Stars & directors under the radar who probably are/were gay

I'll dare venture an opinion. Some people seem to want someone to be homosexual. Those people usually have not met the person. Another rather disturbing factor is certain critics and/or celebrities have personal reasons seem to think outing someone (whether true or not) will hurt the person. My opinion is based on the 80's when malicious conjectures were popular.

I had a friend during the 80's who made a profound, though rather crude observation: unless you're going to bed with the person, who cares?

This can be a good discussion...it already is...and I'm glad that you started by recognizing its limitations. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems as though your intention is to discuss what it is about their work in film which either suggests or reaffirms a "gay" sensibility, which is itself hard to define. Count me in, but the "are/were" part gives me a little pause, since I'm not as interested in speculation about living individuals and their work, since they have the option and ability to define themselves without my 2 cents. Also, today the term "gay" has been so broadened, as james mentioned, that it's almost meaningless other that as an extremely elastic canopy covering a range of behaviors and affinities. I'm old enough to remember when the word "gay" had no meaning to the general public other than "happy", though it was a coded word used among homosexuals themselves as an expression of group identity. Even though there was probably still the same range of behavior among the group happening in those days, the "group" could still be comfortably encapsulated in one broad term, unlike today. So I feel ready and happy to talk about those days using that term. 

The difficulty, obviously, is that there really isn't an extensive written or oral record to help confirm or deny our speculation, only gut feelings. The general cultural bias against homosexuals, including criminal constraints, meant expressions of "gayness" had to be made through suggestion and there's room for differences of opinion about what was being suggested, but I guess that's what we're here for, isn't it? Harvey Fierstein once told how amused he'd been to hear the song about gay identity he'd written for the musical La Cage aux Folles, "The Best of Times", used during a George Bush rally, saying "You know some queen pulled a fast one." I think that's the kind of situation we're looking at here, some queens pulling a fast one to get something which spoke to their own identity and to their "group" onto the movie screen at a time when they were prohibited from doing so directly. Or at least part of what we're looking at?

I think it's legitimate for you to question why the press and other media take a hands-off approach to some but hunt others like prey. Ultimately, it must come down to what they know (or suspect) the public wants. But we as classic movie lovers can certainly see where catering to mass tastes can get us as we're faced with endless sequels and super hero franchises. I'll be interested in where this discussion goes but, as I said, I'm less interested in the contemporary scene than I am in what we can glean from the past. But good job getting this subject up and running.

Since more and more people with a public profile are coming out, do you think that people who want their private life private are seen by the public as being "dishonest"? Is "no comment" generally taken as an admission of "guilt", do you think? Could it be the press' way of getting back at individuals who aren't cooperative in general terms, whereas ones who court the press, or at least cooperate, are the ones who get the "free pass" when it comes to their private life?  What makes it even more confusing is that there are some gay people who are by now "bullet-proof", having been out so long that everyone knows it, people like Ellen DeGeneres and RuPaul, so that targeting them wouldn't even make sense. Another consideration is that the calculation has changed (I would think) because so much more of the public is now accepting that it has the potential to backfire on scandal-mongers and be seen as harassment by readers and viewers, who once may have been titillated, or at least intrigued by that kind of speculation. But I suppose there'll always be a market.

I answer "yes" to most of Ilovemelvin's questions. Being gay is more accepted, but how much is lip service? I know people who say gay is acceptable, but still react to it like the old days-like gays had the plague, that AIDS was God's punishment.

Ellen and RuPaul may not be tabloid subjects, but what is Ellen doing now? RuPaul may be on TV and some unforgiving cousins of mine watch occasionally, but they watch with ugly derisive comments. If I ask how are those people hurting you? The most "intelligent" comeback is saying I must be one. In other words, they think they have insulted me.

I still think the celebrity's response dictates who gets a pass. Mostly the most famous are targets, no fun or sales for "outing" an obscure extra.