Cate Blanchett makes mostly good points when asked about her lesbian characters
The Tár star takes clear pride in portraying dynamic lesbian characters, but seems slightly too confident the "lesbian" part isn't so relevant
Aux News Cate Blanchett
It’s no secret that good onscreen lesbian representation can be hard to come by. Too often you’re stuck between the invasive gaudiness of Blue Is The Warmest Color or a period piece about two white women where one dies at the end. But when it comes to the highlights, the 2015 romantic drama Carol simmers at a perfect temperature, thanks in large part to Cate Blanchett’s performance as an older woman who, in the midst of a divorce, pursues an affair with a young shopkeeper (Rooney Mara.) Nearing a decade later, Blanchett tells The Daily Beast she’s proud of the impact Carol had, although finding a notch in queer history was never the ultimate goal.
“Carol, when we made it, now I look back on it—no other films like that were being made, and Patricia Highsmith’s story was the first story where a woman who loved other women wasn’t redeemed by the love of a man or killed herself, so it’s a seminal piece of work in that and many other respects,” Blanchett shares. “But at the time Carol was made, I subsequently realized just how important it became to people. And at the time of making it, it was just something that we had to make, and so I’m not interested in agitprop.”
Now, Blanchett is gearing up for another potentially seminal role in Todd Fields’ highly-anticipated Tár. In the film, Blanchett stars as Lydia Tár, the first-ever female composer and conductor of an esteemed German orchestra and an openly-identifying lesbian. According to Field, the role “wasn’t written with Cate Blanchett in mind—it was written for Cate Blanchett,” which begs the question: how has a straight woman grown so in-demand as a vessel for complex, queer characters? And how does Blanchett view the sapphic corners of her filmography?
Blanchett dove into her mindset after The Daily Beast asked her why it’s important to give vibrant queer stories life onscreen. “I’m very wary of butting up the word ‘importance’ with the word ‘art,’ because I don’t see that artistic practice is an educational tool,” she explains. “I think what people do with it after the fact the thing—after ‘the thing,’ as Todd [Fields] likes to call it—is made can be politicized, or disseminated, or discussed, or people can be disgusted with it, or offended by it, or inspired by it. But that is outside of our control.”
Blanchett has a point when it comes to infusing cinema with partisanship or force-fed morality, but her take also feels slightly reductive. Part of the reason Blanchett can take such pride in movies like Carol or Tár is that they explore new horizons for how sexuality gets portrayed onscreen—and teach viewers those horizons are possible. Blanchett is right that both films don’t solely ride on their lesbian protagonists, but that fact is a lesson in and of itself: there’s a lot more to the average gay person than, well, being gay. Putting queer characters onscreen that are as nuanced and varied as the real-life queer community demands the recognition of its existence. Art may not necessitate learning, but it can be a gift when it does.
75 Comments
“which begs the question: how has a straight woman grown so in-demand as a vessel for complex, queer characters? And how does Blanchett view the sapphic corners of her filmography?”One of the big issues with the idea that straight actors can’t play queer characters (excluding cis actors playing trans characters, which is a different story for many reasons) is that it ultimately requires that actors, who may or may not be queer themselves, must divulge their sexual and romantic histories. This obviously infringes on their right to privacy. How do we know for a certain that Cate is straight? Isn’t there a track record for their careers being harmed after an actor comes out?
I mean she’s been married for 25 years so I’d assume so. Regardless, she strikes me as the kind who takes a role because she wants to make art that interests her. Fair to say from her comments that who should be able to take what types of roles doesn’t really concern her.
What does her being married have to do with anything? Hasn’t she been dogged by rumors of bisexuality for years now? Honestly I find her comments to be kind of vague, so I don’t feel comfortable ascribing such a direct implication onto them. It feels more to me like she’s just saying that the goal should be to make good art, personally.
Sorry, should have been more clear. She’s potentially bi but definitively in a M/F marriage. Definitely not saying she doesn’t like women as well. But we’re in agreement that she doesn’t seem concerned about labels or who should/shouldn’t be permitted certain roles.
lol at all the squares on here and their limited assumptions and presumptions about sexuality, identity and whatever marriage is supposed to be.
