Communication Culture & Critique ISSN 1753-9129

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters

on U.S. Television
Alfred L. Martin, Jr.
Department of Communication Studies, 105 Becker Communication Studies Building, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-
1498, USA

Casting for gay roles in U.S. television occupies an important space within media produc-
tion studies because it exposes the patterns involved with who is allowed to work within
the culture industries. Drawing on literature on casting, queer labor and personal inter-
views with casting directors, this article explores the ways casting functions as a practice
that doggedly works within “best actor” discourses that insulate the television industry
from charges of deliberately failing to cast gay actors in projects. Ultimately, this article
centers the import of queers’ ability to fashion their own self-images and re-asserts the spec-
ificity of gayness as an identity category. This article also exposes the three-tiered discursive
spiral in which casting is bound: defensive truth, subterfuge and queer possibility.

Keywords: Queer Media Studies, Casting, Cultural Production, Gay Representation, Queer
Labor, Queer Identity, Queer Production Studies.

doi:10.1093/ccc/tcy005

Introduction

In 2016 and 2017, the television mini-series Urban Myths experienced backlash
when Joseph Fiennes, a white actor, was cast as Michael Jackson, ultimately result-
ing in the SKY network deciding not to air the finished episode. When Jeffrey
Tambor was cast as transwoman Maura on Transparent, many were unhappy with
Tambor, a cisgender man, being cast, criticizing the production for failing to cast a
trans* actor in the role. These cases gesture toward the verisimilitude expected for
racially marked and trans* roles, but no such advocacy exists for casting gay roles.
GLAAD’s (2017) “Where We Are On TV” report revealed that there were 175
gay male characters across broadcast, cable and streaming platforms during the
2017–18 television season, however the report does not focus on whether the actor
embodying the role is gay. This article takes GLAAD’s report as its nexus by explor-
ing the disjuncture between the number of gay roles on television and the sexuality

Corresponding author: Tel: +319-335-0575; Email: Alfred-Martin@uiowa.edu

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of 1
International Communication Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

of the actors chosen to embody such roles. Perhaps the ongoing campaign to “nor-
malize” gayness has resulted in the industrial perception that playing a gay character
only involves mediating “fair, accurate and inclusive representations… as a means
of eliminating homophobia and discrimination” but not the politics of casting such
roles (Khan, 2011, p. 237). However, although SAG-AFTRA formed an LGBT
actor’s caucus in 2007, Badgett and Herman (2013) found that the majority of its
5,700 member respondents believe anti-LGB bias exists among casting directors,
often exemplified in casting directors’ discriminatory comments about sexual orien-
tation (p. 19). Badgett and Herman’s study illuminates the ways that even as LGB
representation may have achieved a nominal sense of parity, LGB actors still work
within environs that impede gainful employment.
Wesling (2012) argues that “the production of sexual identity (…) is bound up
in the way capital produces subjects accommodated to its own needs” (p. 1). The
dogged suggestion that gay actors publicly come out as gay (couched discursively in
liberation rhetoric) seems in sharp contrast to the ways being an openly gay actor
can limit career opportunities. A gay Hollywood actor told me, “Right now, I’m
doing my best to not make any public statements about my sexuality (…) at least
until I can establish myself enough to where I don’t care about any adverse effects”
(personal communication, January 10, 2016). His comments suggest the precarity of
being gay in Hollywood whilst trying to maintain a viable career as an actor. It also
suggests the central place of casting within LGBT representational and labor politics.
Certainly, LGBT people often find work within the television industry as writers and
showrunners, and LGBT images have mostly evacuated “negative” tropes, however,
this article explores the ways hegemonic casting practices result in gay actors infre-
quently being cast in gay roles across media platforms. In addition, I illuminate the cir-
cumstances under which gay actors are deemed “best” for gay roles.
The casting directors I interviewed for this article are ambivalent about whether
the actor chosen to play a gay character identifies as such as long as they are the
“best actor” for the part. As such, the principles that guide their casting decisions
concomitantly employ a trifecta of interconnected discourses: defensive truth, sub-
terfuge and queer possibility. Defensive truth provides a ready-made explanation for
their decisions, even as they adhere to Turow’s (1978) theorization that television
casting reinforces “the patterned, consistent manner in which certain groups are
(…) portrayed” (p. 18). I am not suggesting that casting directors are “dupes,” but
rather, that they, like gay actors, are caught within a discursive spiral in which their
decisions need a readily defensible methodology to explain how they cast roles. In
this way, the “best actor” discourse works to defend casting directors rather than
necessarily explaining their casting decisions. Concurrently, “best actor” discourses
employ subterfuge in their commercial ambivalences about the business of televi-
sion. In denying that the innerworkings of the televisual marketplace come to bear
on casting decisions, casting directors seek to maintain the “purity” of their casting
process, when in fact, projects are often greenlit based on casting. Such decisions
and evaluations of who is “best” for the role is ineffable and also elides that casting

2 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

directors are freelance workers whose labor is unpaid unless/until they find the
“best actor” as deemed so by the showrunner and sometimes studio executive(s).
Lastly, the “best actor” discourse employs queer possibility in its promise that if gay
actors are “good enough” to be understood as the “best actor,” then they, too, can
be cast in both gay roles and non-gay roles. This article explores the ways this trium-
virate works to uphold the hegemonic ways casting functions. Using personal inter-
views with casting directors from The New Normal (NBC, 2013–2014), The Real
O’Neals (ABC, 2015–2017), Modern Family (ABC, 2010–), Grace & Frankie
(Netflix, 2015–), and Will & Grace (NBC, 1998–2006; 2017–), as well as attendance
at a panel on casting at the 2015 ATX TV Festival, I explore the ways casting func-
tions within “best actor” discourses and insulates the television industry from
charges of deliberately failing to cast gay actors in projects.

