tencrush: (jackanto subtext)
tencrush ([personal profile] tencrush) wrote2008-11-12 01:16 pm

How do you solve a problem like John Barrowman?

I've stated quite clearly in my userinfo that I'm not hugely keen on discussing actors' private lives in this journal, and I realise I'm breaking my own rules with this one, but I have some issues with John Barrowman that I'd like to get off my chest once and for all, and because they pertain loosely to characterisation in Torchwood, and Torchwood's depiction of homosexuality, I'm going to make an exception.

So, before I start bitching about Barrowman, in the interests of fairness, I decided to watch The Making of Me, just to study up on the man a bit. A few people asked me to tell them what I thought. Ummm.... well, yeah... First off, for something that had the opportunity to be a hugely interesting personal insight into the man, it fell flat for me. Really flat indeed. He has a tendency to talk about his life in anecdotes and quips, without ever really letting on what's going on inside his head. There was no real insight provided as to what it means to him to be gay, to have grown up gay in the American Midwest, and to be out and famous now. On the other hand, there seemed to be a real urgency and worry, even, to his desire to prove that he was born gay, and didn't have gayness thrust upon him at a later stage in his development. But again, why he felt this urgency never became quite clear. He mentioned once or twice that, as people on my friendslist have quite rightly noted, it's important to take away the ammunition used by the prop h8 factions in the world that "being gay" is something you can choose to stop doing, but coming from someone like John, who has on many occasions claimed not to want to be involved in "the cause" and not to be terribly interested in being any sort of activist, that didn't quite strike me as being an adequate explanation. And yet there it was, this fervent desire to prove his sexual orientation is not his fault, coupled with an undercurrent of what seemed like actual fear of being scientifically proven to be in any way slightly heterosexual. Why? It left me confused, more than anything. So, yeah, there's that.

It didn't in any way change the way I see the guy, or the way he views his sexuality. Here's John speaking about his relationship with Scott in The Observer:
We saw each other casually for about year but before it got serious, I had my fair share of wham-bam. One can never have enough wham-bam. When a guy strays and ends up with someone else, it's not a big deal. Sex for men is external. I think it's hard for women to realise this.
I would love to lecture to women on men. I'd tell them everything about men: gay, straight, bi, how we're all the same, how we're all bastards. Men know what men want. In and out of bed. Some women are afraid to go to regions that are especially sensitive to men because they think it's dirty. I'd love to be able to tell women this. I think it would open up their sex lives. Experimentation is incredibly healthy. Men love it when their partner dresses up. My mother even advocates it. Unless you are going to get physically hurt, you should give it a go. Before you start, you need a panic word in case you feel uncomfortable. Ours changes depending on the situation but you can't shout 'stop' because it might fit into the role-play situation a little too well.

Oh, John. For a start, as a heterosexual woman I'm mildly offended by your generalisational abilities. In fact, as a human being, I'm just offended, generally. You seem to be implying that women have a natural deficit when it comes to pleasing men, simply because they're not men. Whoa there, boy, I do just fine, thank you very much. In fact, your generalising goes so far as to imply that gay men, theoretically, make great lovers for other gay men solely by virtue of their being men. And there was me thinking that great lovers are great lovers by virtue of their being observant and attentive and all those sorts of things. I mean, surely, John, even as a gay man, you've had crap shags, right? Being a man and knowing what you like isn't enough, whatever sex you're trying to please. Don't talk down to me.

Apart from my mild offense at these statements, there's a different point I want to make, and it's one that isn't really stated outright here, but rather hinted at by John's unfortunate tendency towards generalisation. The way John talks about his life and his sexuality, the anecdotal approach he takes to talking about himself and his own relationship with his partner, has an unfortunate side effect of creating an impression that being gay, in and of itself, is slightly more hip and groovy and, dare I say, cool, than being straight. That gay (male) relationships are more open and relaxed and gay (male) people more into experimentation and innovative and avant-garde sex than straight people are. (I say (male) because I do get a general impression from Barrowman that he doesn't really take lesbianism into account when talking about "gay" to any great extent, ever.) That general vibe he gives off is the thing that really offends me about Barrowman. And not just because I'm an avant-garde straight person and I don't like being talked down to, but because it goes back to one of those things I mentioned before, and that is John's tendency to lump his homosexuality in with his lifestyle, his fairly open relationship, and his loudmouthed and in-your-face personality as just another one of those many facets that make up The Barrowman. And that makes it very hard to separate his sexuality from other aspects of his personality, when it is precisely those other aspects that offend those people who find Barrowman offensive. I'm one of those people, and I'm not saying that all gay men should be sensible and monogamous and wear suits and have meaningful sex with each other, but then I'm not saying that all straight people should do that either, and what I am saying is that someone with a personality as huge and imposing as Barrowman's, and with a tendency to come out with statements as confused and confusing as John's statement up there (because what are you saying in that article, John? You start off with veiled references to prostate stimulation before veering into dressing up and roleplaying and then you come out with a sudden refence to safewords and all that that implies on the BDSM front, you mention having slept around after having met your partner, who you claim is the love of your life, you generalise about all men being the same, but later claim that "gay men aren't all the same", MAKE YOUR MIND UP ALREADY!) perhaps is right to not throw himself into "the cause" to any great extent, because as far as role models go, he's not exactly the most articulate and unmuddled-in-the-head guy out there, and when it comes to separating his own experiences from those of the wider, more diverse, gay community, he doesn't really seem to do a very good job. Reading these interviews with him, hearing him talk on every morning tv show he pimps himself out on, I can fully understand those people who, lately, think that maybe he should stop talking now. Word to those people.

