So, if we’re to believe Caryn James of The New York Times, homosexuality is an award-baiting stunt (on par with physical and mental deformities) whose increased popularity with actors is thankfully mollified by the fact that so few of them are actually homosexual themselves. The growing number of stories about homosexual and transgendered characters couldn’t have anything to do with the audience’s increased tolerance of the subject matter, or the newly found realization in Hollywood that portraying such a character will no longer necessarily make an actor a pariah at the box office, now could it? Is it inconceivable that an acotr or studio could be drawn to such material without the promise of Oscar buzz or accolades? And is it altogether too farfetched to think that maybe, just maybe, a small handful of (as of yet largely un-nominated) films does not necessarily spell a trend toward Oscar-baiting by way of homosexuality? Maybe these films are just films. Maybe homosexuals and the transgendered are just people. Maybe Hollywood, or at least the actors it employs, are slowly coming to realize and accept this. Maybe Caryn James could try doing the same.

Of course, James’ whole argument leaves out the possibility that maybe some of these actors are not pretending. It has no room for actors like Ian McKellen, who happen to be gay, and who happen to have been nominated for playing gay characters. And it ignores what are probably overwhelming statistics against it — because even if homosexuality is just stunt-acting, there’s no indication that stunt acting in itself actually leads to nominations or awards.