The trouble with queer television activism

In the wake of the Stonewall Riots, gay rights organizations began to protest the
ways gay television images were fashioned. The Corner Bar (ABC, 1972–1973) was
the first time television producers agreed to negotiate gay representations (Capsuto,
2000, p. 76). Additionally, in September 1977, the National Gay Task Force issued a
call to have the Federal Communications Commission survey representations of
gays on television, and the International Union of Gay Athletes demanded to meet
with ABC to protest the ways gay men were represented on Soap (ABC, 1977–1981)
(Brown, 1977). These early protests called for “correction” of the “negative” images,
but not necessarily for gay people to be employed either as part of the writing/pro-
ducing staff or as performers in these roles.
Doyle (2016) describes the ways Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation
(GLAAD) began working with networks, showrunners and writers to police medi-
ated images of homosexuality, ultimately leading to its “Where We Are On TV”
reports (pp. 14–15). These reports counted the number of LGBT mediated images,
but labor issues are/were not considered. Tongson (2017) highlights the proble-
matics associated with quantitatively counting television’s gay representations, since
such accounts “equate profit and advertiser approval with political progress” (p.
158). Thus, the shape of LGBT media activism differed sharply from the activisms
of other identity groups like Chicanos, who were dually focused on image produc-
tion and employment (Chon Noriega, 2000, p. 54). Instead, as Himberg (2018)
observes, in LGBT media advocacy’s pursuit of diverse representations, activists
paid scant attention to labor issues, believing that representation alone would lead
to political change (p. 79). Certainly, research on parasocial relationships has ges-
tured toward the ways queer televisibility can be politically beneficial with respect to
attitudes about LGBT people, but labor issues retain their import alongside such a
position (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, et al, 2006).

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

Casting queerly
Doty (1997) suggests one of the places queerness develops in media culture is
among “influences during the production of texts” (p. xi). Doty’s theorization is use-
ful in placing casting among the important nodes of production because it literally
shapes the way queerness is represented and decoded by viewers. Mayer, Banks and
Caldwell (2009) argue that casting directors are among the “cultural actors” whose
practices should be considered within the political economy of Hollywood labor
practices (p. 3). Warner (2015) adds that examining the machinations of casting
practices helps demonstrate their integral position within studies of cultural produc-
tion (p. 33). Herrera (2015) offers logistical and political frameworks for studying
casting. Logistical analyses explore the fraught and irrational ways casting empha-
sizes “choice” while upholding particular hegemonic casting practices. Political
analyses “advocate for specific interventions into such casting mechanisms as a
means of achieving social, economic, or cultural goals beyond a particular produc-
tion” (p. 58). Taken together, these scholars gesture toward the import of studying
casting as a means to uncover an interrelated set of ideological and industrial factors
that contribute to an understanding of televisual representation and its material
effects on employment, activism and performance.
While Schechner (2010) argues that aligning sexual orientation with casting
decisions employs “a stupid realism,” his pluralistic approach to casting elides the
problematics associated with the number of gay roles available and the infrequency
with which gay actors are chosen to portray those characters and how employment,
activism and performance are bound within casting (p. 29). Henderson (2013)
articulates the ways a focus on queer images versus labor and performance exposes
“the cultural costs of commercial representation [which] include (…) renewed acco-
lades to nonqueer actors for brave gay performances (when queer actors can count
on effacement (…) for playing straight characters)” (p. 120). Casting gay men in
television begs the question, if gay men are not perceived as capable of playing het-
erosexual roles because they cannot believably “play it straight,” and they are often
overlooked for gay roles (which typically go to “brave” heterosexual actors) where
are gay actors’ employment options?
Johnson (2001) asserts that gay people “have a need to exercise control over the
production of their images so that they feel empowered” (p. 11). Johnson focuses on
the specificity of LGBT people’s experiences and, by extension, the agency bestowed
upon them to have access to and control of the ways their images are fashioned
within media production. My argument here is not that gay people are necessarily
underemployed within the culture industries writ large, or that only gay actors
should be eligible to play gay roles. However, I am suggesting that gay actors are
underemployed when considering the ratio of gay roles to casting openly gay actors
to fill them. The double bind in which casting gay roles is caught concerns the con-
comitant de-valuation of queerness as a discrete and important identity category
and a de-legitimation of gay actor’s abilities within the casting process. While