Idk. She says that she wasn’t thinking about queerness while making Carol and I find that completely unbelievable: “It’s just something we had to make.” Wtf? I actually have to wonder at this level of preciousness. But then, I seldom believe anything celebs say during interviews. Robert Pattinson openly enjoys telling fake stories on late night shows. Clooney loves to fuck with people. Their work relies on good lying, so it’s no surprise.
I think that’s an overly simplistic view of her comment. Honestly I’d say her comments as presented here are kind of confusingly contradictory and free-wheeling. She probably didn’t put too much thought into it, and without being in the room to understand the context and hear her inflections and whatnot, it feels odd to settle on any one concrete interpretation. Especially one that paints her in an unflattering light, as is so often incentivized by these publications.
Bisexuals can get married.
NYT editorial:
“Bisexuals Can Get Married… But Should They?”
Women can get married to women, even. 😉 I know “married” as shorthand for “married to someone of the other binary gender” is a hard habit to break but we should try to.
I didn’t imply otherwise. I’m a cis gay man married to a bisexual transwoman. You read heteronormativity in my statement where there was none.
I absolutely did not.
This is such a weirdly defensive reply to someone piggybacking on your statement.
It felt like you read my message as implying that “married” was straight by default and were correcting me, rather than using it to “yes, and”. If I’m wrong then I apologize.
My comment didn’t say “straight” anywhere.
No, it said “married to someone of the other binary gender” and now I feel like you just want to pick a fight rather than accept an apology for an honest misunderstanding so have fun with that!
I never asked for or expected an apology, you’re just getting oddly defensive as if you’ve been called out for something while still not really understanding my point.
“No, it said ‘married to someone of the other binary gender’” Right. =)
It’s useful to remind people that bisexual women can be married to men! It’s also useful to remember that “married” when one is a woman does not automatically imply “married to a man.”
There was no personal criticism intended here. It’s a reminder to everyone. You weren’t the only or even the first person in the conversation.
And they can be monogamous, too!
I honestly think that most of the frustration comes from how much easier it seem to be for a straight actor to get a role as a queer lead than vice versa. That’s not Blanchett’s fault, obviously, but if the overall pattern weren’t so damning, I doubt individual casting choices would be scrutinized so closely.
That issue not the complication people make it out to be. Actors have every right to keep their orientation private. However, if you are an actor who is not authentically queer and willing to be public about your queerness then you should not be sweeping up plumb queer roles and riding them to the oscars. Just like actors can and have kept true parts of their racial identity secret when that identity would have been disadvantageous for their careers, but there is now a growing consensus that someone who is not publicly established to be actually part of to a specific non-white racial group should not play that group on screen (especially in highly desirable roles). You want to keep your black heritage in the closet because you think it will hold you back and that you can pass as non-black? You have your right to your (strategic) privacy, but don’t expect to also play Julie in a new Hollywood remake of Show Boat because we can now increasingly agree a part like that shouldn’t go to a person like Ava Gardner who has no known black heritage. Actors who have the bravery and integrity to be publicly honest about being gay or lesbian are *highly* disadvantaged in being cast in major straight roles in Hollywood. At present they also lose out on the major gay/lesbian roles to actors who lead publicly straight lives (Cate is public about her straight relationship and has never mentioned a queer relationship or even personal queer sexual experiences as far as I know, which is a completely publicly straight life regardless of the usual gay rumors around good-looking celebs or whatever speculation we might entertain about the hypothethical possibilities of undisclosed bisexuality) and closeted actors (e.g. Kevin Spacey in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil). The excuse for not casting open gays and lesbians is the lack of gay/lesbian movie stars, but that is a vicious circle. Open gays/lesbians do not get cast in major movie roles so they they do not have the opportunity to become stars so they do not get cast in major movie roles, even when those roles are portraying great figures from their own community.
This. And just because we see a character having a sexual and romantic relationship with a woman doesn’t mean that character can’t be anything other than a lesbian unless the character explicitly states “I don’t have romantic or sexual attraction towards men or other genders.” Vice versa goes for the actors like Blanchett. The bisexual and pansexual erasure around these movies and the actors in them is bothersome.
…and this is when i start thinking about whether the movie (this one, but also any *GAY* movie) is meant for straight audiences or gay ones.
These days it seems like these films are made for film festivals and academy members, Oscar Bait. Usually it’s obvious from the fact that story is so pained and dramatic. I’m somewhat hopeful that a biopic might be actually good, but then there have been a lot of ham handed biopics.
