HiStory

So apparently the History Channel has this new mini-series called The Bible. Which is dedicated to, surprise, this thing.

I think everyone knows where this is going. I hadn't heard about it until today but the backlash is so amazeballs I just have to talk about it now. Having recently seen the first episode, I think that this series is pretty harmless. It's not as good as actually reading the text itself. But then again, how many picture adaptations of books are actually better than the books themselves? 

Except for this gem, that is:

This one made me want to punch walls.

This one made me want to punch walls slightly less.

There are people on one side saying that this is not history and holy crap, the History Channel has gone downhill and since when did the Bible become relevant and so on and so forth. Then there are other people complaining about how this series is completely inaccurate, bastardized, and spun into some kind of lame Hollywood epic that has nothing against Jesus Christ Superstar (not that anything much out there could beat Jesus Christ Superstar. Like good lord. Such a good musical). I have to admit, I am not an avid watcher of the History Channel, but I never really took it all that seriously in the first place. I mean, I'd watch it occasionally now and then when they broadcast their Ancient Aliens series. Because let's face it, who can resist aliens? 

William Shatner's Weird Or What is also amusing, as it discusses conspiracy theories as if they actually had any legitimacy to them. Also, who wouldn't watch William Shatner in just about, well, anything? And sometimes I tune into Secret Life Of..., mostly because I like the animated sequences and the acting is hilarious and sometimes the historians featured on that show are really attractive and sometimes a lot of gay stuff happens. Not between the historians, but the historical figures. Anyway, that being said, I never really took the History Channel all that seriously. It's history for people who don't have anything else to watch on a Monday evening.

So quite frankly, I don't really know how people thought the mini-series The Bible was going to be different from anything else. It's produced by the same guy who brought us Survivor and who said that he wanted to bring a new kind of Bible education to public schools everywhere. 

The Bible debuted with 13.1 million viewers, making it a massive hit. It consists of 10 scripted episodes, each of which dramatize important plot points and themes of the Bible. The forewarning before the first episode reads, "The program is an adaptation of Bible stories. It endeavors to stay true to the spirit of the book. Some scenes contain violence. Viewer discretion is advised." No one here is claiming that this series is based on a true story but the Bible can be read as many different things to different people. Upon watching the first episode, it seems like that discretion is quite accurate. The series is a literal translation of the events as they are described in the book. It's like the quickest summary of the Bible I have ever seen. I could get more detail out of a children's version of the Bible, to be quite honest. The series is well done from a technical standpoint though. I'm sure the budget for this was quite hefty as the set design is quite good as is the CGI.

I'll be frank right now, after watching the first episode, it seems like a fairly unthreatening series, and it definitely isn't something people should take personally, whether they are of the Christian faith or not. This is just an adaptation of fables from a religious book. And like any live action adaptation, it has its clichés. There are a lot of white people and a lot of racial stereotypes (as in that, Asian angel ninja) and there is little to no comic relief (which it could have surely benefitted from) and the acting sucks at times but hey, isn't everything we see on television like that to a certain degree? If you find that it isn't true to the spirit of the book or whatever it promises you, then you still always have the book itself. If you find that it isn't true to anything, then it's your choice whether or not to watch it. And if you say that it isn't history, then remind yourself that this is being aired on a television channel that also airs Outlaw Bikers, Counting Cars and M*A*S*H. The stories may not be considered truth to everybody, but it does belong to a culture that has had an impact on history itself. I would have preferred a series on the history of Christianity itself, or how the Bible was written and is now interpreted, as I feel that that would have perhaps been more relevant to a history network than a 10 episode dramatization of Bible stories.

Anyhow, this should be an interesting television series to follow. I'll probably end up watching it in between re-runs of Ancient Aliens.

I'm as mild and as meek as a mouse

I just recently finished reading a book by Malinda Lo, entitled Ash. Naturally, when I finish a book, I automatically tend to cast the hypothetical movie for it. And this is basically a post where I hypothetically cast a movie that is probably never going to happen. At least with me as casting director calling the shots on who will get to play these beloved characters.