4 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

Griffin (2017) suggests that gay identity is a political, consumerist and affective fic-
tion, a position with which I agree, it is equally important to consider that gay iden-
tity development models advocate for the specificity of queerness as a discrete
identity category (p. 1). Sedgwick (2008) gestures toward these tensions within her
theorizations of a “minoritizing” and “universalizing” view of homosexuality. On
one hand, the minoritizing view centers the importance of gayness as a discrete
identity category experienced by a segment of the population which ultimately calls
for a kind of separatism. On the other hand, a universalizing view suggests that
notions of sexuality are important across a spectrum of sexualities (p. 1). Extending
Sedgwick’s minoritizing view to casting practices would mean that only gay actors
should be considered for gay roles. This logic suggests two positions. First, that gay
identity cannot be effectively “put on” in order to perform a gay role. Second, such a
view would suggest that if gay actors are infrequently construed as eligible for non-
gay roles, then gay roles should be carved out as the terrain of gay actors.
Sedgwick’s universalizing view would imply that talent and skill are most important
within casting. The universalizing view is most closely associated with the discursive
functions of “best actor.” This article argues that casting for gay roles should work
toward a liminal space between these two poles. By employing Muñoz’s (1999)
queer performance studies lens, this article emphasizes “the political force of perfor-
mance (…) by queers,” stressing the import of gay actors playing gay roles (p. xiv).
Shugart (2003) contends that male homosexuality in media is often “recoded
and normalized as consistent with privileged male heterosexuality” (p. 68).
Extending Shugart, I assert that in the service of normalizing mediated homosexual-
ity, casting gay characters standardizes casting practices such that gayness is repre-
sented as conventionally masculine which then favors heterosexual male actors for
those roles. Casting, thus, works to privilege heterosexual actors and the labor asso-
ciated with convincingly playing gay characters. Simultaneously, casting directors’
double-speak exploits such inherent contradictions and insulates the industry from
charges of not auditioning and casting gay actors. Conversely, gay actors can be
removed from consideration within the discourse of looking for the “best actor”—
who “just happens to be” heterosexual.

The politics of “best actor” discourses and casting gay roles

During the “Reflective Casting” panel at the 2015 ATX TV Festival, I asked about
the ways casting functions vis-à-vis the politics of gay representation. Grace &
Frankie casting director Tracy Lilienfield responded, “We never had one single con-
versation about whether anyone playing Robert or Saul [the series two gay charac-
ters] was actually gay. We just wanted the best actor.” Warner (2015) describes the
best actor discourse as the fraught task of finding the best actor who can portray the
best version of a fictional role. She argues, “assumptions and hiring decisions revolv-
ing around the best portrayal of (…) identities are tied up in cultural understand-
ings of what the identities look like and, more important, how the identities can

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

best be represented” (p. 4). However, Lilienfield continues “We needed someone
who would ‘play’ on screen with Jane [Fonda] and Lilly [Tomlin].” Lilienfield
reveals that it is not only the search for the “best actor” that guides her casting deci-
sions—it is the best actor plus other intangibles, in this case, the desire to cast actors
who were veterans in the field. In this way, “best actor” discourses are subterfuge.
They work to ignore the commercial machinations of the televisual marketplace.
Lilienfield could have cast veteran, out, gay actors like Richard Chamberlain or
George Takei, but for whatever reasons, she did not. In looking for the best actor,
and simultaneously subscribing to post-gay rhetoric, casting directors, like
Lilienfield, are gatekeepers who can, and often do, prevent gay actors from getting
work.
When I asked the panelists about the ways a focus on gay roles rather than cast-
ing gay actors disenfranchises the labor of queers, Lilienfield suggested that if gay
actors fail to find work within the culture industries, the problem lies with the actor,
not the industry. She suggested “there are plenty of young gay actors who are not
getting work for reasons other than them being gay”, a sentiment with which the
other casting directors agreed (personal communication, June 5, 2015). For them,
gay actors who fail to find work is an individual problem, not a systemic one.
Lilienfield’s comments begin to expose the ways “best actor” discourses simulta-
neously employ defensive truths and queer possibilities with respect to casting: good
actors get work regardless of their sexual orientation. Tinkcom (2002) argues that
“we should keep in mind the forces of production under capital, particularly in
terms of how capital seeks to treat all labor as undifferentiable” (p. 10). Within
Lilienfield’s approach to casting and actors’ labor, the specificities of queerness are
obfuscated by discursive contortions that locate gay male roles in an undifferenti-
ated space whereby an actor’s known sexuality is inconsequential. In the process,
when skill is centered, the “best actor” discourse often results in heterosexual actors
playing gay roles. By making gay roles undifferentiated from non-gay roles, it pre-
cludes gay men from participating in the self-fashioning of their representation and
removes “the opportunity for queers to use their labor to mark” television through
acting and casting (Tinkcom, 2002, p. 10).
Modern Family casting director Jeff Greenberg explained how casting adheres to
best actor discourses, regardless of sexual orientation:
It’s not our business to ask the actors what their sexual orientation is (…) Jesse
was a very out actor but Eric, we didn’t know if he was gay or straight (…)
You’re really not allowed to ask someone what their sexual orientation is in
terms of employment. No one questioned it because it just seemed to work in
terms of the acting and the relationship. (Personal communication, December
19, 2016)
Greenberg illuminates his attempts to hew closely to the best actor discourse while
simultaneously centering Jesse Tyler Ferguson’s gay star text and gesturing toward
notions of industrial fairness in not asking actors whether they are gay. Casting

6 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

directors, like Greenberg, revert to searching for the best actor without necessarily
paying attention to an actor’s sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of the role
they have been engaged to cast, because they suggest they cannot ask an actor’s sex-
ual orientation (falsely hiding behind the prohibitions of Title IX, which do not cur-
rently protect LGBT people from employment discrimination). Thus, while casting
directors suggest they cannot explicitly ask about actors’ sexual orientation, such a
practice upholds implicit casting biases, often through “best actor” discourses.

