lauraf@teklds.UUCP (Laura Freeman) (08/16/85)
[] How do you feel about public figures announcing that they are gay? OK, let's take Rock Hudson as an example: Should he tell the world that he is gay? Does he have a "duty" to do so? What good does it do? When is a good time to announce it? At the height of popularity? When he doesn't want/need to act anymore? When he has "enough" money? Never? The magazines are saying that everyone in Hollywood knew Rock was gay. Yet, he still got jobs. Does this mean he wasn't discriminated against? (!) Suppose he had gone public. Would the roles have dried up then? People seem to be sorry for him now. Does that mean it's ok to be gay if you're "paying for it"? (The bitter attitude?) Or is it really his own business and everyone should just shut up about it? Am I invading his privacy by asking you these questions? Well? When I first heard about it, I thought, "Oh, he could have done so much good by going public. He could've helped public understanding enor- mously." This is the theory that it's harder to hate a group if you admire a member of that goup. But, lately I've been thinking,"Well, why should he open himself up to all these tabloid articles if he really doesn't have to?" Last night at the market, I saw a headline on one of those things, 'THE MAN WHO LED ROCK ASTRAY.' Uugghh!! So what do YOU think? (If I get attacked for this article, you'll know why we read-onlys don't post articles!
shore@adobe.UUCP (Andrew Shore) (08/18/85)
When I first heard that Rock Hudson had AIDS I was very sad. I was sad in part because AIDS is a terrifying, heartbreaking illness. I was sad that Rock felt he had to live his life the way he did. At first, I was angry that he hadn't come out years ago. Then I realized that had he done so, he would not have been able to land another job. Rock was almost always cast as a romantic leading man. What kind of producer or director would cast an openly known homosexual in those kinds of roles? I'd understand it -- I'd probably go to see those movies BECAUSE of the casting -- but most of middle America, most advertisers, etc., simply could not accept it. If Rock had come out in Hollywood, he would never have worked again. What kind of role model would that provide? The message "you come out and you're doomed" wouldn't exactly help public understanding. It would fuel the fires of the bigots in terms of work discrimination and blackmail arguments. Word has it that Rock's homosexuality was more or less generally known in Hollywood -- that it was just something people knew and didn't talk about. I guess I can understand that "you don't rock the boat and we'll keep you along for the ride" attitude. I'm certain that he is not the only homosexual in show biz. I'm also certain that many people in the business have something personal that they'd just as soon not let the public know about. I remember a Baba Wawa interview with Harvey Fierstein (sp?) the Tony-award-winning author-actor of "Torch Song Trilogy" and the writer of the book for the musical "La Cage aux Folles". He is probably the most well know (the only?), openly gay figure in the theater today. Baba made some comment that 10 years ago, she could not have done an interview like that -- talking openly to a gay man on prime time TV about his life and his work. He said something along the lines of the following: Isn't it absurd all this attention I'm getting. You know and I know that I'm not the first gay actor on Broadway, I'm not the first gay writer, I'm not the first gay anything. Gay people have been involved in every aspect of the theater since its inception, and some of the most well- known figures in the American theater have been gay. He was right of course. All of the secrecy is ridiculous, but there is a problem of acceptance to be dealt with. There is a saying: "You can tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs." I think that would have gone (may still go) for the first crop of people in the entertainment industry who deal openly with their homosexuality. I don't think that America is ready to handle it. While I think that the initial news about Hudson was not handled very well. [The initial press releases that he was (1) recovering from the flu, then (2) had liver cancer.] I do think that some good may come of this horrible happening. Now all America knows someone with AIDS. Now the president knows someone with AIDS. [I have heard that Reagen has never spoken about AIDS in public.] This could have a major effect on public awareness and government assistance. It did make new cover stories in both Time and Newsweek, for example. I think it is vital that the public understand what AIDS does and does not represent. It represents an extremely serious health crisis for this country. The final costs for treating and (hopefully) curing and preventing AIDS will be astronomical. AIDS WILL spread into the heterosexual community in greater numbers. It WILL NOT be spread through casual contact, through the workplace, etc. I hope that the Hudson disclosure helps to bring these issues home to the rest of America. What will happen when the next five public figures are diagnosed and die? --Andy