Oy, there he goes again. Matt Damon thinks gay actors should be in the closet.
He thinks attitudes are changing, and welcomes the introduction of same-sex marriage in California in 2008. “I think it must be really hard for actors to be out publicly,” he continues. “But in terms of actors, I think you’re a better actor the less people know about you period. And sexuality is a huge part of that. Whether you’re straight or gay, people shouldn’t know anything about your sexuality because that’s one of the mysteries that you should be able to play.”
This is in the same interview that contains this:
…Damon insists he’s entirely normal. He has a wife, Luciana, whom he met while filming in Miami in 2003 when she was working behind a bar, and the couple have four daughters ranging in age from four to 16 – Alexia, from Luciana’s previous relationship, Isabella, Gia and Stella. Damon is a self-confessed family man. He has a rule that they will never be apart for more than two weeks while he’s filming. His daily life is so average even the paparazzi have decamped from outside his home in Los Angeles because he never does anything that merits a photograph.
“You know, a guy who’s married happily with four kids is not quite a story,” Damon says with a sorry-but-what-can-you-do smile. “And so they’ll come back and they’ll take an occasional picture… but it’s kind of just updating the file.”
Ah, he’s married to a woman — perfectly normal. Normal, normal, normal. Let’s make that an open part of the interview, proudly mentioned.
But if you’re gay…nothing about that can be normal. Keep it quiet. It’ll make you a better actor if no one knows about your sex and family life.
I guess that public normality makes Damon a lesser actor.
Don’t announce your sexuality! This means… never bringing your significant other to any public functions or parties. In fact, if you have a significant other, you need to keep them perpetually hidden in your house so that no one else ever sees them so that your sexual orientation remains a mystery! Because that makes total sense. /sarcasm
Fuck. You. Damon…
I guess he does have a point. So, since I had been looking forward to seeing “The Martian”, I’ll just have to try to forget I ever read that.
I think it was Lincoln who said something about speaking out and removing all doubt.
Well, so much for keeping his sexuality private. There goes the mystic. I’m surprised he can get parts now that the everybody know he’s a het.
This doesn’t seem at all fair to me. Elizabeth Day, who wrote the article, is apparently the one who framed it like this. Here’s the set-up to the part you quoted:
What he clearly means, when he’s talking about values for actors, is that he doesn’t like the bullshit that comes along with people making assumptions about you or confusing your private life with the work that you do. In addition to being harmful to people, it’s at best a distraction from appreciating the craft of acting, which he actually cares about. He also clearly cares about having privacy and wanting some kind of a normal life (not necessarily a straight life, a normal one for him), whether or not we’ll allow him to have one now that he’s a celebrity. He wanted people to evaluate the work he was doing and the characters he was playing. That’s it — perhaps it’s hopelessly naive, but that’s it. Whether or not you’re gay just isn’t relevant to doing good work on the screen/stage.
He’s even quoted saying coming out can be difficult (in ways he clearly thinks are wrong and unnecessary), and he welcomes same-sex marriage. That’s the context of the quote you seem to have a problem with, not just the fact that people already do know (including the interviewer who presumably brought the subject up) that he’s straight with a wife and kids. So, why would anybody even try to interpret this as “gays, keep it quiet, don’t come out of the closet”?
And then there’s the bizarre follow-up:
What do his arms have to do with any of this?
Damon’s (and Affleck’s) Boston roots have always been intriguing to this Beantowner here (not, not by birth but by conscious choice, I adopted Beany as my hometown).
Even more so, given their first movie: which they cowrote.Good Will Hunting, being set at MIT my alma mater.
However, his performances since have been ~~ whatever ~~.
Recently he schooled a POC director, on “Greenlight”, about how “diversity” [his scare quote] is unnecessary priority. Pick actors for one’s production by talent. Diversity, (pssh) regardless.
Given that, it is unsurprising to he him say “Don’t tell me you’re gay or straight or poly or asexual. Care only about talent. Focus.”
@5
It’s a reference to an earlier line in the article:
consciousness razor,
re: arms
From the beginning of the article:
So she was drawing a full circle with that ending.
@5 CR — I don’t know. I see your point about the larger context, and the author shoe-horning the quote into her own bizarre take on the issue. But he said what he said. As with Ms. Arquette’s comments at the Oscars, it was at the very least glibly unaware phrasing. Had he chosen the term “personal life” instead of “sexuality”, he’d have been on much safer ground.