Scarlett Johansson as Cinderella by Annie Leibovitz

Cinderella is a story we’re all familiar with, right? Girl is taken advantage of by her stepmother upon the passing of her father, is made to be a slave, basically. One day, the Prince decides it’s about time he picked a wife so he decides to host a ball and invites all the eligible young ladies to it (because he obviously has no female friends or love interests to speak of). Cinderella’s stepsisters get to go but she doesn’t. In a twist of fate, she meets a fairy godmother who gives her all the princess perks, with the only condition being that the magic wanes at midnight. Cinderella goes to the ball, catches the eye of the Prince and they dance and fall in love exactly the way it happens in real life. Cinderella loses track of time and at midnight, rushes away, losing her glass slipper in the process. The Prince keeps it as souvenir and because he is totally blind, he has to try the slipper on every woman in the kingdom to find the Cinderella he fell in love with the night before. He finds her, marries her and because Cinderella is such a forgiving girl, she arranges for her two evil stepsisters to marry lords and they all live happily ever after.

Although the story of Cinderella is ancient, and has many names and different versions that exist across the world, the version that we are probably most familiar with is the Charles Perrault version. It has been adapted into every art form imaginable and even works that do not make direct reference to Cinderella still do contain elements of the story. There’s just something really alluring and fascinating about people who live terrible lives only to suddenly gain everything in the world. Here are some Cinderellas I grew up with:

Disney Cinderella. Despite living a horrible life and having a cruel and abusive family, this Cinderella seemed to still be happy enough to sing songs in the morning and sing songs while cleaning. She aided her family without a care in the world, and she made friends with mice and birds.

Julie Andrews Cinderella. Julie Andrews just wins at all things. She was my favourite person when I was younger and when I picture Cinderella in my head, she’s my default.

Brandy Norwood Cinderella. Where Whitney Houston played the fairy godmother. And Bernadette Peters played the stepmother. Need I say more? The cast itself screams epic. Amazing music adaptations, very quaint set design that was perfect for a live action fairytale. The music of Rodgers and Hammerstein never fails.

Drew Barrymore Cinderella. A modern version of Cinderella that finally made her seem more human. Drew Barrymore played her perfectly and one of the greatest things about this movie is that it at least tried to be historically accurate - from the costumes to the way people swam back in the day.

Anne Hathaway Cinderella. An adaptation of the Gail Carson Levine novel, which is a re-telling of the Cinderella tale, Ella Enchanted does not follow the story to a T plot point. The movie itself strays even further from the book, which was quite mature and deep for a children’s novel. I remember reading it at the end of grade seven and thinking that it was the cutest love story I had ever read. I had never really looked at love stories that way before, but Gail Carson Levine’s depth of writing pulled me into that world like nothing else. The movie, unfortunately, did not capture that, and instead turned the book into a cheesy musical movie, targeting an audience familiar with Cinderella but not necessarily with Ella Enchanted. Despite that, I still enjoyed the movie for what it was, and Anne Hathaway is adorable in it.

Hilary Duff Cinderella. I know this movie was meant to be cute fluff and catered to the Disney Channel generation but man, it was annoying. I have nothing against Hilary Duff but she isn't the best actress and this movie was like walking into a Claire's Accessories store and walking out having bought a bunch of ugly overpriced stuff that you're never going to wear.

Anyway, onto Ash, which, though not at all on the same level as the Gail Carson Levine novel, could be seen as the Ella Enchanted of the 21st Century.

