Don't hold your breath. SAG and AFTRA have been talking about merger for the past thirty years. The problem is that SAG is a national union with most of the power in Hollywood, and AFTRA is a bunch of local unions that are joined together in a federation. Also, SAG is identified strongly with actors, and AFTRA is identified with newscasters. Yes, there is some overlap in their functions and membership, but getting them together is sort of like trying to marry a Hatfield to a McCoy. There is fresh talk about the advantages of a merger, and maybe - just maybe - this time the talk will actually lead to something substantive. There would be much more strength in a merged SAG/AFTRA than we have with the two of them competing. I vote "Yes."

 

Every time I get this close to joining Facebook, I come across another compelling reason to hold off.  This Wired Magazine article is sizzling and specific in its criticism of Facebook's user-privacy policy. And there is this, from equally respected MacWorld.  If those opinions are not enough, the New York Times also ran a scathing article about Facebook in the May 13th edition, pointing out that the social network's current user-privacy policy has more words in it than the U.S. Constitution. If a new user wants to protect his or her privacy, it is necessary to click through 50 privacy buttons, choosing among 170 options. The mortgage agreement on my house is not that complicated. I think I'll wait a little longer.

 

 

Ramin Setoodeh wrote an article ("Straight Jacket") for the April 26th issue of Newsweek magazine in which he asserted that openly gay male actors cannot believably portray straight characters. Talk about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre! Screen Actors Guild immediately and emphatically condemed the piece, as did the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination (GLAAD) and a roster of famous actors, including Marisa Tomei, Alan Cumming and Kristen Chenoweth. I would like to add the perspective of at least one acting teacher.

 

First things first:  Mr. Setoodeh is incorrect in his conclusion. An openly gay male actor definitely can play a straight character, and I've seen many do it. An openly gay male actor who cannot convincingly play a straight character either lacks the motivation/talent to do so, or needs better training. There is nothing inherent in a gay person of either gender that makes that person unable to portray a character with a different sexual orientation.

 

Having said that, I am willing to extend Ramin Setoodeh the benefit of the doubt. I think the man sincerely believes what he wrote. But rather than condemning him for it and boycotting Newsweek, it would be more productive to look at this as a teaching opportunity. Mr. Setoodeh definitely does not have a monopoly on wrong-headed but sincere beliefs. We humans are all works in progress and are continually updating and revising our ideas and understanding of the world. 

 

I have long been intrigued by the work of  Swiss psychotherapist Carl Jung. Many of his theories about the "collective unconscious" and "archetypes" have fallen by the wayside, but one of his ideas has proven very useful to me as an acting teacher. It has a bearing on these openly gay male actors and their capabilities.  Jung asserted that all humans possess both a feminine aspect (anima) and a masculine aspect (animus), buried in our subconscious. As a matter of mental health, he believed that an individual should try to get anima and animus into balance. Anima, according to Jung, is the more sensitive side of our personality, more vulnerable. Animus is more like what we think of as "left brain" today, more logical and calculating.  One of them is not any better than the other, and all of us have them. An actor does not even have to agree with Carl Jung's theories to benefit from this particular one. Really, anima and animus is just a way of conceptualizing what we probably already know about ourselves from personal introspection. Everybody has his or her own notion of what "masculine" and "feminine" mean. If an actor is merely in touch with this idea, he can use it in his work. 

 

Example: In my workshops, I have seen remarkable, almost unbelievable, changes in an actor's performance when given adjustments that deal with anima and animus. I recall an actress who could not relate to Medea killing her own children. I encouraged her to operate more out of her "masculine" side, animus. Suddenly, killing the children became an understandable revenge strategy. Similarly, I sometimes see actresses who have what I think of as a "little girl" strategy in life. In order to get their way - most often with men - they will toe-in and assume a low-status, I-want-a-lollipop posture. When encouraged to operate from their animus, they suddenly become strong. No more little girl. It is truly astonishing to watch.

 

An openly gay male actor may very well be using more of his anima than the average bear. It doesn't matter why this may be the case. It can be a life strategy and can be very deeply rooted. But what happens when this actor must play a straight character? How to do it? Answer: Work more from animus. I have noticed that some actors, regardless of whether they are straight or gay, lack a bit of self confidence with their sexuality. Some straight actors are terrified of portraying a gay character, for instance, because they worry that the gayness will somehow rub off on them. The truth is that there is no reason for any actor's sexuality to be threatened or questioned because he portrays a character of a different sexual orientation. What we are talking about here is acting technique, getting to the performance. Acting teachers ought not be probing and interfering with a student's personal psychology anyway. 

 

Bottom line from my perspective: An actor is an actor is an actor. It does not matter a bit who he or she goes home to. 

 

Until next month ...

Be safe!