UKC

What's the youngest age a guy or gal may realise that he/she is gay? And if a young actor plays a camp character, do you think they know what they're doing and that they may perhaps ridiculed by more aware class-mates and also get typecast to certain roles in future? I started pondering this after watching Ugly Betty, as her younger brother character is quite camp (although a good character, and well played).

In reply to cider nut:
From talking to gay people I know, I think you can 'always' know, but it may take a while to understand that the way you feel is different to the way other people feel.

Re: The kid in Ugly Betty, a lot of child actors are schooled on-set rather than in mainstream school. Plus he has a presumably pretty lucrative role on a prime-time tv show, so I reckon he's probably doing okay!

In reply to cider nut:

So you think you are gay?
I can cure you.

In reply to cider nut:
What's the youngest anyone might realise they have those type of (sexual) feelings for another person? It totally varies from person to person, it's no different for gay people than it is for straight people. You start to have feelings about a person or people, at some point you realise what they are and I suppose then you become aware of your sexuality, it's not different just cause you fancy someone of the same sex.

I suppose the only difference might be if you grew up somewhere where you weren't exposed to gay people and you didnt know that it was a possibility, then it might take you longer to put an actual name to it, but you'd still be aware that something was going on even if you didnt have a name for it.

As for actors I'm not sure but if a young actor is playing a camp character they must be aware that they are doing it, for example the boy in Ugly Betty wouldn't be half as convincing if he wasn't acting in a camp way, i'm sure he realises what he's doing.

In reply to Nao:


True, but how aware do you think he is of the path his life is / may be taking?

In reply to magpie:


Do you reckon he's like that in real life? Or fully acting it?

In reply to cider nut:

less aware class mates, surely?

In reply to cider nut:

Hard to say, he is very convincing. I suppose you'd need to see him out of character to tell if it's all put on / good acting skills, or if he was perhaps picked specifically becasue he suited the role.

I would think he's old enough to know what type of character he's portraying though, I doubt you get to be an 11/12/13 year old actor living somewhere like LA and not be aware of stereotypes.

In reply to magpie:

Another example is the character Tom from Hollyoaks who must be about 7 (not sure how old the actor is)? He was doing some modelling in one episode, and copied Steph (another character) by doing a hand-drop thing and flouncing off - on Steph it looked okay, on Tom it looked obviously camp, including his voice (can't remember what it was he said). Surely he too young to know how he was being portrayed, so was it cruel of the script writers to do so? Or was it so short and insignificant a part of the scene that it didn't matter?

In reply to cider nut:

What path is that?

Acting? Or being gay?

(I think straight actors can act gay and gay actors can act straight... I don't think it's a big consideration really. The kid in UB is not sexual, he's just camp - meant to be related in a fashiony way. I don't think it has big repercussions for him other than being a big role for a young actor.)

In reply to Nao:

Acting gay roles. Are kids more likely to get type cast than adults, or less likely? Maybe more likely as they're early on in their career, or maybe less likely as their looks and character may change dramatically as they grow up...

I agree that's true for adults, but does it apply the same for kids?

In reply to cider nut:

I think most children are better than adults at 'camping it up'. They have fewer inhibitions.

I think the kid out of UB is meant to be 12 or something, so in real life he's probably 15 or something, in which case I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing.

Re: child actors and precociousness - check out RL interviews with people like Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning - they have a scarily adult way of talking and interacting. I think there's an idea that children couldn't possibly understand what they are doing/acting, but I think they probably can, and are able to distinguish between acting and RL (that's just a hunch of mine, possibly wrong!). eg There was a big furore over Dakota Fanning's portrayal of a child abuse victim lately, iirc, I think because people don't like to think that she would know what it means to be abused/what sex is at her age/that she is somehow being taken advantage of.

It's an interesting thought... I guess it's up to the actor and their agents/carers/parents to decide if the child is capable and mature enough to deal with adult issues/sexuality.

In reply to cider nut:

I think they are less likely to be type cast, as their appearances change a lot more over a short amount of time than adults do. Think of Kirsten Dunst - started off playing a girl in Interview with a Vampire. Snogged Brad Pitt when she was 12 or something. Big scandal as she was meant to be woman trapped in child's body whereas IRL she was child in child's body. She then went on to do Little Women which is probably as far away from child-woman-vampire as is possible! And is now Mary Jane in Spiderman. I don't think she has been typecast.