Ash is a modern re-telling of the classic Cinderella story, but with a queer twist. I was drawn to it because a) It had pretty good reviews, b) As cliché as it sounds, I really like Cinderella stories, and Disney’s Cinderella, though it scared the crap out of me as a kid, was still a movie that I made myself watch everyday, c) Lesbians and d) LESBIANS. I’ll admit it, I didn’t really adore Ash as much as I expected to. Although I loved the concept and the fantastical world that Lo created with this story, I still felt that the main Cinderella character, Aisling or better known as Ash, felt flat. I hate to think this, but in terms of personality or lack thereof, she would give Bella Swan a run for her money. I guess Cinderella in the original story wasn’t much of an interesting character herself, but I would have liked for Ash to be maybe a little more evolved than her earlier counterpart. In a way, Ash’s blandness made her relatable, but it also made her incredibly boring as a narrator. Normally, I love reading stories from the first person perspective. However, when the first person has the personality range of a toothpick, there’s only so much emotion you can get out of the text. And I think that was my big problem with it, the fact that there was little to no emotion. The text itself is beautiful. Although her writing can seem repetitive and predictable at times, Malinda Lo has a great talent for fantasy writing. Her descriptions are lush and the world she has created is rich in detail and well thought out and put together. In terms of the characterization and the humanity of the story itself however, this is where the re-telling fails. 

Ash has connections with several different characters in the novel: Sidhean a.k.a. The Fairy Godmother; Prince Aidan a.k.a. Prince Charming and Kaisa a.k.a. The Huntress a.k.a. The Love of Ash’s Life. I kind of got the idea that maybe Ash was bisexual, as throughout the novel, especially in the first half, there are hints that she feels an unwanted attraction towards Sidhean, a male fairy. Although she is clearly more attracted to Kaisa, I never felt that there was any real chemistry between the two characters. There was nothing strong enough in the development of either girls throughout the story to indicate that they were passionately in love with one another. Now, I’m not asking for straight up erotic Fifty Shades of Lesbian fantasy here. But when I pick up a book solely based on the fact that it is about two girls falling in love (yes, guilty as charged), I EXPECT SOME SEX STUFF. Well, not literal sex stuff, but sexual tension AT LEAST. I want to feel, as a reader, that these two characters want nothing more than to get the other in bed at the end of the day. For romance to be romantic, it has to have that element of sacrifice, of apathy, of understanding, of commitment. It has to be about love, yes, but for it to be truly romantic it must also have that other aspect. The aspect of desire, of passion, of an almost animalistic need to have someone. You all remember that library scene in Atonement? YES, LIKE THAT. It doesn’t even need to be played out. I mean, the presence of sex is possible even at the absence of sex, if that makes any sense. Like that library scene in Becoming Jane, where he tells her that for her to become a proficient writer of fiction, her horizons must be widened. I mean, they are in a LIBRARY and there are books everywhere and the two characters are like 15 feet from one another and they are separated by a million bookshelves and they are talking about books and yet that one line....HOLY CRAP if we all didn’t want to jump that character’s bones right then and there in the middle of that library.

And yes, I understand that I just referenced two movies of James McAvoy’s involving characters played by James McAvoy and I will confirm right now that none of my strong feelings for either of those scenes has anything to do with James McAvoy. 

But you get what I mean. I will say that Kaisa’s character was more intriguing for me than Ash’s. She was the King’s Huntress, a royal official who exuded confidence, strength, authority and sexual appeal. There were segments in the novel that indicated that she was desired by many and that even though she wasn’t necessarily engaging in many relationships, people around her always assumed that she was. I pictured her as this really hot girl, and I definitely understood Ash’s attraction to her, though I never really grasped why Kaisa felt the same way about Ash. I felt a lot of the time that I as a reader was trying to put the pieces together in the main relationship of the novel. Though I was somewhat invested more in Kaisa’s character than I was in Ash’s, I never felt that I was invested in their love, because I didn’t really believe it. There wasn’t enough in the novel in terms of emotional investment for me to truly think that this relationship was real, or could be real. They were the equivalent of that couple you see in 90 minute feature movies -- the ones who meet across the room 15 minutes in, fall in love 5 minutes afterwards for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that they happened to make eye contact for 2 seconds, then kiss victoriously at the end and you just have to accept the fact that they belong together and will live happily ever after.

I have to give Lo credit though, I really loved the fact that girls falling in love with one another was not presented as taboo in the fantasy world of the book. There is no homophobia or implying of the fact that heterosexual relationships are the norm in this society. It was refreshing to read a book with lesbian characters that didn’t concern itself with the fact that these girls were lesbians. Too often I feel that books and television and movies portray queer characters as being characterized solely by the fact that they’re non-heterosexual, and giving them very limited qualities beyond being gay. Ash did not do this. Of course, having it set in a fantasy world where anything was possible, including the normalization and acceptance of homosexual people, probably helped in avoiding the current political aspect of queer culture entirely.

ASH

I feel like for them to make a film adaptation that would hook you from the get-go, they need to make Ash more interesting and 3-dimensional than she was in the book. All of these actresses have great range, screen presence and the charisma to carry a feature film as its protagonist.

1. Melonie Diaz

2. Imogen Poots

3. Mia Wasikowska

4. Alia Shawkat

KAISA

Kaisa, like I described above, is someone who is part role model, part heartthrob. I would choose the following actresses based on their stature, the fact that they could kick ass and also their voices. I feel that a heartthrob’s heartthrob status is largely based on how they sound when they speak. A good speaking vice melts hearts and minds like nothing else could.

1. Jennifer Lawrence

2. Jamie Chung

3. Troian Bellisario

4. Lenora Crichlow

SIDHEAN

Sidhean is an enticing emo weirdo cursed fairy. I picked a handful of amazingly talented actors who are beautiful but in a way where you don’t really know why they’re beautiful.

1. Eddie Redmayne

2. Ezra Miller

3. Domhnall Gleeson

4. Ben Whishaw

So there is my dream casting. I really hope that whatever it is or however it goes, that this book does eventually get a film adaptation. Hollywood seems to be going through a phase of modern fairy tale adaptations, what with Beastly, Red Riding Hood, Mirror Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer, and so on. Not all of these movies have been any good, unfortunately, but a film like Ash would fit into this mold perfectly. And to be quite honest, there’s nothing keeping us back from putting more queer representation in mainstream movies, especially ones that aren’t in token, stereotypical or supporting roles. 

I will end this post with a performance medley by the original cast of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella, currently playing on Broadway.

50 Shades of Bret Easton Ellis

I have a beef

with Bret Easton Ellis.

This guy is a novelist and a screenwriter who just so happens to be queer/bisexual. I want to like him, I sincerely do. There aren't a lot of out bisexual icons or influential bisexual people out there. There are even fewer in the literature circle.

Imagine the kind of awe-inspiring, revolutionary writing that could happen. Imagine the possibilities for the developing of queer characters in books, on TV, in movies. IMAGINE BISEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN ACTUALLY BEING PORTRAYED PROPERLY FOR ONCE.

Which is why I want to root for Bret Easton Ellis. So badly.

But it is very hard to root for this man when he acts like a total dick on Twitter.

OK, maybe I'm being a little harsh with the "total dick" accusation. Let's just say that on The Twitter, Bret Easton Ellis comes across as a bit of an ignorant, clueless ass.

**When reading this post, please remember to read the Twitter tweets from bottom-top. Tweets are published newest tweet up. I know I'm asking you to read upside down and for that, I am truly sorry. Please bear with me. I didn't invent The Twitter**

I'll just say first of all that his use of the word "retarded" in this context is completely uncalled for and unprofessional. He is a published author and a grown man who has what I imagine to be a very wide range of vocabulary, certainly broader than mine. Times like these I wish Twitter had a political correctness check. God knows we need those nowadays just as much as spell checks and grammar checks. Because sometimes, the smartest people can act the stupidest.

Let me provide a little context before I dive straight into everything that is wrong with Bret Easton Ellis' Twitter. First off, he is tweeting about the casting of the film adaptation of the best-selling, most popular piece of shit series ever, 50 Shades of Grey. 

50 Shades of Grey is about a 21-year old girl named Anastasia Steele who meets this dashing, millionaire entrepreneur douche named Christian Grey, who seduces her with his good looks, his obsessive compulsive tendencies, as well as his dick, which apparently is as orgasm-inducing as the Elder Wand was to Voldemort.........for Harry Potter fans out there who want some kind of reference point in understanding why the hell this is one of the best selling series of all time.