On to Torchwood, though, which is what I'm mostly concerned about, obviously. I'll take the opportunity for a quick aside about Jack and Ianto before I go into Barrowman's view on the subject. I have a great deal of respect for Gareth David-Lloyd, and I know from interviews and talks that he's done that he is a guy who thinks about his character a lot. He's very much a what's-my-motivation kind of guy, and I like that about him, and I believe that the freedom allowed to actors in Torchwood's no-bible, free-for-all approach is what lets someone like Gareth develop a character like Ianto, in the absence of any real external rules or guidance, into someone that fascinates quite a large proportion of fandom, without there really being any textual basis or storyline to make that character particularly interesting in and of himself. On the flipside, though, that absence of guidance doesn't really work very well when an actor doesn't exhibit that level of understanding as to what a character is all about. Which brings me to John. John has stated himself that he doesn't like to read scripts ahead of time and that he lets the director guide him as to Jack's motivation in any given scene, which results in a pretty haphazard character when it comes to continuity. I've said all that before and it's not really news, so let's just leave that point there and get back to what I'm actually talking about. A quite from John from Doctor Who Magazine:
...what helps me play Jack is the fact that he likes everybody, and his love for each person is different. For instance, in my eyes, he does fancy the Doctor, but he would never take that beyond infatuation. As he said to Martha, he would never let the Doctor know. On the other hand, Jack’s love for Ianto is almost...it’s kind of lustful. But I don’t think he’d settle down with Ianto. He might do, but he’d let Ianto know that he [Jack] has to play around on the side. If he’d commit to Gwen, however, he knows that he’d have to commit completely. That’s what makes him fearful of going there. She’d let him flirt, but he could never afford to do anything more with anybody else.
Now, keeping in mind the characterisation of Jack and Ianto, I can fully buy into the idea that Jack and Ianto's relationship is a bit of a no-strings, sexyfuntaim kind of relationship. After Ianto's experience with Lisa, it makes sense to me that Ianto wouldn't be looking for anything particularly serious, and Jack, being Jack, also isn't really the commitment type. It's a mutually beneficial, fun thing they're doing and that's cool. The fact that Ianto, being bisexual, had his BIG MEANINGFUL relationship with a woman, but has chosen a man to have his no-strings, transitional relationship with is perhaps slightly questionable when it comes to how the show portrays same sex relationships, but okay, I'll let them off on that one. What strikes me in this quote, though, is the following: Given the fact that John himself has stated he doesn't really think about his own characterisation much, which would lead me to conclude he certainly wouldn't give a lot of thought into what's going on in Ianto's head within this relationship (transitional, no-strings relationship due to character history, see above), I have to conclude that what John is saying here is that Jack's relationship with Ianto would be more open and less monogamous and include playing around on the side simply because it is a relationship between two men, and any relationship Jack would theoretically have with Gwen would have to be more monogamous and committed because it is a relationship between a man and a woman. Again, the overall vibe that is being given off is that same sex relationships are somehow more carefree and open and not-quite-so-big-on-that-whole-monogamy-thing-straight-people-are-always-on-about. And again, it would appear that John is generalising about the nature of same sex relationships based on his own. The implications of that, the fact that John is letting his own relationship be the guideline for how this on-screen relationship plays out, when it comes to the future of the Jack/Ianto relationship are pretty big, and on a larger scale, the fact that he so easily generalises about gay relationships, and by extension straight relationships, does indeed feed the "can we shut him up now?" brigade, and probably rightly so.