Dakota Fanning is rent-a-girl in Hollywood. HJ Osment is rent-a-spooky-kid but probably will have difficulty in next few years as boys tend to age more irritatingly than girls (girls seem to blossom into womanhood; boys go through horrid adolescent stage). Nicholas Hoult out of About a Boy is now playing teenage heartthrob in Skins. Lindsey Lohan went from cutesy Disney girl to Hollywood girl about town, from tweenie movies like Herbie to grown up movies like Bobby. So I don't think there's a huge danger of being typecast... it probably depends on the actor (and their agents).

I think we like to think that children are more innocent than they actually are. Also I don't think that the boy is necessarily acting gay - he's just being camp/flamboyant/bitchy, it's not like he has to get it on with another boy or anything. He's just meant to be an allegorical character I think.

In reply to cider nut: Children can be increadibly camp, they pick things up, they are not aware of social norms in the same way. My wife's nephew is 8 and quite camp at times, his Dad is a fairly traditional thinking Sgt. in the Army Air Corps.

In reply to cider nut:

I'm more concerned that you watch Hollyoaks....

In reply to Nao:

Good responses.

In reply to grynneman:

lol No comment...

In reply to cider nut: You live where my babies live, actually they are not babies any more. Also I dont think any of them are gay, actually I'm sure they are not. BUT as someone who has worked in the industry most of my life I take on board your worries (without reading the thread). Its a dangerous business, it really is, most survive (cope), and errm I'm loath to say its a bad thing, if you can discover your sexuality in whatever way it may be a good thing, it may make you happier than otherwise and after all what should we want for our kids other than be succesful in theirlives and be happy.
Having said all that, I'm glad my kids are not gay, I think its an easier way through life not to be!

In reply to cider nut:
"Surely he too young to know how he was being portrayed"

Do you really think this?

You must have a low opinion of the intelligence of young children.

The bigger picture is not about whether child actors have been playing gay/camp. It's about whether they can successfully continue a career into adult life, after having reached a certain level of fame as a child. Most don't. Haley Joel Osment hasn't managed. Leaf Phoenix changed his name to Joaquin and succeeded (but he was not that famous in his own right, as Leaf). Kirsten Dunst has done well. I think Lindsay Lohan will make it. Jennifer Connelly was always doing fairly mature roles (when your debut at 12 is in Once Upon A Time in America, this would tend to "age" you!). Drew Barrymore spent a long time in the "wilderness" then worked her way back up via a bunch of straight-to-video B-movies.
These are exceptions.

Dakota Fanning won't, she's too ubiquitous and will always be "that 12-year-old who was in EVERYTHING"

It's nothing to do with whether they've been playing "camp" or not. You may as well ask "what will happen to Jodelle Ferdland?" - she's in lots of horror/fantasy films, I've only seen her in Silent Hill which I thought was effective and scary, and I am sure she was perfectly well equipped to deal with it.

In reply to cider nut:
Jodie Foster. Quite sexualised at a young age in terms of acting but has an A list (I would say) career as an actor.

Kiefer Sutherland?
River Phoenix - think he would've made it.
Macauley Culkin - where is he now?

Thinking about this I think it is easier for girls to make the transition than boys. Also boys seem to go away for a bit and then come back as adults - think it's harder for them to get roles in the tricky adolescent stage.

I don't think actors get typecast as playing 'gay' roles as I don't think that the actors who play gay roles tend to be gay (thinking Tom Hanks, Will out of Will & Grace, but I could be wrong). Playing 'gay' seems to be more of a career move, like playing a disabled person or something.

In reply to Blue Straggler and Nao:


Well no, I don't really know, that's why I posted this thread. It's ponderings. Actually, something that strikes me about people's posts sometimes, often an OP will just be pondering but the subsequent posters will think they have a strong viewpoint about it, and often set to prove them wrong rather than offering their thoughts. That's not a dig by the way, nor am I accusing you guys of doing that, it's just an observation!

This topic just something that struck me and I'm interesting in hearing viewpoints on Several people have posted viewpoints, so therefore the replies have been interesting to read