Secondly, it provides a limited and patronising view of a “straight audience”, who would seemingly roll their eyes and feel a sociopathic lack of empathy if a less “straight-acting” lead was assaulted by homophobic police. It’s also unpopular because it implies that exhibiting effeminate behaviour is somehow less desirable and hiding behind a more acceptable, heteronormative mask is something to aim for. As if behind closed doors the facade drops and the feather boa comes out. It suggests that any gay man who isn’t conforming to societal expectations is playing a role.
It’s an adjective that’s loathed by gay men for its implication that a so-called “masculine” set of behaviours is performed purely to emulate heterosexuality. Emmerich’s comments are problematic for a litany of reasons.įirstly, the openly gay director’s use of the term “straight-acting” is deeply offensive and unforgivably crass. The director, usually associated with blowing up stuff in Independence Day and 2012, has found himself at the centre of an understandable furore after claiming his choice of lead, a tanned twink played by earnest British actor Jeremy Irvine, was to give mainstream audiences a “straight-acting” character to identify with.
