzounian’s review of Ragtime is blatantly homophobic. His
remark about Jay Turvey’s portrayal of Tateh…"too often, you feel you’re
watching Paul Lynde” – is quite witty – that is, for those of us
long-in-the-tooth enough to know who Paul Lynde was. For those under 50, I will
explain. Paul Lynde was an American comedian who was known primarily for his
effeminacy. He was the closest thing to an ‘out of the closet’ gay TV/movie
actor there was in the pre-liberation days of the 1960s. Ouzounian is saying
that Jay Turvey’s performance was too effeminate; therefore heterosexual
audience would not accept him as playing a heterosexual character.
J. Kelly Nestruck says pretty
much the same thing about Steven Sutcliffe in Present Laughter, only he backs up his opinions with scholarship,
and seems conscious that his remarks may be homophobic. “I realize it’s
stepping into a bit of minefield to suggest that a particular actor is
unconvincing as straight—in part because it’s silly to assert that gay men act
one way and straight men another. But with his hair slicked back, a
high-pitched flamboyant delivery and frequent swishing of his dressing gown,
Sutcliffe’s Garry certainly reads as gay to a modern audience.” Nestruck not
only takes on Sutcliffe’s performance, but Noel Coward, the playwright, quoting
Peter Hall “What a wonderful play Present
Laughter would be if – as Coward must have wanted – all those love affairs
were about homosexuals.”
By these remarks, both reviewers
suggest that effeminacy and homosexuality are one in the same thing. Nestruck
tries to make us aware that he knows this is not true. I realize that the
well-meant political correctness that controls discourse in modern culture has
created quite a sticky wicket for Nestruck -- and all others who are thoughtful
and well-meaning. We dare not suggest that homosexuals are more effeminate than
heterosexuals, as most modern gay men spend 100% percent of their time trying
to convince straights they are exactly the same as they are. Nevertheless,
cultural stereotypes and prejudices exist, and the ‘general public’ -- i.e. everybody -- pretty well figures
that a limp wristed male is a cocksucker. Sorry, but those are the facts, ma’am.
Underlying
these assumptions is a notion that pretty well everyone has accepted: i.e. that
there’s something wrong with being an effeminate male (whether you’re gay or straight). This, I would suggest, is a
fundamental transhistorical western notion, and has a lot to do with worries
about male ‘begetting’ and being a warrior, two skills that are considered linked
to masculinity (bizzarely, I think). However, the idea that all men should be or can be consistently masculine is inhumane, unrealistic and, well,
nuts.
Nestruck’s
critique of Noel Coward’s playwrighting hints at the difficulties that arise
from accepting such a premise. He’s certainly right to suggest that Present Laughter is not a perfect a
play (the way Private Lives and Hay Fever are). It behooves Coward (and
all gay men) to eternally write perfect plays, because if they do not, the plays
will be criticized for being badly written because they author was a
homosexual. Homosexuals, you see, don’t really understand straight culture, or at
least understood it differently than straights themselves (i.e. there are
dangerous implications to their understandings). This critique of gay writers
goes back to 1958 when Robert Brustein lambasted William Inge for emasculating American males in his plays.
Present Laughter features a beautifully
written, hilarious, deep , witty analysis of the relationship between vanity
and illusion, and between love and sex. It’s as if Jacques walked out of As You Like it and starred in his own
play. When Coward performed the role he was much adored in the part. In1942 he
was able to indulge his own effeminacy as Garry because effeminacy and
homosexuality were linked secretly, but not publicly. Nowadays gay liberation
has brought us to the (glad?) point where we seem comfortable openly demonizing
men who are effeminate (they of course cannot be deep, they cannot help us
understand life, they cannot really love anyone -- especially women) because
new conservative homosexuals have colluded with the straights to such a point that
they have given straights the blessing to do so.
Well,
this is not alright with me. I don’t blame Richard Ouzounian or J. Kelly
Nestruck – they (as much as Steven
Sutcliffe and Jay Turvey ) are victims of a homophobic culture.
But
you know, I’m getting kinda tired of it.
