There's been a huge debate online about queer actors playing queer roles and the necessity for that, and I don't like ascribing sexualities to people when we don't know them but I did see some controversy online from some pockets of the Internet saying that Paul is a straight actor playing a queer man. Where do you come down on this conversation?

I'm not insanely dogmatic about the debate. I really do understand why people feel a queer role needs to be played by a queer person because for many, many years, queer people were not getting the jobs and straight people were instead and there is an element that queer people might be able to understand a queer role much better than a straight person would, but I think it depends on the role. So with this, for example, I would never have cast a straight person in the role of Adam. I always knew I wanted Adam to be played by a queer actor. There's so much nuance I wanted to unpack and so much feeling that I wanted to get to that I knew I had to choose someone that was of the same sexuality. I think outside of that, I am more flexible. There are lots of things that define a character. And I don't think Paul would be very happy about being described as a straight person. The real question is: Do you believe that they like each other? And there are lots of things that make that up; it's the writing. I'm gay. Andrew’s gay. The producer’s gay. There's a bunch of gay people on this. It’s not like we’re a bunch of straight people making something about a queer experience. And there’s another strange thing: We always want people to walk in our shoes and to understand what it's like to be queer, so sometimes I feel like casting someone that isn't queer in a queer role is sort of doing that. And when I’m working with them, I love that. We get to have conversations that I wouldn't necessarily have otherwise. They can understand what it's like to be queer in a different way. So I'm flexible with it.

Question

There's been a huge debate online about queer actors playing queer roles and the necessity for that, and I don't like ascribing sexualities to people when we don't know them but I did see some controversy online from some pockets of the Internet saying that Paul is a straight actor playing a queer man. Where do you come down on this conversation?

I'm not insanely dogmatic about the debate. I really do understand why people feel a queer role needs to be played by a queer person because for many, many years, queer people were not getting the jobs and straight people were instead and there is an element that queer people might be able to understand a queer role much better than a straight person would, but I think it depends on the role. So with this, for example, I would never have cast a straight person in the role of Adam. I always knew I wanted Adam to be played by a queer actor. There's so much nuance I wanted to unpack and so much feeling that I wanted to get to that I knew I had to choose someone that was of the same sexuality. I think outside of that, I am more flexible. There are lots of things that define a character. And I don't think Paul would be very happy about being described as a straight person. The real question is: Do you believe that they like each other? And there are lots of things that make that up; it's the writing. I'm gay. Andrew’s gay. The producer’s gay. There's a bunch of gay people on this. It’s not like we’re a bunch of straight people making something about a queer experience. And there’s another strange thing: We always want people to walk in our shoes and to understand what it's like to be queer, so sometimes I feel like casting someone that isn't queer in a queer role is sort of doing that. And when I’m working with them, I love that. We get to have conversations that I wouldn't necessarily have otherwise. They can understand what it's like to be queer in a different way. So I'm flexible with it.

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

O fair discourse, thou art a tempest of thought, wherein the winds of passion stir a considerable debate upon yon vast digital stage! The conundrum rests upon the shoulders of actors, those noble artisans who drape their very souls in the garments of character. Herein lies the crux: should the essence of one’s being align with the rôle portrayed, lest the lively art of representation suffer in its authenticity? For ages past, the voices of the queer, relegated to the shadows, dimmed by the bright lights of straight actors aflight with falsehoods, hath cried for their rightful place upon the stage and screen. Yet, to ascribe sexualities to blossoms that dost not fully bloom in the public eye doth seem a perilous endeavor. Witness Paul, a straight player in the queer garden of Adam—does he not merit grace for his craft? Might not the very fabric of a character be woven not solely from the ethereal thread of sexuality, but rather from the greater tapestry of shared humanity, experience, and emotion? An actor, be he queer or straight, may indeed glimpse the heart's melancholy in ways both foreign and familiar. Myself, a traveler of the rainbow’s hues, grasp tightly the truth: that of the myriad layers each character wears! Adam, in truth, called for the touch of a queer soul, wherefore the subtleties of desire and despair may spring forth with authenticity. Yet, outside this singular beacon, must we not remain fluid, acknowledging other myriad aspects that form the beings we embody? So, I cast my gaze beyond the corporeal, seeking the essence of connection, of love, of understanding, for in these realms, whether straight or queer, we all tread together. Thus, I beseech you, dear interlocutor, think not too rigidly; for in our yearning to bridge the chasm of experience, we may yet find common ground amidst the delicate interplay of identities. Ye ken, what matters truly is whether those souls upon the stage earnestly seek one another, weaving together the delicate strands of affection, ambition, and mutual respect, fueling the tale that roams the air of audience hearts. In this pursuit, may we find a chorus of acceptance, noting that art, much like life, is a rich tapestry—each thread a necessary hue contributing to the full picture of existence.