This seems like the week of asshatery, and Brett Easton Ellis tops the list of asshats by saying this:
Okay I'll say it. Matt Bomer isn't right for Christian Grey because he is openly gay. He's great for other roles but this is too big a game.
In more asshatery, he then said this:
I am NOT discriminating Matt Bomer because of his sexuality. Fifty Shades of Grey demands an actor that is genuinely into women. Get it?!?
Evidently, Mr. Ellis doesn't know about all the women loving and reading m/m romance and m/m fiction. And once again we have Hollywood fail because they hired someone to produce a film who knows nothing about why the book sold millions of copies.
I didn't love "Brokeback Mountain" the way so many other people loved it. As a gay man, I found fundamental flaws in both the book and the film. I didn't like the fact that straight male actors were hired to play gay men when there are so many gay actors out there that could have played the parts just as well. I didn't even know there was such a huge fandom for Brokeback until recently when I discovered that allegedly m/m romance as a sub-genre can be traced directly back to Brokeback. I've heard that all this fandom began as fanfic, much in the same way 50 Shades originated in an ironic twist. Yet I do think the straight actors played the parts well in Brokeback.
And now there's an interesting turn of events with regard to the film version of 50 Shades. It's been rumored that openly gay actor Matt Bomer is in the running for the lead role in the film version of 50 Shades only there are some who aren't sure he'll be able to pull it off because he is openly gay, Brett Easton Ellis being one of them. I find that interesting, insulting, and absolutely wrong in so many ways I could write endlessly about it. The people who don't think Bomer can play the part because he's gay are basically saying that two straight actors can play gay parts without any issues, but gay men can't play straight parts and be believable.
And once again the gay community gets a kick in the ass, from an asshat. I guess Hollywood forgot all about Rock Hudson, and how he played nothing but straight parts all his life. Oh, yeah. He wasn't openly gay so that was okay. And what about all the other closeted gay actors out there right now who are playing straight men? They are there, you'd better believe it. They are terrified to come out because they know they won't get anymore straight parts if they do come out because of asshats like Brett Easton Ellis.
It should be interesting to see how this all plays out in the future, and I'm not just talking about the 50 Shades movie. I'm talking about the way all openly gay men are treated when it comes to getting straight parts. I got slammed in more than a few places when I criticized the Brokeback film because I didn't like the fact that two straight me were playing gay men. People told me there's nothing wrong with that as long as the actors can act...and I knew they were right. But if that's the case there should be nothing wrong with Matt Bomer playing a straight man. We already know he can act. Let's see how Hollywood handles it this time. I would be willing to bet that Matt Bomer WON'T get the part, and we'll still be worrying about those fucking chicken sandwiches over at Chick-fil-a when the real injustice is happening in far more important places than a fast food restaurant no one really cares about anyway.
Simon Lipskar Addresses the DOJ on E-book Pricing:
The settlement with three major publishers recently announced by the Department of Justice demonstrates that the government has a fatally flawed understanding of the economics and history of the emerging ebook industry and, as such, has constructed a settlement that undermines a healthy market defined by robust competition. It is my obligation as the president of one of the industry’s leading literary agencies to write and try to persuade the court not to approve this ill-conceived settlement.
It's a painfully long letter that basically says what most literary agents have been saying all along. There's no mention about the legal issues in Lipskar's letter with regard to alleged conspiracy and doing business in an unfair and dishonest way. It's more emotional than practical. And the law isn't about emotions. The reason why there are laws is to protect consumers from conspiracies.
I. Did the Alleged Collusion Cause Consumer Harm?
The government’s investigation into agency pricing springs from a flawed premise. On Page 8 of the Competitive Impact Statement, the United States makes a claim that is wholly unsupported by fact: “As a result of Defendants’ illegal agreement, consumers have paid higher prices for e-books than they would have paid in a market free of collusion.”
In the most basic sense, I'm taking this to mean that if I speed down the highway at 100 miles per hour in a sixty-five mile per hour zone and I don't have and accident and I don't kill anyone, it's okay to break the law. Maybe I'm misreading this...but it's not something I would have written and released in public if I'd been Lipskar.
What also concerns me is that I've always been taught that agents represent authors, not publishers or book sellers. So why would a literary agent even get involved in something like this? And I'm putting aside all the flaws I saw in Lipskar's letter to the DOJ when I ask this question.
You can read more about it here.