By Hannah Kwok,
Staff Writer
With the rise of queer media, representation is more important than ever to promote and validate LGBTQ+ stories, hardships and experiences. However, it is disheartening when queer struggles are exploited in film to present a more woke or inclusive image. This further begs the question: should straight actors be allowed to play queer characters, and if so, what draws the line between queerbaiting versus authentic representation?
The term queerbaiting, which has grown in popularity on platforms such as Instagram and Tiktok, criticizes those who capitalize on the appearance or depiction of LGBTQ+ characters for media attention. While queerbaiting calls out celebrities for sexualizing same-sex relationships, such as in controversy from Billie Eilish’s music video “Lost Cause,” the term can also be harmful to those unlabeled.
This pertains to the media forcing celebrities to identify their sexuality, such as Kit Connor from Netflix’s “Heartstopper,” a queer coming-of-age romance that had fans pressuring him to come out due to queerbaiting allegations. While it is important to respect an actor’s privacy and right to identify on their own terms, it is understandable where this anger arises from. The solution to preventing queerbaiting is simple: to give queer representative actors queer roles! To look into this idea, it is best to explore how film and media appropriation has impacted queer culture.
Though these leading roles performed by straight actors, iconic LGBTQ+ movies such as “Call Me By Your Name,” “Carol,” “Bohemian Rhapsody,” “The Danish Girl” and “Brokeback Mountain” have transformed Hollywood by giving queer folk a larger platform to see themselves on screen. Though these conversation-starting movies address topics such as discovering one’s identity, coming out, dysmorphia, gender reassessment and homophobia, it is disappointing that spoiler alert all of them end in tragedy.
Due to emotional factors, queer stories become the perfect opportunity for straight actors to swipe an Oscar-winning role. I can say that Eddie Redymane’s performance in “The Danish Girl,” based on the true story of Lili Elbe, the first transgender woman to undergo gender affirmation surgery, was deeply moving and groundbreaking in expressing the struggles of dysmorphia. Nonetheless, it felt inappropriate to cast Redmayne, a straight, cisgender male, in a story so important to queer history, in a role that should’ve been given to a trans actor. While some might question that an actor is only playing a part for their job, it must also be understood that films are more than just entertainment. But rather, they are a reflection on culture and the importance of diverse perspectives.
When an actor plays a character from a marginalized community, we must question if their role does more harm than justice (such as unnecessarily killing or breaking off characters for dramatic endings). Are they respecting the community or adding to the stereotypes (the sassy sidekick, the punchline of the joke, or a token side character)? And worst of all, does the onscreen narrative exploit queer folk through dehumanizing or sexualizing performances? LGBTQ+ audiences need someone they can identify with, as it makes the story and representation more empowering and genuine.
Being queer is not something one can just turn on and off when it benefits them; it is part of one’s identity, and in order to express authentic stories, we must feature authentic storytellers. In honor of February, I encourage you to support and celebrate authentic queer stories and media—love is love!