My conclusion? I don't really have one. Barrowman tends to think that everyone is like him, or everyone is not like him, depending on the circumstances. His relationship with Scott is what all gay relationships are like, except when they aren't, and straight people sit on the sofa every night not having sex and eating crisps or something, unless they start dressing up, in which case they'll need a safeword, or someone will end up getting hurt. Yeah, I make about as much sense as he does.

ETA: The reason I brought up The Making of Me and the reason I say I was confused by it, is that I find it odd that John would be so adamant about proving that his homosexuality is innate and genetically defined, while at the same time, aside from this show, he does a very good job of painting homosexuality as fun and exciting lifestyle choice, by virtue of his apparent inability to A) distinguish his own homosexual experiences and lifestyle from a broader experience of the gay community as a whole and B) separate his homosexuality from other aspects of his public persona and lifestyle, which are all things he chooses to be and do. I find that... kind of weird?

Ummm... nah, I got nothing. They were just a bunch of words I typed out. Feel free to go back your humdrum lives now.

[identity profile] overlady-hikki.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 12:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I can definitely see where you're coming from, and to an extent, I could/would probably say the same thing for myself. But I'm too lazy.

Having never actually met the guy, I can't say much for him, but I do get the feeling that he does over generalise a lot, and while is very verbose, does not necessarily come across with clarity. I don't think he does it (make all those implications through what he says; see what you wrote re: male/male and male/female relationships etc) on purpose. So maybe he should...I don't know. Shut up because what he says can easily be taken the wrong way?

But basically? I don't care too much, and am not terribly offended, though I can see why others would be and could be shocked and horrified if I wasn't...me?

[identity profile] nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 01:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh man, I don't even like Ianto that much and it still squicks me that Jack might be using him for sex while secretly wanting Gwen more.

Jack's relationships seem to be "She was the LOVE OF MY LIFE!" for women and "lol sex!" for me. That's quite icky and you have made me wonder how much of that comes from The Barrowman.

[identity profile] littlepunkryo.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 01:29 pm (UTC)(link)
You know what's always seemed weird to me is it seems like there are certain times when he plans what he's going to say, how he's going to say it, and then he'll turn around and just run with something, and while I like that, it makes him seem very...inconsistent, I guess? I'm not entirely sure that he thinks things all the way through, which when you're a celebrity with a larger-than-life personality and people actually paying attention to what you say? Is probably not a good thing. Plus there are times I seriously cannot tell if he's joking so I just have to kind of move on, because otherwise I'd be going, "...what?" So I wonder how much of what he's saying he actually means and how much of it is being played up because he loves getting a reaction from people.

I sometimes wonder just how much of "Jack Harkness" John has taken home with him, in regards to how he views on relationships and monogamy, too. Or how much of that is John that got fed into Jack.

Of course, I still like him and get a kick out of him; there are some things that I don't like, or make me cringe behind my hands, but overall I enjoy him.

[identity profile] littlepunkryo.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 01:29 pm (UTC)(link)
BTW - thanks for your thoughts, and your tags for this made me LOL.

[identity profile] ffrengig-moron.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 01:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Hi, bit of a lurker here (by lurker, understand never dared to comment before now)

I saw The Making of Me when it first aired in June, and the impression I got there was of a 40 years old man, who had, for all his life believed himself te be gay in the genetic sense of the term, and who was facing the risk of having all his beliefs shattered. I think that may explain his fear of having heterosexual tendencies, as, it had never been part of the equation before for him.

What I mean by this is that if there's one thing we can say about JB, it's that not only is he proud of being gay, but he also defines himself with the knowledge that he is gayer than a tree full of monkeys on acid. He is so sure of this, and it's such a part of himself, that he can't help but define the whole world (well, maybe that's an exageration) in terms of "like me" and "not like me". On this point I totally agree with you, his bipolarism can be seen as quite annoying, even if it's not conscious.

Soryy, I tend to ramble, and I would have continued if I didn't have to go work.

[identity profile] louisema.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 01:58 pm (UTC)(link)
It's the fact that he seems to have an opinion on EVERYTHING, no matter how little he knows about it, that really gets me.

That and the fact that, as demonstrated by those lovely quotes above, he always comes out sounding like something of an idiot when he's not got a script telling him what to say. *headdesk*

Actually, I think the thing that gets to me is that he's quite a lot LIKE me: he seems to open mouth and blurt out whatever he was thinking without engaging his brain first, and then try to backtrack and correct himself WITHOUT seeming to be doing so, with the result being those incredibly rambly confusing quotes.