Casting the single gay man

Two broad patterns emerge with respect to the ways single gay characters are cast
within television. The first concerns the ways gay characters who can be reductively
understood as “masculine” are cast. The second involves more flamboyant roles
because of their close proximity to long-held historical gay stereotypes. This section
explores casting approaches within these two broad types of single gay characters.
An examination of the casting breakdown for Will Truman from Will & Grace
is instructive vis-à-vis casting homonormative single gay characters and best actor
discourses. In the casting breakdown Will is described as “an accessibly handsome,
masculine (…) charming gay man” (Kendt, 2005, p. 36). Marrying the casting
breakdown’s description of Will as “masculine” with Fiske’s (2006) assertion that
casting is one of television’s representational codes that uses the ways everyday peo-
ple are already encoded with a set of meanings that get consciously exploited by
casting directors, the logic of casting Eric McCormack as Will becomes clearer
(p. 4). Because television in the late 1990s attempted to decouple femininity and
gayness, the encoding and centering of Will’s masculinity is significant. The politics
of casting ultimately excludes gay actors from participating in the fashioning of self-
images because of a pre-conceived notion of masculinity that is rooted in a desire to
normalize mediated gayness. On one hand, such pre-conceptions would presumably
only exclude gay actors who cannot convincingly convey “masculine.” On the other
hand, the result is often that gay masculinity is construed as the terrain of hetero-
sexual actors “playing gay.”
During the “Reflective Casting” panel, the casting directors suggested that it is
often difficult to find heterosexual actors willing to play gay roles. Will & Grace’s
casting director Lilienfield inadvertently revealed the precariousness of playing gay
in Hollywood. “We didn’t care that Eric [was gay] (…) Eric was plenty nervous and
turned down the part (…) He said, ‘I know this is going to be a huge hit and I don’t
know if I want this to be where I am perceived’” (personal communication, June 5,
2015). McCormack’s apprehension about being “perceived” as gay reveals the pre-
cariousness of playing gay on television. Casting director Jennifer Euston recounted,
“I’m working on a show right now that has a gay part and a few straight actors
turned it down because they don’t want to play gay” (personal communication,
June 5, 2015). As White (1999) argues, casting is “already a reading of type; the
audience performs a reading on another level, informed by cultural and subcultural

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

codes, spectatorial experience of the star in other roles, and subsidiary discourses”
(p. 149). In other words, part of the import of casting is that actors come to a text
carrying the residues of roles they have previously played, as well as other paratexts
(Fiske, 2006, pp. 8–9). These intertextual residues are particularly important when
examining the material effects of casting gay roles. McCormack seemed keenly
aware of the residues that would attach to his star text. His initial refusal to take the
role was tethered to the view that it might limit the kinds of roles he would be
offered after Will & Grace, not a concern that another gay actor might be able to
perform the role better. In casting McCormack as Will, Lilienfield presumably cast
the “best actor” for the role, which presumably found him “best” because of the
ways he would have to labor to “honestly” embody the role, labor a gay actor in a
gay role is not presumed to have to undertake.
At the same time, in casting Will & Grace, Lilienfield revealed that “Jack was
written much more stereotypically gay. I knew Sean [Hayes] (…) I knew I had to
have him play [Jack]. I knew that was going to be more flamboyant and we were
maybe going to take some flack for it. But actually, we took flack for none of it.”
While Hayes was not publicly out, Lilienfield seems to rely on her knowledge of
him (and perhaps his homosexuality) as a way to mitigate the “flack” that the pro-
duction anticipated for trafficking in stereotypes of gayness. In this way, Hayes’
queer “use value” supports capitalism’s production of queer subjects as a mecha-
nism to accommodate its own economic and cultural desires (Mullen, 2012, p. 125).
Lilienfield’s comments demonstrate the ways queer actors are utilized to insulate
the industry from charges of stereotypically representing gay characters because,
presumably, the representation is unable to be considered “offensive” because a gay
man is embodying the otherwise flamboyant role. In this way, the assumptive stance
is that if a gay actor doesn’t mind playing a flamboyantly gay character, why should
viewers mind?
The casting breakdown for ABC’s The Real O’Neals is also instructive with
respect to more flamboyant gay characters. In the breakdown, Kenny is described
as:
(…) a smart, funny, likeable kid who has always felt like a little bit of an
outsider in what appears to be the perfect All-American family. He hasn’t
mentioned to anyone in his family that he’s gay (…) However, when it is
revealed that he’s not the only one in his family who’s keeping a secret, he
decides to come out. (personal communication, January 19, 2017)
In casting the role, co-casting directors Jill Anthony and Gillian O’Neill saw no dif-
ferences in the ways they cast Kenny and the other roles on the show. Specifically,
O’Neill suggested that “In terms of whether it be a gay or a straight role, I think it’s
just whoever comes in and connects with the role, regardless of the orientation of
it” (personal communication, January 19, 2017). O’Neill’s comments center not
only a lack of gay specificity with respect to gay roles versus heterosexual ones, but
also reify the best actor discourse, which is inherently nebulous, something casting

