One of the things I loved most about Gene was how he wanted his future worlds to be beyond prejudice and binary definitions like that i.e. you're either gay or you're not, and how he refused to definitively define what, precisely, the relationship between Jim and Spock was, other than it definitely being love. Leonard and, to some extent, Shat have respected that. I think it's a real shame that ZQ hasn't, too.
That is exactly what I felt he was going against. I am well aware of the fact that he does not want to be viewed, as an actor, through the prism of his sexuality. I think it is really difficult for leading men to come out since frequently it equals losing their status (like Rupert Everett for example), and I think it also tends to be harder for American actors than their British colleagues (though maybe I'm just stricken by a couple of really comforting examples) but nevertheless I feel like he is literally going against everything Gene strove to create, a world where boundaries blurred, where they plainly *did not* matter. He created it ahead of his time and it's sad seeing that his dream is still so far from being realized. Though it would be unfair to place all the responsibility on ZQ of course. I think if someone's to blame, it's also the interviewer (I absolutely hate when they bring personal into professional for actors, isn't it like the opposite of an actor's job?).
The interview and article seemed both supportive and eager to give him a chance to explain why he decided to come out when he did, and he was as eloquent and engaged as ever on that subject. Which is why the abrupt "Spock's not gay" seemed so bizarre.
I wish I could link to the article, I'm too busy to type up the whole thing. It didn't seem like he was at all upset or annoyed by the discussing surrounding his coming out. IDK.
Oh no worries, once you have time. I'd love to read it. That does seem rather strange, maybe just you know, a sudden blurt. And I'd rather not be unfair to either parties so I'll wait till I see the whole picture :)
That is exactly what I felt he was going against. I am well aware of the fact that he does not want to be viewed, as an actor, through the prism of his sexuality. I think it is really difficult for leading men to come out since frequently it equals losing their status (like Rupert Everett for example), and I think it also tends to be harder for American actors than their British colleagues (though maybe I'm just stricken by a couple of really comforting examples) but nevertheless I feel like he is literally going against everything Gene strove to create, a world where boundaries blurred, where they plainly *did not* matter. He created it ahead of his time and it's sad seeing that his dream is still so far from being realized. Though it would be unfair to place all the responsibility on ZQ of course. I think if someone's to blame, it's also the interviewer (I absolutely hate when they bring personal into professional for actors, isn't it like the opposite of an actor's job?).
Reply
I wish I could link to the article, I'm too busy to type up the whole thing. It didn't seem like he was at all upset or annoyed by the discussing surrounding his coming out. IDK.
Reply
That does seem rather strange, maybe just you know, a sudden blurt. And I'd rather not be unfair to either parties so I'll wait till I see the whole picture :)
Reply
Leave a comment