Also it makes me laugh: "I'd love to be able to tell women this"...you just did. And we don't like it. Because you're not making sense and you ARE making assumptions.

(no subject)

[identity profile] louisema.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 14:05 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] cionaudha.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 02:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Wow. I never, ever wanted to know about his sex life to the point of safe words. Does he even realize that when he opens his mouth thousands listen? I have to wonder how Scott feels about us knowing that about him.

Please, John, leave me the sexy thrill of speculation.

As far as Jack and Ianto go, it sounds as if John and Gareth need to have a talk about their characters' relationship. Gareth says Ianto is in love. I wonder why John gives up all control to his directors? He's just an empty vessel waiting to be filled? How odd.

(no subject)

[identity profile] cionaudha.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 14:56 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] pontisbright.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree and disagree in equal measure, I think. I'm with you on frequently finding the 'wahey I'm a wacky fun gay with a capital G LOOK AT ME HAVE MORE FUN THAN YOU SILLY WIMMINS' shtick frustrating, counter-productive, and often icky. I also think that at a lot of the stories that come out about his reported willy-twanging antics with cast members etc are hard to interpret when you aren't there and a part of that community, so while on the face of it some co-worker sticking his cock unexpectedy in my face would = a distinct lack of me finding it amusing, I can imagine in some environments that's like having your 11am cup of tea. Well, ish. OK, I totally can't imagine that, personally. But hey, I haven't spent 9 hours pretending to squirt BBQ sauce on a non-existent pterodactyl for a living, yknow?

I really struggle with your argument that because JB has stated he doesn't think about Jack's characterisation, any statement he does make on the subject must inevitably be a reflection of himself instead. You've made a good case for us not really believing every word that falls from his lips, because of his wild inconsistencies: I don't see how 'I don't think about Jack' (or indeed 'I do think about Jack and I think these things') is any different. He's a guy who gets asked daft questions in interviews, and answers, and sometimes he really ought to shut the fuck up and genuinely doesn't make any sense. Do I think there's an inherent iffiness in the vague TW division of relationships into hetero-proper/homo-casual? Yes. But I don't think that comes from Barrowman. I don't think it comes consciously from anyone, like most of the show, really. :) And I do feel uncomfy crossing that line into interpreting personal life via characters, even if they keep fucking asking us to (and I'm participating in this conversation, after all, so I'm apparently not so uncomfy that I won't pontificate).

I think JB's in an odd position now, and a different one from the one he had even one or two years ago, to be honest. I can imagine the 'gay role model' thing is something that is hugely appealing and hugely frightening in equal measure: it means accountability, in public, for all your choices, and not really much opportunity to explain whys and wherefores. He's at a profile level where he has the opportunity to be The Guy Who Influences The Unwashed Masses, but can you do that and retain personal freedom? How much does it curtail storytelling within TW if ultimately it's going to feel like a massive copout if Jack shags women too, while also feeling like a copout if her doesn't? So right now he wants to be able to snog Gareth as part of a skit at a Con, but to make sure his nephew doesn't see any porny fanfic about Uncle Johnny. And I get why he wants both of those, but I don't think the world is going to play along.

I am rambling dreadfully, sorry. I suspect we entirely agree on the fundamental 'stop telling other people how to have their sex lives' bit - because a gay man telling women they're wrong is, after all, just a man telling women they're wrong, and we already know that's quite boring. I think I'm just a bit more sympathetic to the fact that he's in an awkward position in terms of how to 'play' his public persona right now, and I can understand how he manages to fuck it up quite so much. Still would never ever want to go to the pub with the guy, though, unlike pretty much all the rest of them.

HOLY SHIT GIANT COMMENT. SORRY!
Edited 2008-11-12 14:33 (UTC)

[identity profile] mellacita.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)
You've managed to articulate many of the things that bug me about Barrowman. There are things I like about him, as well, but I particularly appreciate your comments on his personal worldview and how that affects the portrayal of relationships on Torchwood. I once suggested on [livejournal.com profile] torch_wood that perhaps some of the perceived inconsistencies in Jack/Ianto onscreen were down to GDL and JB taking different approaches to their characters and acting in general and man, was I pounced on.

The cult of Barrowman in this fandom is powerful.

[identity profile] cionaudha.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 02:46 pm (UTC)(link)
down to GDL and JB taking different approaches to their characters and acting in general

But it totally is! As actors they could not be more different. GDL is very deliberate, and JB wings it.