8 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

directors “know when they see it.” O’Neill’s suggestion that a “connection” is key to
a successful audition is unquantifiable. Casting logics, then, remain difficult, if not
impossible to pin down, and casting for gay roles makes no space for the specificities
of queer actors being allowed to act out queer stories. As Warner (2016) argues,
casting “is a learned and socialized professional skill. Instead of knowing the right
actor when you see her, casting directors understand that the ‘right’ person must
adhere to the standardized codes, conventions, and expectations of the industry
they service” (p. 178). “Best actor,” then, is subterfuge. Casting directors generally,
and Anthony and O’Neill specifically, seem keenly aware of the ways they are cast-
ing for a televisual product that carries cultural meaning that viewers are constantly
re-negotiating.
Anthony suggests they and the series producers “really wanted to have a gay
actor for the part” (personal communication, January 19, 2017). I argue that part of
the reason they wanted a gay actor in the role is because the part, as written, could
have hewed too closely to stereotypic imaginings of gayness with respect to Kenny’s
general feyness. Noah Galvin, the actor ultimately cast as Kenny, worked to mitigate
the possibility that the character’s feyness would be read as a “negative” representa-
tion because of his gayness.
Anthony said, “Noah was very special (…) when you saw him on screen up
against the other choices, it seemed very obvious who was the right person for the
role” (personal communication, January 19, 2017). I suggest the casting directors
understand the ineffableness of “specialness” as rooted in Galvin’s ability to know
Kenny’s story as both a person and an actor. I contend that his ability to read as
“special” to The Real O’Neals’ casting directors was his ability to draw on portions
of his queer identity in order to create a representation of queerness that troubled
queer respectability politics. At the same time, the utility of Galvin’s gayness for the
role cannot be discounted. Any criticism of the role and its closeness to feyness
could potentially become tethered to Galvin as a gay man playing a gay role. As
Butler (2011) summarizes, “Without characters, there could be no television narra-
tive and no television stars. Correspondingly, without actors there could be no char-
acters” (p. 33). Butler sutures the ways actors, the characters they play and their
celebrity status become inextricably linked within cultural production. In short, dis-
approval of Kenny could be construed as a critique of Galvin.
The Real O’Neals producer Todd Holland told The Advocate (2016) that he felt
strongly about the necessity for Kenny to be embodied by a gay actor. “As a gay
man, this is a landmark role on network television. It should not be played by a
straight man” (para. 2). For Holland, the import of televising a lead gay teenage
character on network television is far too important to allow that responsibility to
fall on a heterosexual actor. The cultural meaning of The Real O’Neals is not just
about the image on the screen, but also about the actor embodying the role. Hunter
(2016) argues that the creation of characters should be imagined as a symbiotic
“dialogue between the writers and performer as coauthors” (p. 51). From this per-
spective, Galvin is as much a part of the authorship process as the series’ writers. In

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 9

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

other words, the subjectivity and lived experiences of gay actors retain their import
because gay actors can bring elements of their life to bear on the words on the page.

Casting queer binary oppositions and erasing queer labor

Gay men and lesbians are increasingly being depicted within television in romantic
relationships. As such, examining the ways gay couples are cast within televisual dis-
course illuminates a fascinating tale of the ways casting the “best actor” collides
with an industrial unwillingness to cast two gay actors as love interests.
In a Huffington Post (Hughes, 2013) article, Modern Family casting director
Greenberg suggests that ABC wanted openly gay “Jesse Tyler Ferguson to play the
more flamboyant Cam, rather than buttoned-down Mitchell” (para. 3). While
Ferguson was ultimately cast as Mitchell, the network’s desire to cast him as a more
flamboyant gay character points to the existing ideological patterns that doggedly
complicate the veneer of neutrality within best actor discourses. Typically, gay
actors playing gay roles are cast in roles that feature stereotypically feminine beha-
viors, as I demonstrated with the gay characters Jack from Will & Grace and Kenny
from The Real O’Neals. These actors, and the characters they portray thus labor to
uphold existing tropes of “real world” gay men, while the more heteronormative
gay characters are typically cast with heterosexual actors pretending to be gay. More
importantly, these heterosexual actors are often industrially and critically applauded
for the labor associated with convincingly embodying gay characters and upholding
the fiction inherent in casting. In the case of Modern Family, Eric Stonestreet, an
actor who has won two Primetime Emmy Awards for Best Supporting Actor in a
Comedy Series, centers the representational efficacy and labor associated with play-
ing gay. Presumably, the work of being gay while playing gay is imagined as discon-
nected from notions of “talent.” In a July 17, 2012 appearance on Ellen, Stonestreet
works to center the labor associated with playing Cameron:
I say that the process [of becoming Cameron] begins with me every day going
into my trailer and seeing what shirt the wardrobe department has laid out for
me. I always examine the cuffs to see what the cuffs are. Then I put on my
loafers and then I go get my hair done. This [pointing to his hair] took three
minutes. Cameron’s hair takes 25 minutes.
Here, Stonestreet centers his labor. Presumably, his co-star (and on-screen hus-
band) Ferguson can play a gay character easily because he is gay in “real” life. For
Stonestreet, there is labor involved in his playing a gay character as he meticulously
details when describing his process for getting into character. The difference in the
labor associated with playing gay is positioned as expressly different from the “real”
Stonestreet. By foregrounding his labor, Stonestreet participates in the logics of
“best actor” discourses which suggest that in order to approximate some semblance
of verisimilitude, the best actor is required to labor more than if a gay actor was cast