“Cate Blanchett makes mostly good points when asked about her lesbian characters”And you added nothing.
Flowers spring from her bosom. Is that like a superpower?
I think she’s aiming for an embodiment of that famous optical illusion: “Vase or Woman?”
Is there anything she can’t so?
period piece about two white women where dies at the end —> period piece about two white women where (one?) dies at the endfirst-ever female composer —> first ever female composerbegs the question —> raises the questionin-demand —> in demandcomplex, queer characters —> complex queer characters
columnist makes mostly fallacious points without editing the piece before publishing
“First-ever” is fine modifying a noun, though redundant. (It means “first.”)
Once again, you are doing the Lord’s work.
Begs the question and raises the question mean the same thing.
They really don’t, despite them being incorrectly used interchangeably.
Nope. Begs the question is commonly used interchangeably with raises the question but the actual definition is different. It can be argued that common usage trumps dictionary definition (see: literally which now means literally the opposite of literally) but they are not the same.
Begs the question means using circular logic.
When you someone eat it?
YOUR’E HIRED!
how has a straight woman grown so in-demand as a vessel for complex, queer characters?this doesn’t seem like rocket science. she’s one of the most respected and in-demand actresses in the world, and you already know she’s not one of those actors whose heterosexuality leaps out at you when they try to play gay (coughReesecough). and you need two of those to make lesbian Oscar-bait.I’m still laughing at how badly the Ronan/Winslet attempt worked out though.
I don’t actually know which Reese performance you’re referring to. I just failed at pop culture on a pop culture site. Otherwise I agree there’s not much of a question with an actress as generally well-regarded as her.
tbf I haven’t seen the whole show, but based on clips I’ve been sent she’s pretty unconvincing in The Morning Show. (opposite Julianna Margulies)
Ammonite works much better if you come for the Winslet/Ronan but stay for the ASMR.
Not that this matters a ton, but its a bizarre little film that plays down this is the woman who more or less discovered Dinosaurs, and historically speaking the assumption of said woman being a lesbian sits on some really nebulous grounds.
The Ronan/Winslet flick got an amazing SNL sketch out of it so it gets a pass. “I don’t think that’s been invented yet!”
Part of the reason Blanchett can take such pride in movies like Carol or Tár is that they explore new horizons for how sexuality gets portrayed onscreen
What’s the new horizon for the latter that wasn’t already in the former?
Without spoiling too much, Tar’s a movie about a lesbian who does…unpleasant, predatory things. It’s rare for that to happen while still remaining the protagonist and not a clear-cut villain.
I want to see a revisionist queer period piece where the characters come out to the world and everyone’s cool with it. Even better, it’d be a dramatic version of the end of the “I’m Gay” song from Brain Candy. If Tarantino can do it with Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, why couldn’t somebody do it with this?
Ryan Murphy’s Netflix show Hollywood is pretty much this? It’s basically an alternate history fable of post-war Hollywood, where a movie about a black woman wins all the Oscars, breaks box office records and single-handedly destroys segregation in the South, while gay relationships — initially shunned — end up being expressed in public and widely accepted. The show ends with our heroic filmmakers making a new movie about gay men.It’s…not very good.
Also a movie about suicide and also it accidentally implies that we don’t live in this utopia because gay people didn’t try hard enough. Ryan Murphy never really thinks too hard about the implications of his shows.
I honestly would love to see a major Hollywood block buster changing a real person’s suicide to “they just decided to live and be happy.”An alternate reality where Anthony Boudain decided to open a bed and breakfast and also he was Black.
Id love a series about a famous true crime victim like Elizabeth Short or Polly Nichols where instead of getting stabbed to death they just blow away Jack the Ripper or whoever with a shotgun, and the show keeps on going.
Pattom Oswalt has a bit about happiness killing comedy. “Isn’t it great when you’re in love and you come home and then you kiss?”That’s how I felt about that show. “What if good people had good things happen to them and everything worked out?” Turns out you need conflict in storytelling, who knew?
This was my precise criticism of the show, particularly the last few episodes. If you want to do the alternate history/fable/happy ending thing, fine, I’m happy to go along with that. But make it at least a little difficult, you know? Oh no, the movie is burned…but there’s already a copy! It breaks box office records! It wins all the Oscars! Everyone gets a raise! America embraces queer black characters!It was just a cavalcade of victory, and it was really boring.