I'm a Harry Potter fan and I'm constantly trying to understand why shit like Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey pass at all actually. No distinguishable heroes or heroines, no realism in terms of its characters and motives, no self-awareness, no noble attempts at inserting moral themes and thought-provoking social commentary.

Some books are meant to be shit, I get it. Guilty pleasures, right? But must these guilty pleasures be downright insulting to humanity in general? Must they be written so poorly that the writing itself detracts from the writing itself?

Books live forever, guys. Remember that. One day, our world will look back on us and define us by the literature we bought. Remember that.

And I don't exactly want to be defined as the generation that celebrated male domination over women in romantic relationships. I also do not want to be defined as the generation that got off on sexy words like "Oh jeez" and "Symptom of schizophrenia" and "Cool vanilla spell."

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis, who is a pretty well renowned and respected author, seems to care THIS MUCH about 50 Shades of Grey and its movie adaptation, is quite alarming enough.

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis is tweeting about how gay male actors cannot play straight male roles is just downright homophobic.

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis is queer makes this even worse. Now, I'm not saying that homophobia coming from heterosexual people makes it better. But when a member of the community is acting like he's some kind of self-righteous, judgmental, arrogant, ignorant asshole, then the message being sent stings that much more.

Matt Bomer is this actor right here.

He is a theatre, film and television actor and singer, widely known for his starring role in White Collar. He also happens to be gay. Does his sexuality affect his acting skills? No.

He plays a con man on White Collar. Matt Bomer is not a con man in real life. Does the fact that he isn't a con man affect his ability to play a con man? No.

Christian Grey is a woman abuser and a manipulative psycho. Matt Bomer does not abuse women and he is not a manipulative psycho. Will this detract him from accurately and effectively portraying Christian Grey? No.

All in all, there are many actors and actresses out there who are heterosexual. There are many actors and actresses out there who are not heterosexual. Does their sexuality, whatever it may be, have anything to do with whether or not they are good at their job? No.

Being a good actor is what makes a good actor. Who you're attracted to has nothing to do with acting. It doesn't even live in the same realm as acting. If we are to treat acting here as an art and a job (which it obviously is), who you do on your spare time is completely separate from what you do for a living. 

Long story short, people are not defined by who they fuck. Therefore, their jobs and their art should not be defined by who they fuck. Especially if you're an actor, seeing as your work is to play someone else, someone who is not you, someone who is nothing like you. When your specialty and your expertise lies in BECOMING OTHER PEOPLE, why should your personal life have any fucking thing to do with it?

Let me list the queer people in film history who have played straight people and have (SHOCKER) gotten away with it:

ROCK HUDSON

JUDY GARLAND

MARLON BRANDO

MARLENE DIETRICH

DIRK BOGARDE

BARBARA STANWYCK

MONTGOMERY CLIFT

ESTELLE WINWOOD

CARY GRANT

JOAN CRAWFORD

It's been done before, Bret Easton Ellis. IT CAN BE DONE AGAIN. ACTUALLY, IT STILL IS BEING DONE.

Here I list the names of actors who started their careers while in the closet, played straight people and fooled EVERYBODY.

MATT BOMER

CYNTHIA NIXON

NEIL PATRICK HARRIS

PORTIA DE ROSSI

GEORGE TAKEI

AMBER HEARD

IAN MCKELLAN

JODIE FOSTER

ALAN CUMMING

ANNA PAQUIN

DAVID HYDE PIERCE

Bret Easton Ellis then goes on to say that Universal would never hire an openly gay actor to star in 50 Shades of Grey, and calls people ignorant for thinking this.

Is it just me, or is Bret Easton Ellis being a grumpy grumps? Can't we look on the brighter side of things? Can't we give Universal the benefit of the doubt that they, unlike you, would not consider sexuality when hiring an actor? Can you imagine, just imagine, a film production company that is not as homophobic as you are?