10 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

in the role, thus attempting to erase queer labor—the conscious, open work of queer
actors in gay roles.
Greenberg further suggests that part of casting Cameron and Mitchell was
choosing actors who were not flamboyant in the roles. He recalls that in the break-
downs, Cameron and Mitchell were described as having a “relationship to the core
family and we did very much signify that these characters were not flamboyant. We
wanted them to be more grounded in reality” (personal communication, December
19, 2016). Central to Greenburg’s assertions is that flamboyancy in gay men, in the
purview of the series creators and by extension, his role as casting director, had
become untethered from notions of “realness” and authenticity, despite the robust
availability of the stereotype. However, a further examination of the casting break-
down, as posted on writer Falk’s (2011) blog, is instructive with respect to the ways
casting functioned on Modern Family. While the breakdowns for Cameron and
Mitchell both center their gayness, Mitchell is described as “emotionally-restrained”
while Cameron is described as being “free with [his] emotions.” While, certainly
such a set of descriptors for a couple within a series sets the sitcom stage through
comedic binary oppositions, I argue that this opposition is also coded in the same
way Will Truman was imagined as “masculine” in the casting breakdown for Will &
Grace. In this instance, Cameron and Mitchell are not understood as “feminine”
and “masculine” but instead the breakdown utilizes coded language that ultimately
structures the ways each character is initially understood from a casting perspective.
This semiotic understanding was clear to Ferguson, who producers initially wanted
to cast as the “free with emotions” Cameron. In an interview with Out magazine
(2011), Ferguson recalled that he “was immediately drawn to Mitchell, but [Modern
Family producers] really only wanted to see [him] for Cameron” (para. 5). I suggest
that the producers, at least initially, underestimated the way they could see a gay
man performing a gay role. Rather than work within the “best actor” discourse that
producers and casting directors doggedly assert, in this case, it suggests a set of ideo-
logical assumptions that pre-determine the kinds of actors who can be considered
within the realm of the “best actor.”
Ferguson was the first actor cast on Modern Family. Because Ferguson is openly
gay, I suggest that his sexual orientation foreclosed on the possibility that another
out, gay actor could be cast as his on-screen husband. Because acting is understood
as fiction, I argue that casting two gay actors both forces “mainstream” viewers to
wrestle with the fact of homosexuality and the notion that the two gay actors could
really be romantically interested in one another when the camera stops rolling. In
my interview with Greenberg he said, “I also brought in a multitude of diverse eth-
nic choices for the part because as the boyfriend he could have been that. In fact,
one of the actors who tested for the part, Kevin Daniels [a black actor], went on to
recur as Longinus, one of [Cameron and Mitchell’s] friends” (personal communica-
tion, December 19, 2016). Importantly, in his discussion of the diversity of actors
who auditioned for the role, the diversity is imagined as racial diversity, not diver-
sity with respect to sexual orientation.

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 11

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

The New Normal casting director Susie Farris suggested that in casting, she
prioritizes finding “the best actor and the best fit. I don’t deviate from that.
Sometimes, obviously, you don’t always end up casting the best actor in the part. I
feel like that has less to do with my desire and more to do with (…) [the] politics
involved in casting network shows” (personal communication, January 12, 2017).
Farris inadvertently exposes the ways best actor discourses are problematically
mired in a triple-embedded discursive spiral. In suggesting that she is first and fore-
most looking for the best fit, which is different than the best actor, Farris exposes
the nebulous nature of casting practices. The notion of “fit” troubles the notion of
“best actor” because “fit” often exists outside of notions of talent, which best actor
discourses seek to foreground. As such, Farris implies that best actor discourses are
really understood as the best actor who fits within the politics of the ways a given
series wants to cast roles, particularly with respect to gay roles. Farris exposes the
ways “best actor” discourses, like post-racial, post-gay and post-feminist discourses,
pay lip service to equalizing the playing field in the culture industries for everyone,
but ultimately reifies pre-existing notions of what the “best actor” resembles—often
actors who are white and heterosexual. Thus, Farris reveals the ways defensive truth,
subterfuge and queer possibility are interconnected within “best actor” discourse.
Farris further suggests The New Normal’s showrunner Ryan Murphy only
wanted to see gay actors for the parts of central couple David and Bryan. When the
series was greenlit, out, gay actor Andrew Rannells was already attached to the proj-
ect. Farris suggests that Murphy “had an idea of who he wanted for David. He only
wanted gay actors (…) and he didn’t want me to work on it” (personal communica-
tion, January 12, 2017). At least according to Farris, Murphy seemingly understood
the import of the first series to feature a gay couple as its lead characters, and
wanted to ensure that such parts were embodied by gay actors, gesturing toward the
agential stakes of queers being able to fashion and embody their mediated images.
While it is difficult to discern whether or not Murphy was unable to find a gay actor
who was “right” for the role or if the network balked at having two gay actors por-
tray a gay couple on network television, Farris says “One day I got a call from Ryan
that just said, ‘Your top five Davids, who are they? They don’t have to be gay’” (per-
sonal communication, January 12, 2017). The actor cast in the role was heterosexual
actor Justin Bartha. At the time of this writing, while gay couples are increasingly
being depicted on television, no gay couple in commercial television has been cast
with two gay actors, which suggests an unwritten rule that precludes two gay men
from being cast as part of a same-sex couple in television discourse.
Greenburg suggests that in casting Cameron and Mitchell on Modern Family,
“What is most important is that the actors can make viewers believe that Eric and
Jesse were convincing as a gay couple” (personal communication, December 19,
2016). As Warner (2015) details, the notion that acting is first and foremost con-
cerned with making viewers believe the fiction casting seeks to convey is important
because “if an individual who is not necessarily a member of those (…) groups can
perform or is imbued with their apparent essences, then that person is just as

