3 hours ago
2 ARTICLE AD
Josh Gad is opening about about that controversial “exclusively gay moment” in 2017′s live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast If you forgot, the 43-year-old actor played Gaston’s (Luke Evans) faithful friend LeFou in the movie, which starred Emma Watson. In the leadup to the movie’s release, director Bill Condon teased that the movie would be one of the first from Disney to feature a queer moment. However, it wound up being a fleeting scene of Josh‘s character dancing with another man. The comments sparked controversy at the time, which Josh addressed in an except of his memoir “In Glad We Trust.” Keep reading to find out more… In an excerpt of the book obtained by Entertainment Weekly, Josh said that he did not consider the character to be queer while filming the movie. “I for one certainly didn’t exactly feel like LeFou was who the queer community had been wistfully waiting for,” he explained. “I can’t quite imagine a Pride celebration in honor of the ‘cinematic watershed moment’ involving a quasi-villainous Disney sidekick dancing with a man for half a second. I mean, if I were gay, I’m sure I’d be pissed.” He recalled a “casual (but ultimately seismic) conversation… about the specific nature of LeFou’s devotion to Gaston,” which took place between himself, Bill and the movie’s screenwriters. During it, they discussed the specifics of Gaston and LeFou’s relationship, and whether the latter was in love with his pal. Josh said that they “ultimately landed on the side of LeFou was truly in awe of Gaston, and that was not driven by any sexual desire whatsoever but rather a deep-seated love, appreciation, and belief in this person he had served alongside in battle for many years.” He added that he did not think the character’s sexuality was “a think to really explore in a random comedic character in the film.” Josh said that he found the idea of the scene to be “cheeky” when it was first pitched to him. “Because I was a side character, I didn’t want to suddenly throw the weight of sexuality on this character that in no way was driving the film, but the moment (as described to me) seemed harmless enough – a fun blink-and-you’ll-miss-it little beat,” he explained. “Never once was the moment in this film described to me as something that we were going to hang a lantern on and pat ourselves on the back for,” he wrote. “In fact, if it had, I never would have agreed to the seemingly sweet and innocuous moment. It was both too little and not enough to be anything more than it was.” Josh also addressed the controversy of the situation, writing that it was all because they pointed it out. “Had the audience defined it as a sweet exclusively gay moment,” he said, “I would have been delighted! But the second we pointed it out and seemingly congratulated ourselves, we had invited hell and fury.”