It wouldn’t even have to be revisionist. There were some communities where people were queer and no-one cared. There’s a show called Versailles on Netflix that is a semi fictional account of Louis XIV’s reign during the period where he built Versailles, and his brother is openly gay in court and dresses in a nonbinary way at parties and things. Granted, he was able to do so because he was protected by fact of being royalty and his mother and brother never cared about him being who he was. And some of that is actually true when you read historical accounts. Plus there are so many other cultures and communities outside of white Euro-centric history that accepted queerness. We just rarely get to see them because Hollywood only pumped out what the patriarchy liked.
I’m very surprised that people aren’t losing their minds over another straight woman playing a queer character.
As mentioned above, who are we to judge someone else’s sexuality. Kinsey figured that shit a long time ago, it’s a spectrum and not and on/off switch.
Wut? lol
You are making the assumption that Blanchett doesn’t identify as queer in some way. Just because she doesn’t yap about her sexuality all the time, doesn’t mean there’s not more beyond the surface. Actors of Blanchett’s quality like to keep shit private so that intimate knowledge doesn’t overshadow or misinform their performances.
You’ve never heard of bi people or Kinsey?
In practice there is still a general presumption of straightness. Cate has not at all rebutted that presumption even when it would have been very appropriate to do so if she was not straight, such as in these discussions with journalists about the morality of her taking lesbian movie roles. And, even if she had some private queerness she is choosing not to disclose to the public, that would not change the injustice of an actor who has spent their career enjoying all the privileges a non-gay/lesbian public persona provides in the movie industry taking lead gay/lesbian movie roles over openly gay/lesbian actors who experience all the disadvantages and casting discrimination shown to publicly open gay and lesbian actors. While openly gay/lesbian actors continue to be shut out of straight lead movie roles, their chance at establishing themselves as lead actors could be the major gay/lesbian movie roles if it weren’t for those roles also being hogged by actors who are not openly gay/lesbian.
looks like you’ve been sent in to get that party started, officer
she’s straight according to you. your presumptions about her actual life are just that.
Don’t tell me her character in Ocean’s 8 was straight, either.
Personally, I think this is about as good an answer as someone can give on this. Not equating a film’s importance with quality, but also not doing this pre-emptive apology for “stealing” a role from a hypothetical actress (you can’t steal something that never actually belonged to someone, especially someone who doesn’t exist).In other words, it’s always nice to see signs that actual filmmakers who have actually made things are completely dismissing the silly new “you have to be exactly like your character to play them” nonsense.
are completely dismissing the silly new “you have to be exactly like your character to play them” nonsense.That’s not actually the thing that’s been happening, though it’s often misinterpreted that way. It’s not that a straight person can’t play a gay person, or a cis man is incapable of playing a trans man, It’s more a question of representation that when there’s a role for an already underrepresented group that it still constantly goes to white cis people when there are plenty of actors of that group who have the skills to play the part. And it only goes one way, you don’t have a bunch of trans men playing cis men, or trans women playing cis women, or out gay people playing straight people (though that’s happening a little more often).So there’s a disconnect between underrepresented people ONLY cast within their “type”, but straight cis people cast as anyone and everyone. Like, nobody gives a shit if it’s a Brit playing an American, or a Scot playing a Brit, or an American playing a Scot, and that’s because in those cases it’s not a one-way street. There isn’t a whole trove of British actors struggling to get by because all the British roles are going to Americans, but casting directors think a British person playing an American would be too distracting or not believable, or something, so they can ONLY get roles as Brits, and only the smaller, supporting British roles since the GOOD British roles go to Americans playing Brits.
So by that standard, there exists a day in the future when enough gay people will be playing gay roles that people on sites like this will stop complaining about instances in which it doesn’t happen? I’d be skeptical; a lot of people complain to complain.Also, individual films aren’t made in the macro. If someone says that more gay/transgender/etc. people should be brought in or auditioned for certain roles, then sure. I’d have no problem with that. But I still believe that a) acting is acting, and is about playing different people than you are, and b) an individual director should have the freedom to cast whomever they want. To state the (hopefully) obvious, of course that applies to casting a transgender person as a cisgender character if they’re the best fit for the role. I think the real solution to this is an expansion of opportunity, not closing it off to different groups.
