Having written 14 novels, seven of which are on Amazon, I have thoroughly studied how stories are constructed. A TV show or movie has so little time to develop the character that you can only play to the stereotype or against it. If you try anything else you almost always end up with a forgettable plastic character with no memorable traits. Playing to the stereotype is a priest who sacrifices all for good. Playing against it, the priest is an evil character who does bad things and enjoys it.
Nothing in a story should be there without some purpose in the plot. If you make a character gay then that had better be some significant plot driver or it will be a meaningless and confusing non sequitur. The viewer will come to believe that the character’s gayness is just thrown in for political reasons and it will detract from the story. (Examples of virtue signaling politics in movies are the all female “Ghostbusters” and the plethora of weird super hero movies with “diverse” characters. All that I can think of have been financial failures.)
If the gay character plays to the stereotype, he will be a clown and couldn’t carry any serious plot forward except in a comedic way. If he plays against the stereotype, acting “straight” then what is the point of having a gay character? Perhaps “Brokeback Mountain” carries it off as two gay characters. I haven’t seen the movie but my take is they are two homosexuals rather than two gays. The distinction is political. You could, for example, be a homosexual and serious conservative, but you could NOT be a conservative or serious “gay.” Gay is a lifestyle choice and derives from communist philosophy.
Great post, Get.Blather.
Great post.
Sounds like the Amazing Race on CBS. For some reason they have to have a homosexual couple every season (or occasionally homosexual child with a parent), but the homosexual participants must be flaming. You have to know within 5 seconds who they are.