Hairspray: The Divine Right of Queens

Kevin Naff, managing editor of the Washington Blade has called for a boycott of Hairspray because the part of Edna Turnblad is being played by John Travolta, a Scientologist; and Scientology has a pretty poor track record when it comes to homosexuality. The argument is that the part of Edna Turnblad, played in the original movie by the late great drag queen Divine, should be played by someone else, someone more gay palatable who doesn’t belong to a religion with a history . Apparently, there are as many different opinions about this boycott as there are “world’s first clears”. It’s not my intention here to talk about the duplicity of Scientology, the acting skills or alleged homosexual history of John Travolta, the ire of Kevin Naff, or even the boycott itself. I just want to raise some questions, questions that popped into my head while pondering the whole thing.

First of all, should gay roles go to gay actors? Not an easy question to answer. The spirit of this question has been around a long time. Should Loni Anderson play an American Indian? Should Al Jolsen sing in blackface? Should Katherine Hepburn play Chinese? The answer isn’t easy. On one hand, movie makeup today is amazing, we can make Tyra Banks or Eddie Murphy a morbidly obese girl. When they remake The Color Purple (the musical) they should think of box office draw and put Nicole Kidman in the lead role.

Interesting. Because of the “lack” of Native American actors filmmakers often use Hispanic actors or even Caucasians without much problem for films. Asians are interchangeable in Asian roles—Chinese roles are played by actors of Japanese, Korean, or other descents. African American roles are the exception rather than the rule. Black roles are played by black actors. Complex issue, no?

Bottom line. There’s no easy answer. Movies that have used Native Americans in Indian roles have been well received. I could go on but I think you probably get the point. It takes more effort to cast ethnic actors in matching ethnic roles, but it can payoff. Conversely, acting is about pretending, it’s about “passing”. Hollywood is illusion and great actors create great artifice and if they succeed then more power to them. Sometimes great artifice is not required. Sometimes all that’s needed is a warm body.

Should gay actors play gay roles? Sure. Are there straight actors who have played gay roles right? Yes. Out gay actors have it rough in Hollywood. Is the situation comparable to Hattie McDaniel or Eartha Kitt? Yes and no: different time, different animal, exactly the same and totally different. There is no easy answer. (I'm still waiting for the gay equivalent of Sidney Poitier.)

There are out-gay actors out there. Rupert Everett, Ian McKellan, etc. They get roles. They work. They are incredible actors and deserve respect for being open and for being good actors. Interestingly the majority of out gay actors who get regular big budget work are older and somehow less threatening. I’m not saying they are “gay Uncle Toms” (or Auntie Toms) but there aren’t many virile young out-gay box office smashes for whatever reasons. (There is a bit of Auntie Tomism in Hollywood and its probably a step up the ladder. The wise old gay man or mostly sexless best friend is much less threatening then an out Rock Hudson type playing a straight role.) Progress has been made and progress must be made.

Finally (and on a bit of a tangent), Travolta said that there was nothing gay about the character or the movie. He’s absolutely right and he’s not. There’s a history there, a glorious gay history involving John Waters, Divine, camp and a progression of films that spans years from mainly gay audiences to mainstream worldwide release. John Waters said that Naff is out of line. Waters, like Travolta, is on the money and off the mark. It’s unfortunate that lines have been drawn and sides have been taken. What can we do to create open inclusive dialog? Inclusive of Scientology, homosexuality, capitalism, Star-power, politics and camp. Good luck.

When Naff suggested Divine was spinning in her grave, John Waters responded that Divine was not political at all. There’s real power in that. Divine was Divine. By just being, unapologetically without assault or malice (though often taken as such) larger than life, changes occur; no politics involved.

Travolta wears a prosthetic fat suit in this movie. He’s no more a drag queen than Tyra Banks is a 400 lb woman. Should there be a boycott? I don’t think it matters. According to some, John Waters has sold out (or maybe stayed the same while the world changed). I think all of that is just sour grapes. Scientology (which I personally have no love for) isn’t as homophobic as it was when Old Mother Hubbard was still alive. Hairspray is not the same movie it was. And Travolta is no Divine.

Ultimately, I think anyone can play a gay role. Some have done it well; some have not. Fair or not that’s probably the way it will always be. Now drag queens are another story. Actors can play drag queens and once in a blue moon they do a decent job. (Women actually play better drag queens than men—Mae West for example) I’d like to suggest that drag queen roles, like African American roles, should never be cast outside the group. An actor can play a drag queen but never, and that is unequivocally never, can an actor BE a drag queen. And there’s a big difference. (I’m talking to you Swayze.)