I think it was Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn who insisted that a movie star should keep their private life completely private, and eschew conversations with the press, and cheap publicity. To paraphrase, “you’re a MOVIE STAR, that’s your stock in trade, the glamor and the mystery — you should never squander it by letting your adoring public inside your bathroom or diary!” Versus, say, Jennifer Aniston, whose every fart is a crisis for the cover of People or US….none of which happens without her publicist and agent heavily involved in promoting her as something other than a 3rd-rate TV has-been. In the era of Grant and Hepburn, Errol Flynn’s off-stage escapades were so well-known that his reputation has an actor (and he was VERY VERY good, not to mention stunningly handsome) has suffered, then and since. He became associated with a certain sleaziness (“in like Flynn”).
Whereas the mystery of Grant, regardless of his still-debated sexuality, has never been cheapened. We know next to nothing about the man, all we have is the MOVIE STAR, capitalized, in bright lights, on the marquee.
And the suits, of course. Man, he could wear a suit like nobody’s business…….
He does have a point; I try to know as little as possible about the actors I enjoy watching. But that’s on me, not on them. All I have to do is not read interviews or pay attention to tabloids.
Yes, I know, I did read the whole thing. What does it have to do with any of this?
Does it suggest the author thinks it’s about whether he is or isn’t “normal” in the sense that PZ means? Is that what Damon thinks? Is it the case, whatever they think, that gay people are not muscular?
If you are muscular (or not), does that mean you’re merely pretending to be “normal,” pretending to be anything else that you’re not? Does this give away the transparent little game you’re playing of trying (and failing) to be mysterious somehow, in order to have “privacy and creative space”? Are non-muscular people non-mysterious? … What the fuck is it supposed to mean, if anything?
But sexuality is part of his personal life. What are you saying?
She was the one asking about that aspect of his personal life, apparently (when she says “Really?” in a paragraph of its own) unaware of his experiences in the past, after Good Will Hunting came out, when some people made up a lot of garbage about Damon and Affleck being gay. Garbage which he himself would say is garbage. He didn’t go there on a whim, to make some point about how seriously we should take acting, or how we should respect actors as ordinary/normal human beings. She went there.
It shouldn’t be surprising at all that you not only hear his perspective as an ordinary person but also his perspective as an actor. What do you expect? Was he seriously supposed to say “yeah, confuse me with my characters however you like, and make up false rumors about me that are deeply offensive, that’s really helpful”?? Maybe I’m missing something, but I sincerely do not see what’s problematic about it.
I admit what he is quoted as saying does sound bad if it is applied widely to all people but I do not think that is what was meant. His complaint is that what the actors own personality is and what their behavior in their own time is better left private because it all too easily intrudes and interferes with the public’s interpretation and appreciation of the performance. As such I think it is “advice” to other actors as well as his own practice.
uncle frogy
Regarding his arms, I took that comment to mean that his arms give him away as a movie star–that is, only a movie star (and not a normal person) would have the time to sculpt their arms into that shape. I don’t think it was meant to be a comment on his (perceived) sexuality.
Not that that makes much more sense.
Two of the biggest names in French cinema:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b310/jetgirl78/lj2007/8-femme.jpg
Fanny Ardant and Catherine Deneuve, as far as I know both quite straight.
Movie: 8 femmes.
Two big names in Dutch cinema:
https://media.pathe.nl/nocropthumb/1600×900/gfx_content/allocine/medias/nmedia/18/35/55/thom-hoffman_15414.jpg
Thom Hoffman and Jeroen Krabbé, as far as I know both also quite straight (and it gets more explicit).
Movie: De Vierde Man, the best one Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Robocop) ever made. Krabbé plays a pervert gay whose devout catholicism helps him to get through life.
It didn’t prevent him from getting acclaimed roles in a Bond movie and The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
“I think it must be really hard for actors to be out publicly,”
Sharon Stone?
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls005591394/
“one of the mysteries”
Hey Matt, idea. Maintain your mystery by kissing a man in your next movie.
His statement was that orientation, gay or straight, shouldn’t be open. He specifically stated that the public should not know if an actor is straight.
He then stated he was straight (or, more accurately, he was married to a woman). It follows that he did not obey his own rules. It does *not* follow that he thinks his rules only apply to gays. He’s not chastising anyone, gay or straight, for breaking his rules and there’s no reason to think that he assumes gay people should obey his rules any more than straight.
