Billy Crystal on Gay Characters on TV: "Don’t abuse it and shove it in our face."

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking to an audience during his Television Critics Association press circuit, Billy Crystal expressed that in his opinion, many of the current depictions of gay characters on television were “a bit too much." Crystal, who is currently promoting his new show 'The Comedians, made a name for himself in the late seventies playing Jodie Dallas, an openly gay character on the ABC sitcom 'Soap.'

Though gay characters were a part of some television shows at the time, their sexualities were typically only heavily implied and almost always made out to be character flaws.

Reflecting on his role, Crystal recalls that portraying a character who was openly and explicitly gay in the 1970s was both groundbreaking and extremely difficult.

“It was very difficult at the time, he explained. “Jodie was really the first recurring [gay] character on network television and it was a different time, it was 1977. So, yeah, it was awkward. It was tough.”

Crystal’s exact issues with the currently roster of gay characters appearing on network television weren’t made clear, but the actor intimated that the recent uptick of queer intimacy in shows like 'How To Get Away With Murder' were a bit too much for him.

“Sometimes, it’s just pushing it a little too far for my taste and I’m not going to reveal to you which ones they are,” he said. “I hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face… to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.”

As pioneering as Crystal’s role as Jodie Dallas was for its time, the character’s eccentricities and plotlines prove to be deeply troubling when looked at from a modern perspective. Though Dallas was written as being gay, many of the stories involving the character centered around homophobic and anti-trans themes of gender disillusionment and crossdressing for comedic effect.

WTF Billy. >_<

Source

---

Edit: Further clarification on his statements...

Found the full comments and a response he had: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv...-clarifies-his-too-much-for-me-comment-on-tv/

He was asked about the difficulty of playing a gay character, and he said:

Well, it was very difficult at the time, because basically I had the shovel. Jodie was really the first recurring character, starring character, whatever you want to call it, on network television. It was a different time. It was 1977. So, yeah, it was awkward and it was tough. I remember playing scenes with my boyfriend, Bob Seagren, who, in real life, was an Olympic gold medalist&#8230;yeah, it was awkward, and then over the years, you&#8217;d see other different characters and so on and so forth. And I&#8217;ve seen some stuff recently on TV in different kinds of shows where the language or the explicit sex is really &#8209;&#8209; you know, sometimes I get it, and sometimes I have &#8209;&#8209; I just feel like, &#8220;Ah, that&#8217;s too much for me.&#8221;&#8230;sometimes it&#8217;s just pushed a little too far for my tastes and I&#8217;m not going to get into which ones they are.

I have to say &#8216;we,&#8217; because Susan Harris wrote [Jodie], and Paul Witt and Tony Thomas and Jay Sandrich and an amazing cast of that show supported me and let me play those scenes, helped me play those scenes with some sort of courage, in a front of a live audience. See, I did it in front of a live audience and there were times where I would say to Bob [Seagren, who played Jodie&#8217;s lover, Dennis], &#8220;I love you,&#8221; and the audience would laugh nervously, because, you know, it&#8217;s a long time ago, and I&#8217;d feel this anger. I wanted to stop the tape and go, &#8220;What is your problem?&#8221; because it made you sort of very self&#8209;conscious about what we were trying to do then. And now it&#8217;s just I see it and I just hope people don&#8217;t abuse it and shove it in our face &#8209;&#8209; well, that sounds terrible [some laugher from the crowd]&#8209;&#8209; to the point of it just feels like an everyday kind of thing.

Billy, when people were asking you about &#8216;Soap&#8217; during the panel, you said something about &#8216;shove it in your face&#8217; and a few people asked me afterwards if I was offended by what you said. I&#8217;m curious about comedy and how you approach that today.

Billy Crystal: First of all, I don&#8217;t understand why there would be anything offensive that I said. When it gets too far either visually&#8230;now, that world exists because it does for the hetero world, it exists, and I don&#8217;t want to see that either. But when I feel it&#8217;s a cause, when I feel it&#8217;s &#8220;You&#8217;re going to like my lifestyle,&#8221; no matter what it is, I&#8217;m going to have a problem and there were a couple of shows I went &#8216;I couldn&#8217;t watch that with somebody else.&#8221; That&#8217;s fine. If whoever writes it or produces it&#8230;totally get it. It&#8217;s all about personal taste.

