Why Ellen Page coming out both does and doesn't matter
On Valentine's Day 2014 Ellen Page, best-actress-oscar-nominated star of 2007's Juno, at the Human Rights Campaign's "Time to Thrive" conference, came out as gay. Subsequently she has been supported and lauded both by her peers and the public at large. Rightly so. Some may dream of a world where inclusion and tolerance are the rule rather than the exception but we ain't living in one yet. So yes, absolutely, it was a brave thing for her to do.
But why brave? Why not just "good" or "rad"? Courage is needed in the face of adversity, to push oneself to do something that might not turn out well or backfire. Why wouldn't coming out publicly turn out perfectly fine? Is it because Page now won't make the top 100 FHM sexiest women lists anymore? Will mean people hiding behind their keyboards in deep dark corners of the internet say nasty things for no reason? Will she struggle to get good or varied roles in films now? Never mind about the first two, but the third could be a problem; it is the possibility of Hollywood or the movie-consuming public turning against her (what a sad and ridiculous notion) that no doubt gave her pause when she strode up to the podium that day.
Can we no longer believe it if Page's characters have romantic encounters with men (which they have on occasion I might point out)? Must she only portray lesbian characters from now on? In response to this last I'd be half tempted to suggest that when offered such a role (as no doubt she will be now) why not take it (not simply for the sake of it, mind, the script etc should of course pass her usual quality control). Problem is, as a wise fellow once pointed out to me, such a film would be labelled a "gay film" rather than a film that just so happens to have gay characters in it. Such as last year's Blue is the Warmest Colour, for example. As far as I'm aware both lead actresses of that are heterosexual, but of course that way 'round is OK, 'coz it's only acting, right?
Speaking of acting, which we weren't, let's talk about make-believe for a second. A couple of pals made a point of asking me what my reaction to the news was. The reason for this is that since watching Juno I have had something of a less-than-private celebrity crush* on Miss Page. It has withered in recent years (for instance, I haven't seen any of her three recent films yet, whereas once upon a time I would have dragged my friend to bluewater shopping centre (because that's the only cinema showing them) to watch them on opening day) but my 13-year-old-boy tendencies aside, she is still an incredibly talented and watchable actress, and many of her films tend to be a fair wack outside the mainstream (An American Crime, The Tracey Fragments, Mouth to Mouth) and well chosen. My reaction? Well what can I say, my hopes and dreams were crushed! Dashed into a thousand pieces! No, really. My fantasy of going into a pub by London Bridge and there's this famous actress there and she says hello and buys me a drink and we have a chat about films and have a photo taken together (and that's it by the way - what can I say, I'm a hopeless romantic) has been completely and utterly destroyed by the revelation that she wouldn't be interested in me. Uh huh, because everything up to that point was definitely going to happen. Up until 13 February 2014 she might have been interested. Totally believable. Now it's all ruined and I can't sleep at night due to the sheer betrayal. OK, OK, I'll stop with the sarcasm, it being not big nor clever and all, but perhaps the definitions of words like "act" and "fantasy" aren't clear enough to some people. Does it matter to me that a celebrity crush likes women? Nope, not a fig.
Rant nearly over, save for an odd phrase that oft get used at times like this. I refer, of course, to the sublimbly charming and 100% inoffensive phrase "what a waste" (sorry that sarcasm has crept back in - I'll have to fire my editor). What a shame! A waste of what? For whom? Sorry I'll stop being naive and come right out and say it - what a shame that such a pretty and talented girl isn't available for heterosexual men. Hmmmm. Let's say there are 3.15 billion of those on the planet (half of 7 billion less 10% - is one in ten men gay? Or is that left-handedness? I forget - not allowing for men in deep jungle tribes that haven't seen Juno, poor ignorant bastards). Let's say in a parallel universe Page is heterosexual (I've recently decided I don't like the word "straight" given the opposite is used to describe corrupt police officers) and that like a swan she mates for life. What a shame it is that she is not on the market for the other 3.14999999 heterosexual men on the planet. What a damn shame. (To be fair, this thought did cross my mind when Christina Hendricks got married.) You see where I'm going with this, right? It might be described, however, as a shame when awesome people don't pass on their genes (Stephen Fry I'm looking at you) when so many, how shall I say, less-than-awesome people do manage to, but of course there are plenty of options in this day and age to ensure that that needn't be a sure-fire consequence, thank goodness.
What's next? Hopefully two main things. Firstly, that many people take heart, hope and inspiration from Ellen Page (and all others in the public eye who have come out before and after her) and secondly, that she kicks shed-loads of arse in the new X-men film. Now that one I might just go and see on opening day.
* This might be considered unhealthy in a man of my advancing years, but if people could find it in their hearts to allow me to like a woman who is unobtainable for obvious, impersonal and painless reasons (this is as opposed to real (read: non-celebrity) people who are unobtainable for far less obvious reasons), I would appreciate it. Ta.