Can you please, PLEASE, for my sanity and for my health, NOT call 50 Shades of Grey the biggest novel of all time??!!!!

PLEASE, SIR. THIS ONE STILL TAKES THE CAKE.

As does this one:

As does all three of these books:

As does only the most popular novel of all time:

As does the Chinese language dictionary:

AND OBVIOUSLY:

So Bret Easton Ellis, the next time you're tempted to call 50 Shades of Grey the best-selling book of all time, just don't. And remember to

It may be the best-selling book of all time in the UK.....but then again, this is the UK. They thought Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob would work as a logo for the 2012 Olympics. I wouldn't take their book purchases seriously.

Bret Easton Ellis goes on to defend his critics who are calling him out on his "self-loathing".....because he is a queer person who is being homophobic in his twittering. Fair enough. But, Bret Easton Ellis, there is a difference between being aware of homophobia in society and being homophobic oneself. Self-loathing is NOT AN UNDERRATED QUALITY. Self-loathing leads to things like body mutilation, depression, anxiety, confusion, suicide. Hating yourself and hating others like you is not going to do anything good for anybody.

I think Bret Easton Ellis, in a sad attempt to talk about homophobia in Hollywood, had to resort to being homophobic himself to show us......TO REALLY SHOW US WHAT THE WORLD IS ALL ABOUT. Now there is some delicious icing of irony that I just want to slather on a fucking birthday cake.

Dear Bret Easton Ellis, we already know how shitty society is towards people like us. We don't need you to perpetuate that. And we certainly don't need you to remind us of that AS WE ALREADY LIVE IT EVERY FUCKING DAY BY, YOU KNOW, BEING WHO WE ARE.

But no, he doesn't stop there. Bret Easton Ellis is just on a roll. It's like he found a shovel and some spongy land and just started digging all the way through the centre of the Earth and out the other side onto Chinese soil.

He goes on to talk about Neil Patrick Harris and how him being gay in real life and him playing a straight person on a TV show is somehow the TV show's way of mocking his homosexuality (in real life). 

I see you trying to be a smart ass, conspiracy theory weaving hipster, Bret Easton Ellis.

OK FIRST OF ALL, Neil Patrick Harris was not out when he was cast in How I Met Your Mother. We can safely assume then, that there was no ulterior motive made on part of the casting crew and producers to make fun of a gay man by casting him in a non-gay role.

SECOND OF ALL, Jason Segal could never play Barney Stinson. NO ONE BUT NEIL PATRICK COULD PLAY BARNEY STINSON.

THIRD OF ALL, he's claiming that it's totally fine when Neil Patrick Harris is hosting the Tonys, but it's not totally fine when Neil Patrick Harris is playing Barney Stinson. Are you saying that gay people are only allowed to do stereotypical gay things, Bret Easton Ellis? Are you saying that it is only when they are doing these stereotypical gay things that they are respecting their gayness instead of poking fun at it? Are you saying that certain roles have sexual orientations and Neil Patrick Harris must choose the role that suits the way YOU see him? Are you also trying to compare a hosting job to an acting job??!! I rest my case. His argument is flawed already. 

FOURTH OF ALL, I think you're the one creating your own paranoia, Bret Easton Ellis. The reason you can't get into the show is because you can't seem to remember that television (even reality shows) IS FICTION. Gay actor playing straight character? WHO CARES, IT'S FICTION. THE WHOLE POINT OF FICTION IS GETTING YOURSELF ABSORBED IN THE STORY, THE CHARACTERS, AND NOT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF ONE OF THE LEAD ACTORS. Good Lord, you would think this is all Bret Easton Ellis ever thinks about. 

Remember the dig to China? Well, Bret Easton Ellis has now gone so far he's broken through our atmospheres and can confidently count all the craters on the moon.

He goes on to critique shows like The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family for not being progressive and for being too gay.

This coming from a guy who just moments before said Neil Patrick Harris was too gay to play Barney Stinson and Matt Bomer was too gay to play Christian Grey.