It does make him a bit of a wanker for making hifalutin’ rules he himself doesn’t obey though.
It’s not really realistic, is it? Movie stars (and other celebrities) can refuse to discuss their personal lives, and try to keep their loved ones out of sight of the rest of the media, but ultimately can’t control what reporters and bloggers write about. No, we shouldn’t care about an actor’s sexuality (or a host of other personal details about them) but as long as some people do, the wagon will trundle on.
And whereas I’d never advocate that someone reveal such information about themselves if they don’t wish to, the “mystery” he alludes to is not in play for everyone equally. As long as the assumption is straight until proven otherwise, but with heaps of stereotyping and rumor-mongering to hint that a particular person is gay or somehow other, no famous person’s personal life can be kept in some sort of hermetically sealed bubble. It’s not a reasonable assumption, and surely more openness would lead to less of the OMG is s/he gay?! bullshit that plagues celebrity reporting.
@17.
I didn’t say it was a smart thing to say. It was pretty stupid and insipid for all the reason you state. One awards ceremony with one’s significant other and all “mystery” (such as it was) goes out the window, so the statement so at the very least it wasn’t very carefully thought through. But it takes a logical fallacy to turn it into a hypocritical, it only applies to gays, type of bigoted statement.
@13
I don’t think it was “advice to other actors” or advice to anyone in particular. Basically there are only two views: we should expect all actors to be equally open or closeted, or we should have unequal expectations. I think he merely thought it be more note-worthy and interesting if he said actors should all be closeted rather than the more predictable and boring actors should all be open. And I don’t think he thought it through.
That’s part of what I was calling “naive,” but of course that doesn’t mean he thinks gay people should be closeted, or that he’s being hypocritical or anything like that. I think that’s just coming from not bothering to read it carefully or in context.
But, yes. Whenever there is a straight character in a movie, we don’t tend to ask things like this: “Is the person playing this part secretly gay? How can they act straight, if they’re not actually straight?” It makes as much sense as asking whether a villainous character can be played by a nice person. Of course they can. On the other hand, gay people should be given the part if the role is a gay character, since unlike villains there is no moral problem in hiring them. Maybe it makes a kind of sense to assume that at a statistical level, since straight people are the majority, but in fact you don’t even need an actual gay character or anything like that, just to get the rumor/hate mill churning.
Good Will Hunting is a fine example: any man openly expressing emotions or vulnerability is a sign of being “gay” to certain people. Or they might think it’s a “chick flick,” because those kinds of themes are explored in it. Or a straight woman might then be uncertain about her attraction to the (straight?) man playing that part and turn it into an issue that has nothing to do with the film, as if superficial things like physical appearance or their attraction to a celebrity actually matters at all. Gender roles for women work in much the same way.
Whatever happens, for some people, that counts as a valid criticism of the movie or the people in it. If you’ve got stereotyping like that, the rest follows. And then, on top of putting the actors into the awkward position of having to “defend” themselves by pointing out the fact that they’re straight, as if they were on trial for something, or as if that mattered at all to them or what they were doing, you’re not even trying to appear as if you appreciate the work they put into making the thing. The subject has shifted to something else.
I think they’re allowed to care about the quality of the work that they do, as well as how this dynamic affects them (and others) as ordinary human beings, even if realistically speaking many others don’t care and perpetuate it. Instead of blaming celebrities for exposing themselves to this kind of bullshit, it makes a lot more sense to me to look in the other direction, since that’s usually the source of the bullshit.
When a person repeatedly brings up the alleged necessity of remaining in the closet, aggressively points to his wife and children, and describes himself as “normal,” well….
consciousness razor, you got it exactly right.
That was also my impression after actually reading the article: Statements attributed to Damon are actually the reporter’s interpretation, “normal” does not refer to his sexuality but the ordinariness of his private life, people already know he’s married to a woman so I did not get the impression he was advertising the fact that he’s straight, he was not telling anyone to stay in the closet but explaining the deplorable career costs of coming out, and his arms… his arms… I still don’t get it. i think the reporter had a crush on his arms. My arms are muscular, I’m not a movie star, and my sexuality has nothing to do with my arms.
The article was certainly below the Guardian’s normal standards; entertainment “journalism” for you.