Thanks duckroll.
 
Who?

Ah, the dude from that one romantic comedy and City Slickers. Good thing there hasn't been a lot of Billy Crystal in media, don't want people shoving Billy in our faces.
 
I think he's trying to say that a character can be gay. It just shouldn't be the defining characteristic, that homosexuals are regular people.
 
Obviously you don't want being gay to seem like an everyday thing, because then what would straight actors do when they want to get attention and/or nominations? You can't always play a handicapped person or a war veteran.
 
I kinda agree with the overall message here. It seems like every drama nowadays has to shoehorn in a Romeo/Juliet homosexual subplot where the only defining character traits in one or both characters are that they are gay. Why does their homosexuality have to define them? Why can't they just be characters /and/ be gay?
 
It was almost ok until he got to the "everyday thing" part. It is an everyday thing that people are gay, Billy. I think we can all agree that we don't want hyper-flamboyant caricature's to be the sole representatives of gay people on TV though.
 
I think he's trying to say that a character can be gay. It just shouldn't be the defining characteristic, that homosexuals are regular people.

That's how I took it as well.
 
While this is pretty stupid, I do think there's a problem with gay characters in TV.

I kinda hate when the entire character of a gay character is....being gay and oh how hard it is to be gay in this society!
Glee characters come to mind.

You can do so much more with a gay character,they are more than just their sexuality!

There's some really cool gay characters in comic books and anime, with flaws, development and even great romance stories. But on TV those are pretty rare cases.

Maybe he's referring to that?
 
I can't tell whether he's mad that there are too many gay characters or whether he's criticizing the portrayal of gay characters. The second I agree with. Plenty of shows turn their gay characters into walking stereotypes. (Game of Thrones, hello)

edit: nvm, read it again. this dude just sucks
 
That's what I got...

I think he means from a storytelling perspective....

I kinda agree with the overall message here. It seems like every drama nowadays has to shoehorn in a Romeo/Juliet homosexual subplot where the only defining character traits in one or both characters are that they are gay. Why does their homosexuality have to define them? Why can't they just be characters /and/ be gay?
Its' like none of you guys are actually reading the quote.
 
He did not say that.

He literally said don't make it an "everyday" type thing.

Not sure how old you are, but I'm old enough to have seen Soap in its original run. Crystal portrayed the gay man as a regular person, i.e., not stereotypically gay. At the time it was quite refreshing. Not saying that makes him not homophobic, but it's a point in his favor at least.
 
He did not say that.

He literally said don't make it an "everyday" type thing.

Oh, man. You seem to be taking this a little too offensively.

It's true that homosexuality is being forced on TV as of late. It might be because there is now a bit of a cultural shift. People are becoming more accepting towards it, which is great. But unfortunately TV is trying to take advantage of that and they're not handling it properly.
 
Kind of sounds like he is only capable of comparing modern portrayals with the way his character was written on Soap, where being gay was still a punchline rather than something to be affirmed as normal and comparable to heterosexuality. And the show was forbidden from being too explicit about the character being in a real relationship that meant there was Sexin's happening.
 
To everyone in this topic that has defended Billy, take one second to think about how prevalent heterosexual expressions of love/lust are on TV and then look at what you posted.

I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Not sure how old you are, but I'm old enough to have seen Soap in its original run. Crystal portrayed the gay man as a regular person, i.e., not stereotypically gay. At the time it was quite refreshing. Not saying that makes him not homophobic, but it's a point in his favor at least.
Soap was not a positive representation of gay men on television. You are giving that portrayal way too much credit.

Oh, man. You seem to be taking this a little too offensively.
Possibly because it is offensive.
 
Been watching Torchwood lately, all characters in it are bisexual and it made the show weird. So yes it can be and has been overdone
 
but the actor intimated that the recent uptick of queer intimacy in shows like 'How To Get Away With Murder' were a bit too much for him.

This honestly sounds like:

"Don't show gay people loving other gay people, or people having to solve conflicts with their partner."
 
Its' like none of you guys are actually reading the quote.