(no subject)

[identity profile] mellacita.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 14:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] mellacita.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 16:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] mellacita.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 16:21 (UTC) - Expand
ext_7410: (TW hot Ianto)

[identity profile] cageyklio.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 02:57 pm (UTC)(link)
to have grown up gay in the American Midwest

Indeed. Particularly given that he felt the need to fit in enough to hide his Scottish accent.

When a guy strays and ends up with someone else, it's not a big deal.

This boggles my mind. And makes me wonder what Scott's view on the subject is. And incidentally, there are a lot of reasons not to like RPS (sorry for bringing it up, because I know you don't care for it), but those who object to JB/non-Scott fic on the grounds that JB is married to Scott obviously don't pay attention to what JB actually says. :P

Sex for men is external. I think it's hard for women to realise this.

Gee John, are we talking biology here -- dick versus vagina? Because I'm pretty sure gay sex has been known to involve an available hole on one of the parties involved. Or do you mean that sex for men is simply not emotional? In which case, I'm very sad for you. No strings sex is fun, but if you've never had sex with an emotional connection then you're missing out.

when it comes to separating his own experiences from those of the wider, more diverse, gay community, he doesn't really seem to do a very good job.

Which is why I wish he wouldn't do shit like The Making of Me. Be The Barrowman who doesn't want to get involved in "the cause" and do The Making of John Barrowman instead of wrapping a sparkly media portrait in the trappings of a Serious Discussion About Sexuality.

but he’d let Ianto know that he [Jack] has to play around on the side. If he’d commit to Gwen, however, he knows that he’d have to commit completely

The implication is that Ianto would have to like it or lump it is so... disturbing. Gwen could stake a claim on Jack because she's a woman, but Ianto can't because he's a man? Following JB's earlier logic, shouldn't that be "but Ianto and Jack would obviously play around on the side." Why is Ianto exempt from the behavior that JB seems to feel all men in homosexual relationships exhibit? If Ianto = Scott (I'm not saying he does, but JB's expressed thoughts are muddled enough that I think it's a fair comparison in this context), Scott is either the least jealous man in a so-called committed relationship that I've ever heard of, or he (and Ianto) are doormats. I don't want to read the characters that way, and I really don't want to know that much about JB's personal life.

Er... sorry. Apparently I had a few things to get off my chest. I think I'll go read some JB/GDL porn because I like fictional John better. And vastly prefer GDL's cock than either John or fictional John. Ahem.

[identity profile] littlepunkryo.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 03:17 pm (UTC)(link)
There IS RPS? Seriously? When I first started reading TW fic I looked briefly but it seemed the general consensus was "no" so I stopped.

The implication is that Ianto would have to like it or lump it is so... disturbing.

That made me sad when I first read it, because frankly I love Ianto and he doesn't deserve that kind of attitude. :(

(no subject)

[identity profile] cageyklio.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 15:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] cionaudha.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 16:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] radiant-pip.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 19:10 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] noneinnyet.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 03:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Word!

I don't have a problem with commenting on an actor's personal life when done in this context. You used stuff put out by JB in a public way and not some gossipy speculation. You also related it back to Captain Jack and Torchwood.

I almost never take anything said by Barrowman at face value for these reasons. It's contradictory and pretty upsetting. If it weren't for the fact that these sorts of things actually make me understand where the hell Jack's characterization is coming from it might actually ruin my enjoyment of TW. Instead, it makes me glad that there are better actors on that show. All four of the main cast kick Barrowman's ass when it comes to acting as far as I'm concerned. This became very apparent in Lost Souls of all things - I kind of wish it had just been the Gwen and Ianto show.

[identity profile] bandgeek01.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 03:35 pm (UTC)(link)
I just wanted to comment and say yes I read what you wrote, and I agree and disagree to some extent on all things raised in your post.

I don't write intelligent responses well, I try but something always is written wrong and I slammed, so I'm not even going to attempt it.


Nicole

[identity profile] love-jackianto.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 03:47 pm (UTC)(link)
'...and any relationship Jack would theoretically have with Gwen would have to be more monogamous and committed because it is a relationship between a man and a woman.'
Oooh, that reminds me of an interview* where John said if Jack was ever in a relationship with Gwen, Jack would have to become monogamous. Because that's what Gwen would expect. *palm face*

*'What John said was :If [Jack would] commit to Gwen, however [instead of being with Ianto], he knows that he’d have to commit completely. That’s what makes him fearful of going there. She’d let him flirt, but he could never afford to do anything more with anybody else.'

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-12 17:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] radiant-pip.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 17:19 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] mbs-library.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 04:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Can I just applaud you and skip the long meaningful comment which in my case would likely be an incoherent ramble agreeing with you?