So by that standard, there exists a day in the future when enough gay people will be playing gay roles that people on sites like this will stop complaining about instances in which it doesn’t happen?Well, yeah, when gay people are playing gay AND straight roles and it becomes a non-issue because people truly don’t give a shit about sexual orientation, then yeah. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, at least not as long as one of our two political parties still equates homosexuality with pedophilia. Also, individual films aren’t made in the macro. Yeah, but trends and inherent biases play a role. Like Hollywood’s persistent default to “white and straight” unless the role specifically calls for a character to be otherwise. ONE film or TV show being 99% white and straight, okay, fine. 90% of films or TV shows being 99% white and straight . . . well, you gotta wonder why that happens, don’t you? Maybe because 99% of producers and directors and executives and casting agents and Hollywood writers are white? Maybe? So, yeah, some pressure to make a concerted effort to get those people who make the decisions beyond their default of “white and straight” for every character who isn’t a “saucy gay best friend” or “Hispanic or Black gang member” or having a trans guest star on for a “very special episode” is a good thing. I mean, half the traffic on the internet is being outraged about one thing or another so there will always be SOMETHING to be pissed about.
Certainly agree with you on the last part. I just hate to imagine the day a truly talented, original director having to cast their film from a place of nervousness over social media outrage. I don’t think we’re there yet, and I hope we don’t get there.
astonishing how many phone warriors in this chat seem to know so very much about what Cate Blanchett does or doesn’t get up to in her private life. but then, this is a below the line comment section on a website for people that seem to need to have every episode of television retold to them by some poorly paid hack, so perhaps i’ll just show myself out.
how has a straight woman grown so in-demand as a vessel for complex, queer characters?I can answer this. Because she’s a really, really fucking good actor. She was nominated for an Academy Award for playing Bob Dylan, despite not being A) a man, B) Jewish, C) a singer-songwriter, or D) actively disdainful of her audience.
I just like how she has a pet blurry photographer she takes along to red carpets. She seems really proud of him in that photo.
I too am insulted that they keep giving roles in Star Wars to humans to play wookies. Why aren’t we finding real wookies to play the roles? Wookie representation matters.
I read her character in Oceans 8 as queer. In my defense it was probably a combination of the flirting Lou and Debbie did and green sparkly suit she wore on the night of the heist. It immediately felt like Bowie to me I had a crush on her character from that moment on. Her other outfits gave me rocker chick but that green suit whispered Bowie and I was lost.
Part of the reason Blanchett can take such pride in movies like Carol or Tár
is that they explore new horizons for how sexuality gets portrayed
onscreen—and teach viewers those horizons are possible. Blanchett is
right that both films don’t solely ride on their lesbian protagonists,
but that fact is a lesson in and of itself: there’s a lot more to the average gay person than, well, being gay.
A lesson that, I’m sure, everyone who saw the film already knew. It’s the same lesson that we “learned” when Ellen came out, when she outed her character in the sitcom she was doing at that time, when Brokeback Mountain came out, etc…
How long are we supposed to pretend people don’t know the things they know? At that point, if someone still doesn’t know that gay people have normal lives, it’s because they don’t want to know, and they’re certainly not going to see Carol or Tár. Blanchett is right to say that the movies should not be seen as an educational tool, just like Harry Styles was right to say that people shouldn’t make a big deal out of him playing a gay character. It’s time we change the way we talk about those films.
I genuinely don’t understand why it’s okay for Cate Blanchett to pretend to be Phyllis Schlafly, but less okay for her to pretend to be gay.
I’m understanding of the basis for the “straight characters playing queer characters” backlash, as it has its roots in equity. To me this is a very interesting case. Cate Blanchett is unquestionably a top 5 working actor. I don’t know many folks who would dispute that. So if I have a big female part that needs to go to a white middle-aged woman, she’s essentially going to be top of the list. If you offered it to an out actress of similar talent, your choices are basically Sarah Paulson and Jodie Foster. Otherwise you’re finding an unknown at the level of Cate Blanchett, which is basically impossible anyway, and you don’t WANT an unknown because you also need someone to sell your movie, not just to audiences but to financiers, who want a proven talent. So I’m just not sure what the ask is for a part like this.
Are you a lesbian? If not, should you be writing this? Or playing a tree in the school play?