Sorry, can’t help but read this as a subtle (ie stage whisper) dig at Harvey Fierstein. Fierstein is openly gay and flaunts it in all the roles he plays. He plays it up so much, it is sometimes distracting. I doubt that is what Matt is actually referring to, Just want to say that if you put his comments in a **fabulous** context, they make slightly more sense (not really).
excuse me for butting in.
Um… huh?
Please explain. Is it assumed X people are better at playing X roles? Immoral people are better at playing villains? Gays are better at playing gay? Geminis are better at playing Geminis?
I literally said moral people can do it, but even if an immoral person would ideally be better suited for it in a certain sense, it’s not like that means you should hire immoral people. You should work with good people. This is acting — there is no actual dirty work that you need done, so that wouldn’t even make sense as an attempt at justifying it. They’re just different questions.
Anyway, gay people are not villains, so the point was to clarify the analogy, since I didn’t want anyone assuming I was implying that. Pick a different analogy if you want. They don’t need superpowers to play Spiderman. They don’t need to know much at all about medicine to play a doctor. It’s just a claim like that, but knowing about it or being it certainly wouldn’t hurt, right? That is, it wouldn’t hurt generally, assuming it’s not taken in absurd directions, like you should hire a real serial-murderer to play the part of a serial-murderer. Other stuff starts to matter to you, once you take it in directions like that.
They shouldn’t be disproportionately harmed, for one thing by being excluded from acting opportunities. It’s similar to the reason we shouldn’t hire white actors, to put on blackface and play a black character. There are great black actors who can do that, who shouldn’t be excluded or neglected. And of course their own life experiences can be relevant for portraying a character fairly, accurately, sensitively, with cultural and historical understanding, as well as a sense of depth that can make the character interesting or realistic.
So… why do straight actors play gay characters? As Damon rightfully pointed out, coming out gay does often come with a cost. It’s not simply because they’re better at it, or just as good at it, as gay actors are. We’re not in a situation like that, in which everyone is starting on an equal footing with equal advantages or opportunities, so the best actor for a part naturally “wins” as you might have expected.
Are you aware of anything like that in the case of Geminis?
Being married to a woman does not imply that he is straight; he could be bi, pan or whatever. Unless he has at some point stated publicly that he is indeed straight then there could be parts of his sexuality that has been kept private.
That said, i do think it’s hilarious that straight men are the ones we most often hear telling others to keep their sexuality to themselves when straight men are so comfortable expressing sexual attraction that they engage in really obnoxious and toxic behavior like cat calling, leaving explicit comments on news articles, blog posts, social media, etc whenever there is a picture of a woman that they deem to be particularly attractive or unattractive , bragging about sexual prowess and conquests, etc. What’s more, straight men are so invested in their own sexuality that they often react aggressively to anyone that directly or indirectly calls it into question. It’s all so glaringly hypocritical. I always roll my eyes when some straight idiot complains about a gay men being too flamboyant. No homo.
Okay, I’m finding that a very strange statement. I realize it’s not an important one in your argument but I do think this is a strange assumption. I don’t think being X really impacts any body’s ability to play an X person. I really don’t.
I don’t think it helps that much. Not enough to make it any criterion in casting, at any rate.
That’s different. 1) That assumes the character’s and the actor’s race will be immediately apparent and one *can’t* affect a race the way can affect a role and 2) There’s a long history of racism involved and wrongs to right.
One can argue the second is relevant with gays (although I wouldn’t) but the first isn’t.
No, but I’m not aware of anything like that with gay, serial killers, doctors, superheroes or Californians either.
I think the costs and unequal footing and historical discrimination at being gay are different and separate from anyone’s ability to play gay. Which I guess would be a third point to the two above about black actors.
I’m really not comfortable with any statement implying gay people are naturals for gay roles and straights are natural for straights.
Anyway, it’s a minor point. I wanted clarification. Thanks for providing it.
I mean, that’s not really hypocritical if he believes that the interview makes him a weaker actor. In fact, isn’t that his point? That because there’s nothing that interesting about him, people find him boring, and therefore perhaps a weaker actor. It’s in some ways, bad press.
Or maybe he was more referring to actors who aren’t already famous or something. But seriously, that’s like his opinion or whatever. Who cares? Do you really think an actor is going to listen to Matt Damon specifically about this?