MB
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

[identity profile] dvanulya.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 17:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] dvanulya.livejournal.com - 2008-11-12 19:11 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] dvanulya.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 05:24 pm (UTC)(link)
I just wrote a fucking essay, posted it (in 3 parts) and deleted it. Sorry.

I agree with some of what you say, and take exception to some. One thing that gets me is that it seems that people (a lot of people) are taking Barrowman's comments in (an admittedly stupid) newspaper article, and extrapolating all kinds of shit from it. For one thing, I seriously doubt that he and his partner of 16 or so years are going outside their relationship. He's said on several occasions that they do not. I believe he was talking about early in their relationship, before it was serious. I think plenty of people sleep around when they're just dating casually. *looks around nervously*

I think Barrowman should shut up sometimes, yeah. He can be goofy and condescending and even offensive. So can I. *shrugs* Luckily for me, it doesn't get posted all over the Internet when I do.

There is one more thing I have to say about Barrowman’s being a “role model.” He's not perfect - not a single one of us are. But here’s the thing: he’s extremely successful, and he’s out. He doesn’t hide anything. That’s cool. That’s enormous. That’s where he’s a role model. Fortunately for the world, that’s becoming less and less relevant. But darlings, there are still PLENTY of people hiding. Some are commenting right here on your journal, because it’s safe. Because it’s (more or less) anonymous. So maybe Barrowman helps people see that there’s another way. There’s some fucking hope.


See, I can't shut up, either.

[identity profile] kel-reiley.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 06:02 pm (UTC)(link)
I have a great deal of respect for Gareth David-Lloyd, and I know from interviews and talks that he's done that he is a guy who thinks about his character... Which brings me to John. John has stated himself that he doesn't like to read scripts ahead of time and that he lets the director guide him as to Jack's motivation in any given scene, which results in a pretty haphazard character when it comes to continuity.
(i didn't want to quote the whole thing, cuz it was long and would be redundant)
i just wanted to say how i agree with this, and i wish they could ALL (actors, producers, directors, writers) just ONCE be in the same room and have a discussion about these characters and bloody make up their minds!!!
i don't really have an opinion on JB b/c... well, basically, i don't really care about his personal life and since i'm not in the UK i don't see him on daily/nightly talk shows all the time
however, i see your point and if i were to give it much thought, i'd probably agree with you
as it is, i try not to let the actors influence how i see the characters mostly b/c i don't WANT to - i like my denial, no reality for me please
ext_14908: (Default)

[identity profile] venusinchains.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 06:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed.

Someone else pointed out that John Barrowman - gay man - telling the straight females in the audience 'You're Doing It Wrong' is still essentially a Man telling a Woman she's 'Wrong.' And even if the majority of women would expect monogamy in an agreed upon relationship (as he states in regards to the character Gwen) I would argue that it's because of the pressure put on women (by everyone in society who readily accepts such assumptions) to be monogamous and to expect monogamy in their relationships. He goes a long way toward reinforcing a lot of stereotypes.

On a completely different tack, I thought I'd seen him change his tune just slightly on the Jack/Ianto front. (Saying somewhere that Jack did want more that a regular shag from Ianto.) And it was suggested that JB had just read a script from S3. If it's true, maybe it'll change JB's out look on life. ;-) Or at least cut down on the number of 'You're Doing It Wrong' quotes.

But he's pretty (and so genuinely ernest - he doesn't seem a bit spiteful or antagonistic when he makes these ridiculous statements), so I can't hate him for it.

(I do have to wonder how he'd feel if he weren't as gorgeous as he is, and didn't have the opportunities for sex that his looks grant him.)

[identity profile] tigercheetah.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 06:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually if Ianto had been a female character when JB said the words "Ianto is his piece of tart on the side" during S1, there would have been a lot more compliants. Jack gets away with treating Ianto the way that he does - especially with all the Gwen mooning - because Ianto is male.

[identity profile] wiley-nilly.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 06:24 pm (UTC)(link)
OMG - I'm at work and have to wait until later to go into the detailed analysis. Durn. Latah.

[identity profile] smirnoffmule.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 07:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not going to debate your opinion of the Barrowman, because I'm sure all your points are perfectly valid, and there's no point telling someone they shouldn't be irritated by something, since irritation is a visceral reaction, and not something one chooses to feel. I do love him personally, but I'm also aware I'm downright uncool in my tendency to be generally uncritical of people unless they actually shoot puppies. H8 is hard work, ya know?

