A theater critic decided to insinuate in no uncertain terms that Hugh Jackman is bisexual.
Brantley wrote the following line about the actor, whose questionable sexuality has been a rumor that has hounded him for years,
“Let’s face it. Mr. Jackman is, unapologetically and triumphantly, the bi-est guy in town: bicultural, bimorphic, binational, biprofessional, and, for entertainment purposes, bisexual.”
He says it is for entertainment purposes – but did it really need to be said at all? What value did his take on all of the bi’s that Hugh holds have on the Broadway review?
The critic went on to say,
“I’m really not talking about sexual identity here. Well, I am, but only in a Platonic sense,” he goes on. “Mr. Jackman makes a point of reminding us throughout his fleet-footed show, which combines musical numbers with an ‘All About Hugh’ narrative, that he’s a long- and happily married man, and I have no evidence to the contrary.”
Although while he says he has no evidence to the contrary – he did state,
“First of all, the guy makes no bones about saying that he loves musicals. And male musical-comedy love is one of those red flags that naïve young women are told to watch out for when they’re searching for a mate.”
To make sure the reader gets the drift of what he is saying he refers to Hugh Jackman as a “flaming queen”.
“Mr. Jackman often gleefully comports himself onstage in the manner of what, in less enlightened times, might have been called a flaming queen”
Is it really necessary to imply Hugh Jackman is bisexual in a Broadway review? What do you think about the review?