Sorry that I only write on the rare occasions that I do not agree, but dissing Matt Damon, for this? With all the truly evil people out there, you take time to exaggerate this non-event? Matt Damon? Really? Is there something he could have said without having to feel the righteous(?) wrath of “Logic”? This post makes as much sense as an MRA rant to me. I think you are hurting the (our) cause when you ridicule the importance of the issue by writing something like this. If I have to hate Matt Damon for this uncontroversial statement, I have to hate the whole world, there is almost nowhere left to go. I miss the non-extremism on this blog. What’s next, dissing Elizabeth Warren, because she did not mention gay’s rights enough times in an interview about the economy? That means she doesn’t really care! And Matt Damon? We don’t care that you are helping to advance important humanitarian missions, FU for trying to bring water to arid places! You are bringing water to people who hate gays! And also, you made an ambivalent statement regarding the perception the public has of actors and you called your family “normal”! Why? Am I not normal to you????
Oh yeah I can feel the hate from Matt……..
Sorry but this is just ridiculous.
Except that the comment about being ‘normal’ was in paragraph 4 and referred to being a traditional movie star, and the comment about sexuality was around paragraph 35 and in reference to him feeling forced to address rumors about him and Affleck being gay.
I find it slightly dishonest to use quotes that are so out of context and sequence.
Being forced to address rumours that they might be gay…..because how insulting that anyone might mistake them for one of those…
[quote]Being forced to address rumours that they might be gay…..because how insulting that anyone might mistake them for one of those…[/quote]
Calm down, he’s clearly talking about how reporters would insist on asking him about it. He is not claiming that it was some horrible accusation made against his person.
Everybody needs to calm down about this non-issue. People are upset with Matt Damon because he said something stupid last week on that show and now people are trying to divine other atrocities in other stuff he’s said. When he was talking about an actor hiding their sexuality, he wasn’t saying that is the way he thinks it should be; he was merely describing the way it is. Even straight celebrities often try to hide their romances with other celebrities because when they get in the tabloids for that kind of stuff, it can hurt their career.
And the word “normal” was obviously in reference to his family life as opposed to a George Clooney party-type guy. It was not a hint at his heterosexuality. When Neil Patrick Harris is described as a normal family guy, no one thinks it is supposed to mean anything other than that.
Matt Damon said one poorly thought out thing on that HBO show. He then admitted he was wrong and apologized and seemed to learn from it. We should applaud that kind of thing.
He is in fact acting like it is a horrible accusation. One so terrible that it forced him to break his own beloved values of privacy and the non-relevance of his personal life to his carrier. If he trully believed this and he was consistent, he wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at the “accusations”. The fact that he did, despite his stated position on this issues says a lot…
I don’t see how you read this quote and come up with your opinion, Dreaming. Seems pretty clear to me that he’s saying that the assumption that people have a right to know is what’s offensive. I think your reverse ‘no true Scotsman’ argument is just about as valid as the normal one, by the way.
“I know. It’s just like any piece of gossip… and it put us in a weird position of having to answer, you know what I mean? Which was then really deeply offensive. I don’t want to, like [imply] it’s some sort of disease – then it’s like I’m throwing my friends under the bus. But at the time, I remember thinking and saying, Rupert Everett was openly gay and this guy – more handsome than anybody, a classically trained actor – it’s tough to make the argument that he didn’t take a hit for being out.”
Remember when Michael Jackson took a chimp as a date to one award show, and Brooke Shields as a date to another? Talk about mysterious.
I come up with that opinion because it’s obvious from his own words:
“it put us in a weird position of having to answer”.
No, you, as a matter of actual fact, DON’T have to answer. You choose to. That’s the whole bleeding point of his position on how people shouldn’t have to discuss their sexuality or their private life and how those things should be utterly irrelevant to ones career. If he practiced what he preached, he would have given a blank stare to the people asking him stupid questions about his private life and making pointless conjectures about his sexuality. But he didn’t do that. He felt “forced” to comment, lest someone made the mistake of thinking he wasn’t a heterosexual man.
This kind of thing is unbelievably common even among self-professed allies of the LGBTQA community. It’s obviously not the worst crime against this community, but it betrays an internalised homophobia that is very much there.
I must admit that, if I was ever in a prominent position in life (unlikely to say the least, but bear with me) and someone asked me if I was a member of the LGBTQ community, my response would be ‘does it matter?’ If they continued to try to make some kind of issue out of it, I would know to a certainty that this interviewer was a person with an agenda, and probably a bigoted one at that, and so are not with speaking to, and the interview would come to an abrupt end.