But I will say, I do know a little bit about the way articles such as the one in the Guardian are written, and it won't have been the case that John just came out with this big splurdge of stream of consciousness entirely unprompted. The interviewer will have asked him specific questions, probably very leading questions, and the paragraph you quote may well have been his response to a number of different questions which have been run together for the final piece (ie, one about Scott, one about monogamy, one about men vs women, one about what advice he'd give to women, one about experimentation etc). He may not even have answered those questions consecutively, just because they've been edited together that way. So while it looks like he was talking about women, and then went on to talk about experimentation as though he thinks women don't - he may not have. That may be two different answers to two different questions. Similarly the "I'd love to tell women this..." may have been a direct answer to the question "What would you love to tell women?". In fact, he may never have even uttered the phrase himself, just answered the question put to him - that's another journalist's trick to keep answers coherent without including the specific question.

I make that point because I think it makes a difference to the reading of that paragraph, or at least calls it into question as accurate evidence of his deeply held opinions. If you think it still sucks whatever, fair enough, but I just spent ten minutes typing that, so dammit, I'm posting.

I will also say that the few times I've been interviewed in the press (never for even slightly exciting reasons, before I sound like I'm making myself out to be a celeb) never has the finished piece been an accurate reflection of exactly what I said - it has always been paraphrased, re-ordered, extrapolated from something I only implied, or occasionally downright something I didn't say at all.

As I said, I'm not trying to argue with you, I just have this thing about the general futility of claiming to know anyhing about a personality from the media, and also how manipulative the media is in general (even without trying to be, sometimes). Whole other rant, really. Personally, I like Barrowman, partly, as I said because I'm generally uncool and uncynical but mostly because a) he makes me laugh and b) I genuinely think he's a role model. I have no doubt he's far from perfect, but who isn't?

This post brought to you from Rainbow Unicorn Land where everybody ought to really just love each other and try to get along. ;)
Edited 2008-11-12 19:44 (UTC)

[identity profile] solitary-summer.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 07:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Just a couple of thoughts, not a defence, because I agree with a lot things; he can be annoying and you're perfectly right, he tends to come out a bit muddled occasionally, and to over-generalise from his own experience, but then again the latter is an almost universal fault. And I'm not touching the TW part, because IMO it was the last minute switch from Ianto to Owen in Reset that made S2's Jack/Ianto arc as confusing and uneven as it is, and that after that with what they were given none of the actors could have done much more.

He has a tendency to talk about his life in anecdotes and quips, without ever really letting on what's going on inside his head.

Agreed, but I think this is a way of being honest without giving up all privacy.

On the other hand, there seemed to be a real urgency and worry, even, to his desire to prove that he was born gay, and didn't have gayness thrust upon him at a later stage in his development. But again, why he felt this urgency never became quite clear.

I definitely got that vibe, too. As for the reason, my guess is that the JB person/persona we're seeing, all that ease and unapologetic in-your-face is harder won than he usually lets on, and that he was genuinely scared of having that shaken. As much as he always stresses his good relationship with his parents he only came out to them when he was 25 and thought he probably was HIV+, and even in his book he doesn't gloss over the fact that he wasn't sure at all how this would be received. He doesn't chose to dwell on it, maybe partly because he doesn't want to perpetuate the gay = struggling, painful and outcast stereotype, but it can't have been that easy growing up as a gay man in the 80ies. And I think he's perfectly aware that his career in America might have gone differently if he'd been straight/in the closet, and I can kind of understand that he doesn't like the thought that it might be something he could have had any kind of choice over.

but coming from someone like John, who has on many occasions claimed not to want to be involved in "the cause" and not to be terribly interested in being any sort of activist

Never wanted to, but did. I don't know if you've read the autobiography, but there's a bit where he describes his experience of playing Bobby in Company, whom he describes as 'morally frozen', and how it made him realise that he was, in a way, 'politically frozen', and that is was his responsibility to be more political, to speak out. The prose is probably more Carole's then John's, but the feeling strikes me as genuine.

In his book RTD writes that he deliberately mentions being gay in almost every interview, in order to increase visibility, to become part of the norm. I think JB does the same, the way he'll bring up his partner in interviews whenever he can, and, although this is a bit of a wild guess, maybe also with all the TMI about his sex life, because there's the mindset where people will grudgingly accept homosexuality in theory, but balk at any thought/mention of gay sex. JB certainly seems to be on a mission to make everyone shock-proof fast in this respect. What he's also trying to avoid, I think, is making it look like he's taking the easy way out, buying his popularity by conforming to a heteronormative married and monogamous stereotype at the expense of those whose lives and relationships are different.

