Different Strokes for Gary Coleman?
Did the pressures of young sitcom fame push Gary Coleman into being gay?
That is the impression after watching "Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of ‘Diff’rent Strokes'", broadcast last night on NBC. The lame, biopic of the even lamer "Diff’rent Strokes" may have been "unauthorized", but Gary Coleman and Todd Bridges were consultants on the project and interviewed extensively on-camera.
That's why the question of Gary Coleman's implied sexuality was so disturbing. At the height of Coleman's fame, the shadowy character of Dion Mial—a Michael Jackson impersonator—was hired as an assistant to the child star. He stayed on for many years with unspecific job duties and the movie strongly implies that the two were boyfriends or lovers.
Mial's campy mannerisms and style were over played and Coleman was also portrayed as a bitchy diva. The two lived together for many years and were always shown in close proximity. If Coleman is or is not gay, that's fine. But the trashy "behind the scenes" story implied the studio and/or Coleman's parents pushed the boy into the relationship and his sexuality became yet another unfortunate by-product of child stardom. Too bad that even at this late date, we were never told the truth.
Revealing the Wages of Young Sitcom Fame (NY Times)






God, the 80s. Michael Jackson impersonators, lol!
I also noticed that last night. They went out of their way to imply a relaionship but Gary Coleman never said anything about it.
Posted by: Carl | 05 September 2006 at 12:22
Wow. I saw the movie last night, and thought Dion was feminine, but dismissed him as a product of the 80s (the Jacksons, Debarge, etc). I never considered that the film implied that Dion and Gary were in a relationship together. If it did, and that's the truth, why would Gary go this far to have it included in the movie, but not admit it?
And if they were in a relationship, I don't think the movie implied that Gary's sexuality had anything to do with show business directly. If anything, it implied that his connection with Dion was a product of the disconnection between Gary and his father.
Posted by: 11 | 05 September 2006 at 13:01
Isnt this Dion from solid gold? I remember Arsenio (of all people) asking Gary Coleman about hanging out with Dion and Gary said "I mean, Im not gay!"
Posted by: DFS | 05 September 2006 at 13:09
11: I saw the movie last night and definitely got the vibe that there was something between the two. As you suggested, if the relationship was "a product of the disconnection between Gary and his father", isn't that as Rod said somewhat implying that the parents and studio system forced him into this?
Dion was very flamboyant, answered Gary's calls, you never saw him with anyone else, he took care of gary while sick ... Kind of hard not to see it. Also, when the father said "You want to hang out with this Michael Jackson whatever" ... I think it's fairly safe to assume most audiences will connect Michael Jackson with pedophilia and improper sexual advances.
I don't think it was stated, but implied. Not evidence, but let's be realistic. The fact that Gary Coleman was never seen or associated with a woman or girlfriend--only this one man--somewhat speaks for itself.
Posted by: greg | 05 September 2006 at 13:12
Saw it on the television and simply passed it by thinking... who in the hell cares?
Posted by: C. Baptiste-Williams | 05 September 2006 at 14:15
Greg: I think the disconnection between Gary and his father ran deeper than his father being the face of everything Gary hated about show business. But we'll never know because the movie didn't go into the complexities of that father/son relationship. But if Gary is gay because of his disconnection with his father, I don't think we can assume that that disconnection was soley rooted in "show business." I think "show business" was just a byproduct of deeper issues between the two.
Dion wasn't "hard," but it was the 80s. Most dudes in entertainment looked "soft." Soft and gay weren't synonymous back then (they shouldn't be now). And the pedophilia connections are probably unfounded, because you have to remember that Gary was a lot closer to Dion in age than he looked. For all we know, Gary could have been older.
I agree that it was interesting that there were no images of Gary having healthy relationships with women, but I don't think that necessarily implies that he was gay. I'm sure that many men have relationships with straight guys who would answer all your calls and take care of you when you're sick.
Posted by: 11 | 05 September 2006 at 14:23
11, That last line was a joke, right? It would have to be given the line before it.
Seeing a movie that never shows Gary Coleman with a person of the opposite sex, a male companion screening calls and cooking and cleaning, well, that certainly "implies" a relationship, no? At least, many years ago, before it wa sacceptable to be out on TV and in film, those were the sorts of nuances that were provided to imply homosexuality.
I think Rod and the New York Times both said the show was fairly superficial and never explained any of these inconsistencies. Odd because Gary Coleman was a consultant.
I think you're just arguing with yourself and saying the same thing.
Posted by: Alan T | 05 September 2006 at 14:33
AlanT, do you not have any straight guy friends who would take care of you if you were sick and who answer when you call? And if you don't, you can't assume that just because you don't that others don't. Screening Gary's calls was Dion's job, was it not? Why does that make him gay? And why should we assume that someone is gay just because we didn't see them with a woman?
I'm not saying that the movie was great. I'm not saying that Gary and Dion weren't together. I'm just saying that I don't think the implications you choose to believe were as clear as you say they are. And like I said before, if Gary wanted us to know he was gay, why would he go that far to "imply" so without simply saying it? As mentioned before, he had the power in this movie to do so.
Posted by: 11 | 05 September 2006 at 14:49
The operative term was "implied" not stated. 11, you yourself admitted the implication was there. Sure, there are straight male friends who would do that for me. But it's interesting that Coleman was never, ever shown with a woman. And Dion went far beyond his job description--Coleman was broke for years and working security jobs and Dion was still with him. That would imply that they had more than an employee-employer relationship, especially.
Years ago, before Logo, before Noahs Arc, certain things were "implied" in books, film, tv, etc. Maybe if it were true, Coleman didn't want to come out.
Some of you queens are almost pathological in denial that any celebrity can be gay. The man said it was implied, he didn't say it was stated. Even my mother watched the show and asked me about that this morning. And if my mother could pick that up, Ray Charles could.
Posted by: Greg | 05 September 2006 at 15:03
Damn! It's sad that someone questioning a NYT article puts them in "pathological denial" about a celebrity's sexuality. It's also sad that so many of you want to drag as many people out of the closet as possible that you're determined to put words in Gary's mouth that he didn't say and COULD have said if he wanted to. Fall back, why do ya'll care so much?!
Posted by: Shawn | 05 September 2006 at 15:15
Greg, I never said that I thought the movie implied anything. I used the word implied in quotes to represent what you and others were saying. If there were postings were implied was not in quotes, forgive me. I meant to put them there. But its clear that you and a few others are a little too attached to this issue, so I'm just going to step away and leave it as it is. Thanks again Rod for an interesting post!
Posted by: 11 | 05 September 2006 at 15:19
first of all the real Dion was MUUUUCH queenier than the guy in the tv movie, so i don't think he camped it up AT ALL. and the actor looked so much like him, i almost forgot what the real Dion looked like...stunning by the way.
as for Gary Coleman being gay?? well, he has denied it. i'm afraid that doesn't mean much.
as my mother would say, "if you want to know what somebody's really about, look at where they spend their time and their money."
Posted by: chris-leo | 05 September 2006 at 15:36
Last night's biopic was pretty shallow, almost as shallow as the ridiculous sitcom that it was based upon. It also went out of its way to show an extremely close, non-employer relationship between Gary Coleman and Dion Mial. Dion Mial, in aviator sunglasses and shirt open to his navel, hair blowing in the wind, while the two enjoy an al fresco breakfast is a fairly evocative scene. What did someone say? Ray Charles could see that one.
My only concern was that this could be miscontrued as something the parents/studio/stardom forced Gary into, and, it was never addressed. Just because he was a consulatnt to the project does not mean that he had script approval, or, was willing to reveal more. However, the relationship was important because the "Dif'frent Strokes" actors were the poster kids for child stars gone wrong and Coleman has been asked about his sexuality and that relationship. Heaven forbid, years down the road he finds religion or joins the "ex-gay" groups and blames Hollywood.
On a related note, I said this last week, when I received some heat for the Kanye-John Legend item: Why do so many black gay men become so possessive around the idea of celebrities being gay?
According to the comments here and elsewhere, it seems that many of us have no problem assuming or Al Reynolds, Michael Knight or Johnny Gill and Eddie Murphy are gay. (Who all say they are straight, btw) But anyone with less stereotypical mannerisms, many of us become quite defensive. It caters to stereotypes, no?
Posted by: Rod Mc | 05 September 2006 at 17:02
Hey Rod -
Love your site. I'm not sure that any of the posts doubting that Gary was gay were in direct resistance to not being able to perceive celebrities as gay, but for the record, I personally HATE that a lot of gay men I know seem to be on the prowl to make everyone - celebrity and commoner - seem as gay as possible. I think its petty and its childish. I don't see the point.
Posted by: Saeed | 05 September 2006 at 17:14
Hey Rod, John Legend has a new single out called "Save Room." If you haven't heard it go to www.johnlegend.com.
Posted by: JL Fanatic | 05 September 2006 at 18:30
I saw the movie - I don't know if Gary Coleman is Gay .I do think they tried to imply it. I did like the portrayal of one of his close friends being gay and being there for him in time of sickness. Something that happens very often .Gays are the ones that go to the hospitals to check on friends male, female and relatives who are sick. It is possible for gay men to be there for someone.. for a another man without the presence of a sexual relationship
Posted by: Wiggiwig | 06 September 2006 at 18:30