I don’t see why a straight person should feel forced to answer as if to avoid to harmful misapprehension. If you truly believe that there is nothing wrong with being a member of the LGBTQ community, then why should you care if some nitwit makes that assumption about you erroneously? If other bigots then act upon that assumption and, say, deny you job opportunities, then are those persons really the kind of people you would want to be working with (remember that, as a prominent person, you are unlikely to be in dire financial straits and so can afford to be hold your employers to fairly high standards of ethical behaviour, and refuse to work for those who fall short)?
The only person who has a limited legitimate interest in the answer to that question is the person you are sleeping with, and they more likely than not already have firsthand experience of the truth of the matter. And again, so long as you aren’t actively repelled by the notion of sexual intimacy with them, does it matter if you are also attracted to persons of the same sex as yourself? I don’t see why it would.
*Sigh* Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia made the same point ahead of me @ 35. I must read the thread more carefully in future.
That’s alright, after all i was told to calm down by people who know better than me what is or is not homophobia…because what the fuck would i know…
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia:
People weren’t just innocently speculating about his sexual orientation. In fact, they were being aggressively offensive about gay people, using him as a (fake) example to insult gays. That’s what we’re talking about. When somebody is assuming that about me (I’m straight, not that it makes a difference) by saying all kinds of bigoted crap about gay people and mistakenly including me as a member of that group, yes, I do feel very much obliged to tell them to go fuck themselves, and as a matter of fact my sexuality is also none of their fucking business. How the fuck is that my problem?
You can’t tell the difference between telling them to go fuck themselves, pointing out their bigotry, stating clearly and confidently that your sexuality is none of their fucking business and making sure that they know that you are not one of those gays they hate? Why would that be important for him, uh?
And actual ally who thinks the way Damon claims to think, would use his privacy and the desire to keep his sexuality completely separate from his public life to help others who are actually non-heterosexual. which it definitely would, by setting a great example of how to react to ridiculous speculation and questions about something that is nobody’s business. Instead, he panicked and made sure they knew he wasn’t, which throws his non-heterosexual colleagues under the bus and makes him an hypocrite.
But he wasn’t saying it was wrong for gay people to admit their homosexuality. He was saying it might be bad for them to do so. As part of the idea that revealing general details about yourself is bad, using himself as an example because he’s a boring person. At least that’s what I understood from the conversation.
It would only be hypocritical if he wasn’t critical of himself as well. Like would you say it’s hypocritical to say something like “Don’t do the thing that I did. It didn’t do me any good and won’t do you any good.”
I can tell the difference. Can you?
Yes, why would it? You’re attributing lots of beliefs and motivations to him, which are wildly inconsistent with his stated views on gays, gay rights, other progressive causes generally, and his concern for people he describes as his friends.
How do you know any of it? When he says this, for example:
Then what makes you think he secretly cares about doing the opposite of that?
Jesus fucking christ…i don’t know, the fact that he did?
I’m attributing motivations to him because i see this stuff ALL OF THE FUCKING TIME and because what other possible reason would someone with his stated beliefs have to throw his values away? Since you know better than i do, tell us, why did he do something that is entirely inconsistent with everything he claims to believe, exactly? And why do so many people, not just him, feel such a powerful need to clarify when it is speculated they might be gay? Please, illuminate me, oh wise one.
I don’t think he is lying when he says he cares about his non-heterosexual colleagues, i don’t even think he realises that it is in fact homophobic to react the way he did…but the fact is, it is. And the hypocrisy and homophobia involved deserve to be pointed out.
You might as well say that someone can’t have any racist attitudes or biases, if they say they aren’t, because hey, that would be inconsistent with their stated beliefs and that’s clearly impossible and has never happened…
The fact that he did what? He implied it’s a disease and threw his friends under the bus?
When do you think that actually happened? During the interview, years ago when Good Will Hunting came out, any time since then, in the future….?
The problem might be this:
Is that when it happened? Or does it have more to do with the next part?
Where the hell is it?
Is being pointlessly obtuse a hobby you have?
The fact that he felt “forced” to clarify that he is heterosexual.
And yet, once again, he felt it necessary to discuss his sexuality to make sure people know he is not gay…
It’s a fact that he’s straight. Do you need another reason, besides simple honesty, to correct people when they’re saying things that are false? Some people care a lot about their sex lives and sexuality, maybe more so if they have a spouse and kids who mean a lot to them. I’m not really like that, and it’s not important to me. Honesty still is. In any case, gay people are not the only ones with legitimate reasons to care about what their orientation means in their lives.