12 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

worthy of the part as the more ‘natural’ candidate” (p. 33). Greenberg’s assertions
about the veracity of the fictive qualities of casting are undergirded by the “best
actor” discourse. Greenberg claims “We’re not casting them because of their sexual-
ity, we’re casting them because of their skills and talent as actors and how they read
on camera” (personal communication, December 19, 2016). Additionally,
Greenberg forwards that the show’s producers “were looking for actors who could
make the words on the page work (…) We had no set agenda (…) We just wanted
to see who was funny and made it work” (personal communication, December 19,
2016). Importantly, Greenberg’s criteria for casting actors is necessarily and deliber-
ately intangible: skills, talent and making “the words on the page work.” That Modern
Family ended up casting one gay actor and one heterosexual actor as Mitchell and
Cameron is presumably not underscored by any disposition with respect to gayness in
Hollywood, but is centered solely on talent and skill and the quest for the “best actor”
for the role. Ultimately, the decision had nothing to do with race or sexuality, but the
person deemed “best” for the role—that one actor was gay and one heterosexual on
both Modern Family and The New Normal—was a coincidence that “just happened”
to reinforce an existing set of patterns within television casting.

Conclusion

Examining casting for gay roles exposes the patterns involved with who is allowed
to work within the culture industries and highlights the mechanisms, like the best
actor discourse, that work in the service of maintaining the industry’s hegemony.
This article exposed the inherent contradictions in the ways casting logics function
to center “choice” while concomitantly ensuring those choices tend to uphold exist-
ing ideologies. Simultaneously, this article argued that casting should be infused
with an acknowledgement of the specific cultural advantages of seeking out gay
actors who can participate in the authorship of gay roles by drawing on their experi-
ences and identities.
The dangers inherent in post-gay ideologies that structure casting practices lie in
the notion that gayness ceases to be understood as an identity category that has
import to the politics of televisual representation. It is true that gayness cannot nec-
essarily be read onto the body in the same ways that race and gender identity/
expression can. However, gay identity should be considered alongside those identity
categories in casting. In the same ways that backlash ensues when white actors are
cast in black roles, or when trans characters are embodied by cisgender actors, I am
calling for a similar kind of activism that works to center gay identity in casting.
I am not suggesting that casting directors are dupes; rather, they are, like the
actors they cast, caught within a discursive web that concomitantly deploys defen-
sive truths, subterfuge and queer possibility. At the same time, as contract workers,
casting directors are required to adjust “their process to fit different directors and
producers” in order to be paid for their labor (Hill, 2014, p. 156). While this article
focused on casting directors as cultural producers, their position as contract laborers

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 13

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

means that in order to effect the industrial changes I am recommending requires a

wholesale recalibration of the industry’s outlook on gay actors and gay roles from
network executives and showrunners.
It cannot be denied that some gay actors are working on television, however, gay
roles are still overwhelmingly cast with heterosexual actors donning gayface.
Certainly, openly gay actors including Neil Patrick Harris and Matt Bomer have
been cast as heterosexual characters, but the instances in which gay actors are cast
in heterosexual roles are outpaced by the number of heterosexual actors cast in gay
roles. This trend is troubling, particularly when put in conversation with Badgett
and Herman’s (2013) study demonstrating that LGBT discrimination still exists
within Hollywood. Queerness is an identity category that must be developed. It can-
not “just” be put on by spending 25 minutes with a hairdresser before reporting to
set. While heterosexual actors are often considered “brave” for taking on gay roles,
this article calls for a different kind of bravery—the bravery to cast gay actors in gay
roles on television.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Lisa Henderson, Eleanor Patterson and the anonymous reviewers
for their constructive feedback.