(Apologies for all the editing spam.)
Edited 2008-11-12 23:08 (UTC)

[identity profile] cirrocumulus.livejournal.com 2008-11-12 08:55 pm (UTC)(link)
I think the main problem I have with JB is such: he is not a deep thinker, but he is a very loud talker, which makes for a bad combination.

I don't hate the man by any means; I often find him quite hilarious and entertaining and he undoubtedly has a lot to do with my liking for Jack's character because he is very good for the part, despite his manifold flaws. But I also agree that as a person himself he's a little abrasive, and not in the good way, because in order to be abrasive in a good way he'd have to have some interesting thoughts worth being abrasive about.

I also disagree with his assessment of the J/I relationship, unsurprisingly. Of course I'm a wee bit of a shipper for them, you might say, so I could be biased, but I do think that the relationship is emotionally significant for Ianto and really most likely for Jack as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent (I'm not convinced yet, though). We get so little information about their relationship so it's hard to tell but I do sense an important emotional connection between them, and it's all up to the writers how they plan on manifesting that connection-- whether it's just a platonic one or a romantic one hasn't really been defined yet.

But in general I have a problem with the image of Jack as unable to commit and be monogamous. Have we ever heard of him cheating on anyone, ever? The guy got MARRIED, which is not a move someone afraid of monogamy or commitment would make. Plus, throughout his entire appearance in DW and TW, Ianto is the only person that he has had sex with (to the audience's knowledge, but in TV terms that's synonymous with truth), which doesn't make him much of a whoreface in my mind.

[personal profile] jo02 2008-11-13 05:40 am (UTC)(link)
I love your comment that he wouldn't be an asset to the cause because of his lack of consistency and lack coherency - big Lolz - I agree, he could set the movement back 20 years or more!

You made more sense out of all the Barrowman Babble than he ever could! Well done.

I'm still trying to decide which mental image is worse, (a) my need to stick my finger right up a man's arse in order to be a fulfilled woman, (b) John's mother playing dress-ups, or (c) John still climbing into bed between his parents for a cuddle.

I think the jury's going to be out for a long time. And with copious amounts of alcohol. Cheers!

On the sunject of TW.....

(Anonymous) 2008-11-13 09:54 am (UTC)(link)
...as opposed to John himself - RTD has had his owm criticism about his protrayal of gay men, in relation to QAF mostly.

There are some gay men who hated the representation of gay men on QAF as pill-popping man-sluts.

Two things to say about that:

1) I think RTD lived that life in his 20's - going out every night, multiple flings etc, so he was writing what HE knew personally.

2) Why does every gay character have to be the definitive role model - an acceptable face to the straight world?

(It's like some people were saying Barack Obama wasn't really "black", not because he is mixed-race, but because he is literate. That didn't fir with some people's stereotypes. But you know what: some black people are middle-class professors, some are rap artists, some are Joe Six Pack, some are even gay.)

So some gay men may live to be on the scene, and some may find a partner and never stray. Some may find a partner, and have lovers on the side - and by the way, I'm not even sure this is what JB does in his own life (I get the impression he's monogamous), but it's not my business - but you can't expect every single gay relationship on the the tv (including on TW) to reflect what you think is the ideal.

Sorry to be anon - don't have a livejournal account.

Max.

[identity profile] alba17.livejournal.com 2008-11-13 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Late to the party, but here: On the Making of Me: I was also taken aback at how disturbed he was at the idea that he might not be biologically gay. I assume this was because he’s so strongly identified as gay his whole life that the idea that it wasn’t biologically determined threw off his whole world view and self-image. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize a public figure for only telling the public about his life through anecdotes and quips. He doesn't have any obligation to tell us stuff about his personal life. I’m sure alot of his presentation is a public persona put up for entertainment value. And I don’t think there was actually time in The Making of Me to go into JB’s experience of being gay. He did go into a bit of his childhood (the “gay” closet! Playing with Barbies!). It was mostly focused on investigating the “causes” of homosexuality. I think it would be very interesting to explore his experience of being gay in different times and places, but that would be another show.

His comments on in The Observer were totally condescending and rubbed me the wrong way. I agree with you on that. And how does he know how men behave with women? I’m not sure he can really extrapolate from gay men’s experience.

But I think it's incredibly important that he's so completely out and candid. Too many actors won't do that, especially in the US. To me, that's huge and rather brave.

On TW and gay casual/straight serious, I'll comment on the more recent post.

Page 1 of 2