It does seem useful to point out that these bigots can’t even get their facts right. They know nothing about it, and they’re clearly terrible at identifying gay people, because bullshit gender-role stereotypes are driving their assumptions about everybody, instead of anything reasonable having to do with sex or sexual orientation itself. Are those not reasons to “clarify” things for these people who merely “speculated” and supposedly have no ill will or misconceptions about gays?
Do you not know how to read or are you just trolling for the hell of it?
How many times do his own words need to be quoted before you recognise that we are not talking about “some people” but about a specific someone who has explicitely stated this:
It is not in any way required to “clarify” your own sexuality to point out to the people speculating about your sexuality that they are being arseholes for making pointless and prejudiced assumptions. And for someone who has explicitely said that it is in fact BETTER to not clarify your own sexuality and is encouraging others not to, this is very hypocritical.
re: #47
I could emphasize “But in terms of actors, I think you’re a better actor….” since you don’t seem to understand what that means. It’s about actors and acting. I don’t need to selectively emphasize “Whether you’re straight” but leave out “or gay,” since that is what he actually said and meant.
#48:
Why would it need to be required? Do you only ever do things that are somehow required of you? Why does this matter?
There are various reasons to do it, even if it isn’t required. They’re not all the kinds of reasons you’re very uncharitably reading into it (based on no tangible evidence as far as I can see). They don’t all fit the story you want to tell. Why should that count as a reason to believe your story, instead of just a restatement of it in a different form?
Please think about this a little. At the time of this interview, the interviewer knew he was straight. If having a wife and several biological children is not enough of a clear signal that he’s very likely straight, I’m sure he’s probably already said enough at various times throughout his career, to make this fact obvious to everyone and their dog. He was not doing anything like coming out of the closet in this interview. He was reflecting on events (because he was apparently prompted to do so) that happened quite a while ago in the past. That ship has sailed for him.
If it would be better for actors to maintain the kind of mystery he thinks they should be able to use to make for more effective acting, this is not something he could have done in this interview. It’s not something he could’ve reversed or negated by refusing to talk about it then, after being asked questions (not advertising it himself for no reason) from a person, who like everybody fucking else, already fucking knew he’s straight. If he were a time-traveler and could reverse it all, or if he could undo it some other way or control what other people do, then it might make sense to call him hypocritical. But it doesn’t make any sense here.
And what the fuck is he again….ah yes, HE IS A FUCKING ACTOR!
It’s not required, because IT ISN’T FUCKING REQUIRED! You can tell someone that their prejudiced speculations are ridiculous without adding “and i’m straight”, can’t you? So no, not required…AT ALL. I do it all the time without discussing my own sexuality, imagine that…
There may be reasons to do it, but not for someone who has explicitely stated the values that HE has stated!
And no, nobody “knew” he was straight, you arsehole, because having a wife and children doesn’t make someone straight. Being exclusively attracted to people of the opposite sex makes you straight and nobody could possibly know that unless he fucking says so. Which would be fine, except that he claims nobody should do that and they are better off not doing it.
And now i’m done with your stupid, little, disingenuous, hyperskeptical game of obtuseness. Fuck off.
@51 Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia
Can somebody ever change their mind? Is it possible to hold an opinion in the present that at some point in the past you didn’t hold? Is it possible that through experience and reflection you might learn things about the world you didn’t know when you were younger? Is it hypocritical to share those insights because you weren’t born with the foreknowledge of them?
Oh, for crying out loud….
Yes, of course people can change their minds…but he is talking NOW, and saying this:
This is him now, not then, now, saying that he still feels like they were forced to answer, in the same interview where he says nobody should respond to such ridiculous gossip. He did NOT say “i now feel nobody should respond to such stupid gossip and i regret that i did at the time”. He also says it was THEN very deeply offensive, but not so offensive that he could have, you know, said so. No, it was so deeply offensive having to answer those ridiculous speculations about their sexuality that he had “no other choice” but to answer them…
Can i forget about this now…?
Uh… didn’t Matt Damon appear in a video all about how he was having sex with a woman?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KOtCkSBxrdQ
And, not to be slut shaming here, but I’m not sure how many people would use the words “normal, family man” to describe someone having casual sex with Sarah Silverman.
@54 zibble
It seems you’ve mistaken a comedy scetch for a documentary.