I just clicked over my denomination's new magazine site -- the efforts are somewhat fruitful, although I haven't been convinced enough to subscribe to the print version -- and saw a profile of Matt Lutz. I thought actors on this board might be interested.

Bortz: Ever heard of this guy?

He's done some Hallmark productions -- no million-dollar paychecks for him. Not yet.

I love his plug of In America!

Lutz is kind of famous for an interview he gave to The Advocate a couple years ago, in which he outed himself as a conservative Christian after playing a gay high-school student.

That Advocate article is very telling. Lutz comes off as a very humble, smart, thoughtful, loving and tolerant (a word I've grown to hate because it's so misused) Christian, while the tone of the interview and headline is dripping with disapproval and intolerance for Lutz's beliefs. What a nice role reversal!

I love this response when the interviewer asks his beliefs about homosexuality:

"Very honestly, I think homosexuality is a sin. I think that it is a lifestyle that I don’t necessarily… [pause] I think it can be unhealthy. I don’t think it’s any more unhealthy than a lot of lifestyles that I would choose to live. I don’t think it’s any greater of a sin than any of my own sins that I would struggle with. I don’t think homosexuals need to be condemned, or judged any stronger than anyone else. I think that Christians, or people who call themselves Christians, have caused a lot of damage among the gay and lesbian world—among a lot of worlds—and that is a shame. There is only room for love; there is only room for acceptance. So while I, on one side of the token, would say homosexuality is wrong, I would also say there’s no reason that Christians need to be afraid. There’s no reason to be intolerant, and that’s what the [Boston Public] episode would be about."

The interviewer takes a smug tone ("So why did you do the episode?" "So basically you support not beating people up.") and still tries to hammer away at his Christianity and get him to say something inflammatory. But Lutz doesn't take the bait. I love how he turns the question around when the interviewer asks why a Christian would do a role that might encourage kids to "come out":

"If you were talking to a homosexual who thought it was really wrong to be a Christian and you were going to say to them, 'By playing a Christian you might encourage kids to be a Christian—how do you reconcile that?'"

There's the crux of the interview right there - Lutz is being interviewed by a gay person who is as horrified by Christianity as some Christians are by homosexuality. And the interviewer fails to see the irony in that.

It's an interesting dilema - playing an individual whose politics you might disagree with. Although the initial response is non-political it results in a political stance.

As for the interviewer

[[QUOTE]QUOTE=gigi,Oct 21 2004, 09:48 AM]It's an interesting dilema - playing an individual whose politics you might disagree with. Although the initial response is non-political it results in a political stance.

As for the interviewer [QUOTE]being interviewed by a gay person who is as horrified by Christianity as some Christians are by homosexuality[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure where you read that in the interview. I think his questions were dealing quite sensitively with a delicate issue, and he definitely doesn't paint a bad picture of Lutz. I think he was trying to get to the bottom of a difficult issue, which Lutz himself recognises when he says

[QUOTE]But I don’t know that I can be responsible for what every person is going to take away from every role I play. That’s a big burden to bear.[QUOTE]

Of course, if there's something you know about the author that I don't, please let me know.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I agree that Lutz's response results in a "political stance," unless you reduce his beliefs (and the character's sexual feelings) to political advocacy. Lutz simply states his belief that homosexuality is a sin no greater than his own sins. Who said either Lutz or the character he plays has any "political beliefs"? Lutz states that he's politically conservative, but doesn't define that. It's a pretty big assumption to define his political beliefs based on what he says here.

As for the interviewer - admittedly it's an assumption on my part that he's gay, but the hostility toward Lutz's beliefs comes through in several places. First in the headline and subhead -- and as an experienced journalist, I know that reporters are not responsible for writing headlines, however it pretty clearly reflects the tone of his questions.

"Public support, private disapproval" - note the smug, intellectually superior implication that this Christian only acts like he supports gay people, but his hypocrisy lies just beneath. The subhead reinforces this - "But why did he take the job if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?" Again, an implication that he's hypocritical.

Second paragraph - "We weren’t surprised to learn that he’s straight, but his views on homosexuality—inspired by his conservative Christian upbringing—took us by surprise." Why? Remember, the Advocate is a publication interested in political advocacy and "outing" closeted homosexuals. Much like some Christian movie reviewers might be "surprised" (read: dismayed) to learn that Max von Sydow, who played Christ in The Greatest Story Ever Told, is an atheist, the magazine is very likely interested in "outing" this conservative Christian.

So the tone is set early, and then reading the escalating nature of the questions - "So why did you take the role?" and the exceedingly smug "So basically you support not beating people up" (a question designed to make the subject seem simple-minded) brings home the feeling that the interviewer is quite interested in portraying Lutz as a cement-headed Bible thumper. The phrasing of the lengthy question about Lutz reconciling his beliefs with the formation of a gay-straight alliance -- read it carefully -- is also designed to trip the actor up and say something A) inflammatory about homosexuality or inconsistent with his Christian beliefs.

When Lutz answers that question honestly and convincingly, the interviewer tries another tactic - "Do you have any gay members of your family?" Huh? What possible relevance does this have to the role or Lutz's career? It smacks of another route by which the interviewer can ensnare the actor (Well, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but, ah, well, there was that time I found Uncle Jimmy with one of those 'funny' magazines in the outhouse ....)

(NOTE: Something weird is happening with my settings. Quote button isn't working, and that "cool guy" smiley isn't supposed to be there, fyi.)

Mark wrote:
: "Public support, private disapproval" - note the smug, intellectually superior
: implication that this Christian only acts like he supports gay people, but his
: hypocrisy lies just beneath.

I don't get that from the headline, myself. I mean, for one thing, the headline is a riff on the fact that the reason the actor was being interviewed in the first place was because of a character he played on Boston Public -- note the italics in the online headline. And since the actor keeps his disapproval to himself, yeah, it's "private" -- no big deal.

: The subhead reinforces this - "But why did he take the job if he thinks
: homosexuality is a sin?" Again, an implication that he's hypocritical.

Again, I don't think this is a big deal either -- the fact that we have a Christian actor who disapproves of homosexuality playing a homosexual character in an arguably pro-gay episode of a TV show is DEFINITELY an interesting story, no matter how you spin it. So, yeah, "why did he take the job" is a totally legitimate question. It's the hook for the article.

: Second paragraph - "We weren't surprised to learn that he's straight, but his
: views on homosexuality -- inspired by his conservative Christian upbringing --
: took us by surprise." Why?

I think it reflects the fact that most people assume that most people are straight and are not conservative Christians. This is a profile, and a legitimate one based on the statistics I think, but it is not a prejudice. (True, you do find occasional gays like Harvey Fierstein, who says he assumes that everyone is gay until they tell him otherwise, but I would guess he's probably in the minority.)

: . . . the magazine is very likely interested in "outing" this conservative Christian.

Well, if he brings it up -- which he did -- then sure, why not? There was nothing in the line of questioning that even hinted that they were trying to "out" him. He volunteered that information himself. They asked, "Do you think the issue of homosexuality is less of an issue for people of your generation, or is it still something that is divisive?", and he, instead of giving a purely "objective" answer, spoke from his own personal experience as a Christian ("I would say that homosexuality is probably a bigger issue with my world than it would be in the mainstream culture -- right or wrong"). The reporters would have been idiots not to run with that bit of info, once he brought it up. In a nutshell, Lutz outed HIMSELF, and kudos to him for doing so, and for doing it so gracefully.

: So the tone is set early, and then reading the escalating nature of the questions -
: "So why did you take the role?" and the exceedingly smug "So basically you
: support not beating people up" (a question designed to make the subject seem
: simple-minded) brings home the feeling that the interviewer is quite interested in
: portraying Lutz as a cement-headed Bible thumper.

True, the "you support not beating people up" question heads in that direction, but I think it also has the potential to make the interviewer look a little cement-headed. I mean, why badger a person into agreeing with your beliefs? Why not celebrate the fact that, despite the disagreement in beliefs, he agrees with you on the terms by which those differences of belief ought to be handled?

: The phrasing of the lengthy question about Lutz reconciling his beliefs with the
: formation of a gay-straight alliance -- read it carefully -- is also designed to trip
: the actor up and say something A) inflammatory about homosexuality or B )
: inconsistent with his Christian beliefs.

True, and I actually think Lutz could have given a better answer than he did -- instead of talking about "bad guys" and then backtracking and saying gays aren't necessarily bad, he could have simply said that it is better to come out and be honest about who and what you are, and that that applies equally to Christians and gays, and therefore, if a gay teen is emboldened by the character Lutz played to come out and be honest about that, then great, but it's not like Lutz "converted" the teen.

: When Lutz answers that question honestly and convincingly, the interviewer tries
: another tactic - "Do you have any gay members of your family?" Huh? What
: possible relevance does this have to the role or Lutz's career?

Well, this could easily just be following up on that earlier line of questioning regarding whether Lutz has gay friends or whatever -- and THOSE questions came up BEFORE Lutz revealed that he is a Christian.

: . . . that "cool guy" smiley isn't supposed to be there, fyi.

That's been a perennial problem on these message boards.

Shoot, I just lost my original post when the page wouldn't load!

In a nutshell, I'm willing to admit I might have read too much into the questioning, but it's based on the fact that The Advocate is about political advocacy. FWIW, I would have read the question about a gay teen coming out with the same jaundiced eye if it had been asked of a gay actor by a fundamentalist Christian publication.

My big beef with the article is that it perpetuates stereotypes about gay people and Christians. I guess I just don't find it all that interesting that a Christian actor is playing a gay character, anymore than I find it overly interesting when a Jewish actor plays a Christian character. The difference, I think - and I might be way off - is that many of us expect that a Christian actor holds certain political beliefs about homosexuality. But Lutz never takes a political stance on anything - he simply states that homosexuality is a sin no greater than my sins, inferring that we're all equally in need of Christ's grace, and Christians have nothing to fear from gay people. That's the more compelling part of the interview, for my money. The Advocate doesn't run with that line of questioning because it doesn't fit with its agenda - a narrow agenda, by the way, that doesn't represent most of the gay people I know. The image of a Christian who is not dumb as a stump and not a homo-hater - now that would have been interesting to read.

I wanted to see a Christian worldview in In America... but while I definitely got a good vibe from the film on marriage and family, I didn't get a very good vibe on faith.