References
Badgett, M. V. & Herman, J. L. (2013). Sexual orientation & gender identity diversity in
entertainment: Experiences & perspectives of SAG-AFTRA members. Retrieved from
https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sag/documents/sagaftra_williams_lgbtstudy.pdf
Brown, L. (1977, September 8). Natl gay task force asks FCC to require stations to survey
interests of homosexual community: International union of gay athletes meet with ABC-
TV execs to protest homosexual character in forthcoming series “Soap.” New York Times,
B–7.
Butler, J. G. (2011). Television: Critical methods and applications. New York: Routledge.
Capsuto, S. (2000). Alternative channels: The uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on
radio and television. New York: Ballantine Books.
Doty, A. (1997). Making things perfectly queer: Interpreting mass culture. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Doyle, V. (2016). Making out in the mainstream: GLAAD and the politics of respectability.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Falk, S. (2011). Found the Modern Family pilot script. Retrieved from http://stephenfalk.
tumblr.com/post/2699639552/found-the-modern-family-pilot-script-in-some-old
Fiske, J. (2006). Television culture. New York: Routledge.
GLAAD. (2017). Where we are on TV. Report, GLAAD, Los Angeles, CA, November.
Retrieved from http://glaad.org/files/WWAT/WWAT_GLAAD_2017-2018.pdf
Griffin, H. (2017). Feeling normal: Sexuality and media criticism in the digital age.
Indianapolis, IN: University of Indiana Press.

14 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 A. L. Martin, Jr. The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television

Henderson, L. (2013). Love and money: Queers, class, and cultural production. New York:
New York University Press.
Herrera, B. E. (2015). Latin numbers: Playing Latino in twentieth-century U.S. popular
culture. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hill, E. (2014). Recasting the casting director: Managed change, gendered labor. In D. Johnson,
D. Kompare & A. Santo (Eds.), Making media work: Cultures of management in the
entertainment industries (pp. 142–164). New York: New York University Press.
Himberg, J. (2018). The new gay for pay: The sexual politics of American television
production. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Hughes, J. (2013). ABC wanted very different cast for “Modern Family” according to E!
special. Huffington Post. 9 September. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2013/09/09/abc-wanted-very-different-cast-for-modern-family-video_n_3892319.html
Hunter, A. (2016). Performance as authorship: Sarah Michelle Gellar and Buffy season 6.
Journal of Film and Video, 68(3–4), 51–68.
Johnson, E. P. (2001) “Quare” studies, or (almost) everything I know about queer studies I
learned from my grandmother. Text and Performance Quarterly, 21(1), 1–25.
Keith, B. (2011). Jesse Tyler Ferguson: A gentleman in full. Out, 3 March. Retrieved from http://
www.out.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/27/jesse-tyler-ferguson-gentleman-full
Kendt, R. (2005). How they cast it: An insider’s look at film and television casting.
Los Angeles, CA: Lone Eagle.
Khan, S. (2011). Gay and lesbian alliance against definition (GLAAD). In D. Gerstner (Ed.),
Routledge international encyclopedia of queer culture (p. 237). New York: Routledge.
Mayer, V., Banks, M. & Caldwell, J. (2009). Production studies: Cultural studies of media
industries. New York: Routledge.
Mullen, P. (2012). The poor bugger’s tool: Irish modernism, queer labor, and postcolonial
history. London: Oxford University Press.
Muñoz, J. (1999). Disidentifications: Queers of color and the performance of politics
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Noriega, C. (2000). Shot in America: Television, the state, and the rise of Chicano cinema.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Reynolds, D. (2016). Why is it so hard to cast an LGBT actor? Advocate, 27 May. Available
at: http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2016/5/27/why-it-so-hard-cast-lgbt-actor
Schechner, R. (2010). Casting without limits. American Theatre, 1 December. Retrieved
from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31093144/American_
Theater_Dec10_open_casting.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&
Expires=1509221166&Signature=p65zF1mInCntdiMLKN2b4Wx6zVI%3D&response-
content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DNon-Traditional_Casting.pdf
Sedgwick, E. (2008). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. & Hewes, D. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference?: Will &
Grace and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(4), 15–37.
Shugart, H. (2003). Reinventing privilege: The new (gay) man in contemporary popular
media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(1), 67–91.
Tinkcom, M. (2002). Working like a homosexual: Camp, capital, and cinema. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Tongson, K. (2017). Queer. In L. Ouellette & J. Gray (Eds.), Keywords for media studies
(pp. 157–160). New York: New York University Press.

Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16 15

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018
 The Queer Business of Casting Gay Characters on U.S. Television A. L. Martin, Jr.

Turow, J. (1978). Casting for television: The anatomy of social typing. Journal of
communication, 28(4), 18–24.
Warner, K. (2016). Strategies for success?: Navigating Hollywood’s “postracial” labor
practices. In M. Curtin & K. Sanson (Eds.), Precarious creativity: Global media, local
labor (pp. 172–184). Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Warner, K. (2015). The cultural politics of colorblind TV casting. New York: Routledge.
Wesling, M. (2012). Queer value. GLQ: A journal of lesbian and gay studies, 18(1), 107–125.
White, P. (1999). UnInvited: Classical Hollywood cinema and lesbian representability.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

16 Communication Culture & Critique 00 (2018) 1–16

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ccc/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ccc/tcy005/4956847

by University of New England user
on 22 April 2018