FIRST OF ALL, there are no gay characters in The Big Bang Theory. The closest thing we could get to a queer character on The Big Bang Theory is Sheldon, who is not even gay but very likely asexual. I don't know where Bret Easton Ellis is getting all the gay out of this show.

SECOND OF ALL, for a comedy, I'd say that Modern Family is pretty progressive. The gay characters are not a) Murderers, b) Perverts, c) Dead, d) Defined by their sexuality. It may not be a perfect show, but it's portraying gay characters on even level with the way it portrays its straight characters. You could say that the two gay leads are ridiculed in the show. But everyone on the show is being ridiculed. It's a comedy. The genre sticks.

THIRD OF ALL, there is no difference between a homophobe and a misanthrope. A homophobe expresses hatred or bigotry towards queer people. A misanthrope hates all people. Saying you're a misanthrope is not helping your case, Bret Easton Ellis. It simply does the opposite. Someone who is a misanthrope is a homophobe. 

FOURTH OF ALL, Bret Easton Ellis says that he hates the way homosexuality is presented in our entertainment culture. I agree with Bret Easton Ellis. Yes, I hate it too. I also hate the way you model homosexual representation in our entertainment culture through your Twitter. You've identified the problem that we were all already very well aware of, but you're also part of the problem.

I like that Bret Easton Ellis then changes his mind and says that it is "imperative" that Christian Grey be played by a gay actor. As if to either make his readers happy or throw their criticism in their faces in a "fuck all" type attitude.

WRONG, Bret Easton Ellis, WRONG. Christian Grey should not be played by a straight actor. Christian Grey should not be played by a gay actor. Christian Grey should be played by whatever actor impresses the casting directors. He should be played by whatever actor has the most chemistry (or lack thereof, depending on your interpretation) with the actress who will be playing Anastasia Steele. Straight or gay, it doesn't matter. We're not auditioning the actor's sexuality. We're auditioning his acting.

I can't believe I just shat 2.5 days worth of feelings towards this writer in this one post.

Here's what I have to say to this whole fiasco:

1. Matt Bomer should not play Christian Grey. Not because he's gay, but because he's too good for this shitty series.
2. Christian Grey, for strictly marketing purposes, should probably be played by a straight actor. Not because the straight actor would provide a more convincing performance, but because the female readers and the fans are more likely to become infatuated with an actor if they see themselves as having the slightest chance of hooking up with him in real life. It's kind of like how I feel towards Amber Heard. She was hot when I thought she was straight, but she's even hotter now that I know she isn't. Because there's that one voice in my head that says, "She wouldn't be completely repulsed by me. I HAVE A CHANCE." It's a ridiculous sentiment, the outcome being impossible, yet let's face it, many of us can't help but think these thoughts. The production companies involved will definitely be thinking about promotion and marketing. They will likely choose an actor who is ideal in that his personal life can be conveniently displayed on magazine spreads and he can be photoshopped just enough to look good on the poster. They're basically searching for the next Robert Pattinson or Gerard Butler. To be honest, I think that'll be the extent to what they will be looking for in their leading man.
3. It's possible that Bret Easton Ellis tweets like this because he is an attention-seeker, and not because he truly believes in this. Regardless, I still think it's equally douchey. He's still putting this kind of negativity and hatred out there. He's still choosing to categorize, characterize and limit people.
4. Bis deserve their role models - people who will properly represent them, write about them and for them, and speak with compassion and understanding instead of bigotry and distaste. Self-loathing is definitely not underrated and it definitely has no place in the queer community - or in any community for that matter. We need to be in a constant state of motion in which we seek to make a better life for our friends and for the new generation that will emerge. So some a lot of pride would be good.
5. Frank Ocean is our real bisexual boyfriend, by the way. Bret Easton Ellis could learn a thing or two from him.

Also, Frank Ocean actually knows how to tweet:

If only more writers used Twitter for poetic purposes instead of 50 Shades of Grey purposes, I feel like the world would be a better place.