Ian McKellen says Tom Cruise has been unsuccessful

Apparently Hollywood is hostile to gay actors. Me, I thought it had more to do with the target audiences than with the filmmakers, but there you go.

Unfortunately, I can’t read the article because I’m behind the Great Chinese Firewall. But like Mr. Koontz, that’s not going to stop me from commenting. My suspicion is that if target audiences are hostile to gay actors (or any actor), then so to will be Hollywood.

And since I can’t read the article, I have to ask the question. Is Tom Cruise gay? Actually, that would explain his earlier attraction to Ms. Kidman, wouldn’t it?

I suppose, but I think there is a different between a passive “it would help your career if you stayed in the closet” and the active “I’m not casting that fag” that Magneto appears to be suggesting exists. I just thought he chose a somewhat odd time to voice his outrage, given the big critical successes and general festival around numerous gay-themed movies. Like Underworld 2, for instance.

And since I can’t read the article, I have to ask the question. Is Tom Cruise gay? Actually, that would explain his earlier attraction to Ms. Kidman, wouldn’t it?
Probably. I don’t know. But I do know that it was funny to me that on that very same BBC article, the “See also” had in addition to various other Magnetothons, an article summarizing both Cruise’s recent victory in a gay defamation suit and a previous one. My favourite bit was the stirring conclusion:

Cruise last acted against gay rumours in 2001, when the 40-year-old actor sued Michael Davis, the Los Angeles publisher of Bold Magazine, for $100m (£62.3m).

Davis claimed to have a videotape of Cruise engaged in homosexual acts.

‘Protective’

The actor dropped the suit later that year after Davis retracted his claim and agreed to a stipulation that Cruise “is not, and never has been, homosexual and has never had a homosexual affair”.

Cruise is determined to take legal action for defamation against anyone who spreads false rumours about him, said his lawyer.

“He is very concerned and very protective about his personal reputation,” Ricardo Cestero.

“To the extent that if people are writing stories that defame him, he is going to go after them,” he said.

Methinks the lady protests way too fucking much. For someone as messed up as he obviously is, I’d say homosexuality is probably the least scandalous thing in his closet. So, yeah, I just that it was fun to juxtapose Cruise’s success as a self inflicted closet case and McKellan’s rant.

People who were in the Church of Scientology when Cruise joined and have since left claim that he joined because they promised they could make him not gay. They did this by arranging public relationships for him.

Sir Ian made his comments in Europe where people always like hearing about how backwards America is. Having a factual basis for such claims is not a requirement.

SO THEN WHAT DO YOU SAY TO HIS TRUE LOVE WITH THAT DAWSON’S CREEK GIRL? HUH? LIAR.
I’ve heard that as well, but only from people with otherwise kooky conspiracy theories. It seems too good to be true.

He seems pretty po’d at Britain too. Is that standard fare these days as well, or is Magneto just on a “bite the hand that feeds you” tour?

That’s probably more due to Sir Ian’s agenda rather than his audience. Keep in mind that he’s a gay activist, not just a gay actor, and he’s also rather full of himself… in the DVD extras for The Fellowship of the Ring he just had to let everyone know how little he thought of co-star Christopher Lee’s acting career. I still haven’t forgiven him. Asshole.

Liberace won a libel suit when the London Daily Mirror said he was gay.

On the list of scandalous things, I have to think that being outted after all this time would be at the very top of the list. There’s not much else out there that could derail him.

Let’s see:

Divorce, nope. Done it twice
May / December romance, nope.
Religious Affiliation, nope.
Drug use, probably not. The world seems to be a forgiving place (Hey, Mr. Downey) when it comes to drugs.
Irrational behavior, maybe. The fallout from Oprah, Today Show, trashing Brooke Shields, etc is still unknown. I do think he came really close to breaking the “there is no such thing as bad publicity” rule.

I probably missed a few things, but it seems as if there isn’t much out there to derail him.

Using prostitutes, or any criminal conviction that can’t be spun as “because I am a victim of n” on TV.

Hey paper-boy. Why doncha come over here with those muscly arms?

Risky Business II

Dressing up as a woman and soliciting for sex with under-cover policemen on 4th street.

But in England, can’t you win a libel suit even if what they are saying about you is true, as long as you can prove damages?

You can win in your birthday suit if you’ve got good representation!

Ok I saw underworld 2. How was it gay-themed again?

Ugh! How wasn’t it? Are you really saying you didn’t pickup the signals or are you being sarcastic? I guess smilies would be useful sometimes.

Not quite. The difference is that in the U.S., you typically have to show actual damages, etc., while in Britain, you merely have to show that the falehood is “malicious” in intent.

Libel is the only crime in which it can reasonably be argued that the burden of proof is with the defence. This is because the defence is actually being called on claim they have already made. Normally, it is the prosecution’s claim at issue, and so the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

In British libel law, however, this means in practice that the burden of proof is extremely difficult to surmount. If you said something that you cannot prove which appears “malicious,” you’re in a messy place.

While the same is actually true in the U.S. (libel means the defendant has its own burden of proof because claims are being addressed that were made exterior to the court) the plaintiff actually has to prove that the libel was published, that their reputation is damages, that the defendant is the true source of the libel, and that the the published information is actually false.

I guess I am blind. Underworld 2 was about vampires and werewovles. Where was the gay part? I do not recall two dudes kissing anywhere or even looking longingly at each other.

I just askeda co-worker who saw this movie and he can’t think of any gay themes in it either.

You should go ask more people. Just go up to random folks on the street and quiz them about it. Then come back and let us know what they said.

;)

Oh, that would be juicy if it were true.

I kind of wish it was true.