Or perhaps you're reading it "Gays on TV shouldn't be an everyday kind of thing" and they're reading it "stop shoving characters who are defined by being gay in our faces. It's becoming an everyday kind of thing."

I don't know who is correct in their interpretation.
 
I think he's saying that it is more natural if your show has a gay character to make them like Will rather than to make them like Jack (to use Will and Grace as an example...)

Just have the character be gay, not "hey look at this gay character, our show has a gay character and this flamboyant caricature guy is the gay one. Look at him, he's gay!"
 
I thought from the title he was going to say that it's okay to write gay characters that are not only focused on for being gay and are actually well-rounded characters.

But...not quite.
 
So I was with him until the last part of the sentence. The "every day" statement leads me to believe there are deeper issues here.

I don't think one's homosexuality has to be shoved into the face of the spectator at every chance.
 
Maybe none of us get it right, and we should let it go until he provides more context.
 
&#8220;I hope people don&#8217;t abuse it and shove it in our face&#8230; to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing.&#8221;

When I want to give him the benefit of a doubt it's this sentence that makes me doubt if he misspoke.
 
"hey its zany over the top Gay Jim!"

"hey it's jim, how's the husband doing?"

totally different perspectives which is what he means. As others stated, a character who is a police detective, who happens to be gay, is different than a character who is gay and happens to be a detective. TV sometimes has a tendency to focus on the stereotypical gay male or female, making entire characters defined by their sexuality vs simply making it another part of who they are.

there is a police comedy on TV right now and the few episodes I've seen, the police captain may be gay, but its never made to be as if it's the main part of his character, its just he happens to be gay. that could be it.
 
Or perhaps you're reading it "Gays on TV shouldn't be an everyday kind of thing" and they're reading it "stop shoving characters who are defined by being gay in our faces. It's becoming an everyday kind of thing."

I don't know who is correct in their interpretation.

Where is the line drawn between something being tastefully gay and something being forced down people's throats? Did the show Six Feet Under shove gayness down our throats when there were intimate moments between two gay characters?
 
I think he's saying that it is more natural if your show has a gay character to make them like Will rather than to make them like Jack (to use Will and Grace as an example...)

Just have the character be gay, not "hey look at this gay character, our show has a gay character and this flamboyant caricature guy is the gay one. Look at him, he's gay!"

Well, there was nothing wrong with Jack. He's flamboyant? Sure. Flamboyant gay people exist. And in the context of the show, it's not like Jack was only queer person on Will & Grace.
 
I think that's what he meant.

Do the gay characters in the example he gives (How to Get Away with Murder) really have that as their only defining characteristic, or is that all that people can see?

I feel like the standard for gay characters is a lot higher than it is for equivalent straight characters. Bad love subplots and romance stories exist with straight characters, but the complain never seem to be that the characters have nothing going for them other than being straight.
 
I think he's saying that it is more natural if your show has a gay character to make them like Will rather than to make them like Jack (to use Will and Grace as an example...)

Just have the character be gay, not "hey look at this gay character, our show has a gay character and this flamboyant caricature guy is the gay one. Look at him, he's gay!"

That's what I get. And feel the same way.
 
It's insensitive. I want to see more LGBT representation on TV, film, etc., and that includes all kinds of LGBT people and storylines, not just the kind Billy Crystal is "okay" with. Playing as a gay character on TV over 30 years ago does not make his opinion valid or important on this matter.
 
How are people reading "sometimes, it&#8217;s just pushing it a little too far for my taste" combined with "to the point where it feels like an everyday kind of thing" and assuming that means "don't make them flamboyant" or "they should have story lines that don't revolve about being gay"?

He doesn't say that. Anywhere in his statement.
 
Seems pretty homophobic to me.

Anything to back your statement up?

I think, and this is just a guess, it's more of "let's make gay characters just because" while the topic is ho!t instead of being truly relevant. It's hard to put into words because someone is always going to read it wrong.

A few years ago there was a marriage between same sex couple on TV during the Superbowl half time. I was like why? Why do I need to see a wedding, gay or straight, during the halftime? Sometimes things can seem forced onto the public and most of us do not care, just live your life.

Does that make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom