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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hours Left: I agree, but I would be interested in seeing what the thought process is. Is it just, "Oh, he said something that might be controversial. I like Billy Crystal, so I'm going to come up with an interpretation for what he meant to say that I find more acceptable"? Because I'd get that sort of defensive, emotional reaction even if it doesn't make sense upon examination.

I don't disagree. I am also totally for gay rights. I think they should get married, have kids, etc. However, I don't want to see 2 guys going at it on TV. To me it's gross. Is that homophobic?

Well... Yes? I think "being homophobic" (or racist or sexist or whatever) is more of a sliding scale than a Yes | No dichotomy, so it's entirely possible for you to be supportive in one respect (political rights) and rather unsupportive in another (representations of gay people in popular culture).
 
I can't help but wonder where the difference lies between depicting gay relationships and shoving them in people's faces. Is it excessively gay to mention homosexual attractions more than a few times per episode? Per scene? Is it too gay to hint at gay sex? To depict it nonexplicitly?

Where does homosexuality in media cross that line, and where is the line compared to depictions of heterosexuality? I'm curious because it's almost impossible to watch any show with straight characters without learning about their sexual orientation and libido and marital status and often the sex acts they enjoy within the first 15 minutes.

To be fair, it's hard to figure out exactly what Billy Crystal was driving at from that isolated comment. But it doesn't sound good.
 
I think he's just uncomfortable with gay sex scenes. No one has to feel comfortable watching softcore gay porn.

I personally don't give a shit, but I totally understand why it would make some people uncomfortable and don't hold anything against them, unless they're pre-occupied with it.

Then he should call out being uncomfortable with straight sex scenes, too, or else he's clearly discriminating against homosexuality
 
Whoa, this is shocking coming from Billy Crystal of all people.

That being said, before you bust out the pitchforks, I kind of agree with him. The problem isn't the fact that homosexuality isn't being shown on TV, the problem is that it's being shown WAY too over the top.

Take Cameron and Mitchell on Modern Family. Yes, they are gay. But the show makes it a point to remind you through some action or joke EVERY TIME THAT THEY ARE ON SCREEN that yes, they are gay. Now, I love the characters and Eric Stonestreet and Jesse Tyler Ferguson are great actors but sometimes I feel the writers take things a biiiit too far. Yes it's a comedy show, but gay people don't act this way in real life. Also, why the hell do we still have to denote them as gay? They're just people.
 
Playing a character that represents about one in ten people is definitely shoving it in our faces. Maybe Billy misses the days when said character's entire mien was "gay."
 
Like, can any of us name five shows right now where a gay character is only propped as being gay and having no other characteristics? How many popular shows have gay sex scenes?
 
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.

Calm down. You know what we mean. The over-the-top-gay character that exists just to be gay is getting kind of old.

Maybe none of us get it right, and we should let it go until he provides more context.

Best response.
 
I'm sure he'll clarify this (if he hasn't done so already).
I would love to hear a clarification. If he just misspoke, that would be great.

But this is what we've got right now, and I really struggle with some of the acrobatics people are pulling to try and soften/explain away these comments.
 
Someone said the same thing about Crystal in the early 00's. Perhaps he's just trying to get that same magic working again.
 
I would love to hear a clarification. If he just misspoke, that would be great.

But this is what we've got right now, and I really struggle with some of the acrobatics people are pulling to try and soften/explain away these comments.

That's not really acrobatics if you look at his quotes and ignore the editorialization by the author looking for a story.
 
Whoa, this is shocking coming from Billy Crystal of all people.

That being said, before you bust out the pitchforks, I kind of agree with him. The problem isn't the fact that homosexuality isn't being shown on TV, the problem is that it's being shown WAY too over the top.

Take Cameron and Mitchell on Modern Family. Yes, they are gay. But the show makes it a point to remind you through some action or joke EVERY TIME THAT THEY ARE ON SCREEN that yes, they are gay. Now, I love the characters and Eric Stonestreet and Jesse Tyler Ferguson are great actors but sometimes I feel the writers take things a biiiit too far. Yes it's a comedy show, but gay people don't act this way in real life. Also, why the hell do we still have to denote them as gay? They're just people.

At the same time, look at Michael Scott in the Office - nobody's THAT clueless or foolish. So...is that fine then? It's tough to say. Depends on the show I guess?
 
If what he meant to say was to speak out against the proliferation of gay characters that are stereotypes defined by their sexual orientation, then I am inclined to agree. As a black man I've gotten tired of seeing the same reoccurring black people stereotypes depicted on TV. I imagine a lot of gay people feel the same way. It'd also be nice if networks didn't insist on focusing on these trivial attributes as if they are all that define us as human beings. They're not.
 
I think he's just uncomfortable with gay sex scenes. No one has to feel comfortable watching softcore gay porn.

I personally don't give a shit, but I totally understand why it would make some people uncomfortable and don't hold anything against them, unless they're pre-occupied with it.

And I wonder how many of those people take issue when a straight couple gets it on?
 
Maybe he is referring to extreme sex acts when he says he doesn't want "it" presented like an everyday kind of thing, strengthening the stereotype that homosexual relationships are inherently kinky and bizarre?

That's my most generous interpretation after reading the full article.
 
I don't disagree. I am also totally for gay rights. I think they should get married, have kids, etc. However, I don't want to see 2 guys going at it on TV. To me it's gross. Is that homophobic?

Are you equally grossed out at seeing a straight couple going at it on TV? Just curious
 
Hours Left: I agree, but I would be interested in seeing what the thought process is. Is it just, "Oh, he said something that might be controversial. I like Billy Crystal, so I'm going to come up with an interpretation for what he meant to say that I find more acceptable"? Because I'd get that sort of defensive, emotional reaction even if it doesn't make sense upon examination.

Ignore the things that aren't direct quotes from Crystal and, while it's still phrased badly, it becomes far less blatant what he meant.
 
But if they decided to make that character's romance a plot suddenly is that unacceptable and shoving it in their faces and reducing him down to "gay" as his only defining characteristic?


his love life has been in the plot before though, thats the thing. and it never felt to me like this guy was only on the show to be "the gay guy" and it's "all about him being gay". To me it felt like a natural extension, he has problems in his relationship, it showed in the show, they argued, laughed , were in bed together, it seemed like a natural extension of the character.

Brooklyn Nine Nine is the name of the show. I guess i want the characters to feel somewhat natural. I never look at Law and Order: SVU and think about the characters being straight, because there love lives simply serve as background to the over all show.

I think Southland also is a great example of what im talking about. Dude was gay, and it ended up being a major part of his story at one point, but it never became his only, defining characteristic.
 
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.

This this a thousand times this, there is a point where trying to normalize something can start to go to far, like when it seems like the only point of a character in a show is the fact that they're gay.

I can't think of any instances of this off the top of my head, but I can certainly see where he is coming from if that is indeed what he meant.
 
I can't help but go back to my original comment. It feels just a little bit like if playing gay becomes an "everyday" thing that is totally normalized, straight actors won't get a pat on the back anymore for playing gay as something daring, provocative and new, like he did back on Soap. Being an ally won't get you brownie points, it's just to be expected, and no extra accolades for telling a man "I love you" on screen.

I don't know. Maybe that's overly cynical, but he seemed to enjoy the attention he got for being groundbreaking before, but doesn't appreciate how normalized actual expressions of same sex sexuality are becoming. Like words are okay, but actions aren't.

edit: But hopefully it's just a misunderstanding. As a few people have said, it's hard to know with so much editorializing in the articles.
 
I don't disagree. I am also totally for gay rights. I think they should get married, have kids, etc. However, I don't want to see 2 guys going at it on TV. To me it's gross. Is that homophobic?

If someone said they don't want to see black people going at it on TV because "it's gross", would you consider that racist?
 
That's not really acrobatics if you look at his quotes and ignore the editorialization by the author looking for a story.

I really fail to see how that quote could be interpreted in away that is about how gay characters need to be more three dimensional, especially since two separate articles put the response in the context to gay intimacy on television.
 
I disagree.

You also disagree with waiting until we have clarification, so I guess you're kind of at an impasse with your own thread unless you want a discussion in which people are only allowed to demonize someone universally without knowing exactly what that person meant.
 
I don't see him saying that at all. This:

In the context of:

Doesn't make me think this has anything to do with him his empathy for the state of gay characters on television.

Honestly, I totally see how you come to that conclusion. I think the article was way too much editorializing to go along with his quotes. Is there anywhere we can actually watch the panel and see what he said uninterrupted?

Here is all we know he said, free from editorializing:

“Sometimes I think, ‘Ah that’s too much for me,”

“It was very difficult at the time,” said Crystal. “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.”

“I did it in front of a live audience and there were times when I would say to Bob [Seagren], ‘I love you,’ and the audience would laugh nervously. I wanted to stop the taping and go, ‘What is your problem?'”

“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.”

“I hope people don’t abuse it and shove it in our face… to the point where it feels like an every day kind of thing.”

To me, those thoughts don't flow into each other at all, and there isn't a description of what specifically he's talking about aside from what the writer of the Yahoo article tells us. The writer was even so kind as to cut out a chunk from that last quote. I think if we could hear his entire spiel, it would clear it up one way or the other.
 
Like, can any of us name five shows right now where a gay character is only propped as being gay and having no other characteristics? How many popular shows have gay sex scenes?

This.

It sounds like he's one of those people who are only ok with gay characters when their sexuality is mentioned in passing or alluded to. As soon as it's directly shown then it becomes too much.
 
What are these shows that are being over the top with their shitty gay characters? I can think of Glee, and that's about it. I feel like this "don't let being gay be their only trait" discussion is arguing against a pretty big straw man (and is often used about black characters, women, etc).
 
This.

It sounds like he's one of those people who are only ok with gay characters when their sexuality is mentioned in passing or alluded to. As soon as it's directly shown then it becomes too much.

Honestly I wish there was less sexuality from the hetero side in movies or TV. Not everyone is ruled by their dicks/butts/vajingas. I wish the whole world would tone it down a bit. Lots of shows use it as a crutch or a stupid storytelling device instead of getting good reasons why people would do things.
 
Honestly, I totally see how you come to that conclusion. I think the article was way too much editorializing to go along with his quotes. Is there anywhere we can actually watch the panel and see what he said uninterrupted?

Here is all we know he said, free from editorializing:



To me, those thoughts don't flow into each other at all, and there isn't a description of what specifically he's talking about aside from what the writer of the Yahoo article tells us. The writer was even so kind as to cut out a chunk from that last quote. I think if we could hear his entire spiel, it would clear it up one way or the other.

I honestly don't see many ways to interpret the phrase:

“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.”

But that's just me. I'd like him to clarify, but I'm scratching my head how that could be in the context of wishing that gay characters weren't defined by being gay.
 
I would love to hear a clarification. If he just misspoke, that would be great.

But this is what we've got right now, and I really struggle with some of the acrobatics people are pulling to try and soften/explain away these comments.

I think you are over-reacting to one statement when you can take a look of his entire long career of work and statements.
 
his love life has been in the plot before though, thats the thing. and it never felt to me like this guy was only on the show to be "the gay guy" and it's "all about him being gay". To me it felt like a natural extension, he has problems in his relationship, it showed in the show, they argued, laughed , were in bed together, it seemed like a natural extension of the character.

Brooklyn Nine Nine is the name of the show. I guess i want the characters to feel somewhat natural. I never look at Law and Order: SVU and think about the characters being straight, because there love lives simply serve as background to the over all show.

I think Southland also is a great example of what im talking about. Dude was gay, and it ended up being a major part of his story at one point, but it never became his only, defining characteristic.

Do people have similar issues when a female is brought on to a show to be "the love interest"? Or does it depend on how hot the actress is?
 
Honestly, I totally see how you come to that conclusion. I think the article was way too much editorializing to go along with his quotes. Is there anywhere we can actually watch the panel and see what he said uninterrupted?

Here is all we know he said, free from editorializing:



To me, those thoughts don't flow into each other at all, and there isn't a description of what specifically he's talking about aside from what the writer of the Yahoo article tells us. The writer was even so kind as to cut out a chunk from that last quote. I think if we could hear his entire spiel, it would clear it up one way or the other.

The "to the point where it feels like an every day kind of thing." seals its fate though. I'm not sure how that conclusion is anything but, not wanting what hes discussing to be an every day occurrence. Or, the way its portrayed in all of the gay shows hes watching, he doesn't want that to be an everyday thing. Its pretty sound.
 
You also disagree with waiting until we have clarification, so I guess you're kind of at an impasse with your own thread unless you want a discussion in which people are only allowed to demonize someone universally without knowing exactly what that person meant.
He has made no other statements besides this to my knowledge, why do we have to wait to react to this? This is what we have to go on for now, so this is what we are discussing.

And I already said I would welcome clarification. We don't have it at the moment, and possibly will never get it.
 
as a gay person I think the representation is great but the pandering in shows like American Horror Story kinda bothers me

Did they really pander it though? What I got from AHS was that whenever it was brought up in season 1, it was reactive to some less favorable characters.
 
I honestly don't see many ways to interpret the phrase:

“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.”

But that's just me. I'd like him to clarify, but I'm scratching my head how that could be in the context of wishing that gay characters weren't defined by being gay.

That's my problem though: we never hear from Billy himself what "it" is in those quotes. I'm not saying that "it" is one thing or another... I just want to actually hear him say what "it" is.
 
He has made no other statements besides this to my knowledge, why do we have to wait to react to this? This is what we have to go on for now, so this is what we are discussing.

And I already said I would welcome clarification. We don't have it at the moment, and possibly will never get it.

There's no discussion if you're going to call every other interpretation of what is obviously a vague and highly editorialized statement taken out of context "acrobatics."
 
This this a thousand times this, there is a point where trying to normalize something can start to go to far, like when it seems like the only point of a character in a show is the fact that they're gay.

I can't think of any instances of this off the top of my head, but I can certainly see where he is coming from if that is indeed what he meant.

Can you think of any instances if given more time?

Is it "just for the fact that they're gay" is the character acts flamboyant instead of acting like a typical heterosexual male? I'd like some sort of concrete example so I can know what people mean when they say a character's only defining feature is being gay.

Yup, that sounds like what he meant, hate it when shows do this.

Can you name a show that does this? I'd love a specific example. Or is this code for "any gay character that acts flamboyant" ?

How I took it. Make a character who happens to be gay. Don't make a gay character.

Does this mean that a show cannot depict a gay person that happens to act flamboyant? Because there are gay men in real life that act like that.
 
I think you are over-reacting to one statement when you can take a look of his entire long career of work and statements.

Eh, that's unfair, and I think a lot in this thread are being unfair to Hours Left. It's completely possible to be a supporter of the LGBT community, yet simultaneously hold other, smaller prejudices, such as being uncomfortable with gay intimacy on television. That's not the same as, we should outlaw sodomy or, gay people shouldn't be able to get married. But it also doesn't mean that playing a gay character suddenly frees someone from criticism.

I would say there is still rampant racism in Hollywood, even though most people here would think of themselves as racially tolerant liberals who voted for Obama.
 
Yeah, I would call that immature and homophobic.

That depends on what you mean by "going at it". Most people don't want to see genders they aren't sexually attracted to having sex. That's hardly immature. That's as natural as a gay man not wanting to watch two lesbians having sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom