Today's topic of discussion.

[hackthis_archive]

In today's Variety there's an article on Brokeback Mountain, one of many that have come out over the last few months and which will doubtlessly be followed by many more. I mention this because in reading it this comment caught my eye,


I don't believe they would have ever allowed an openly queer director to make this movie, nor do I believe that actors of this calibre would have signed on. In a long line of ironic outcomes, it took these guys [Jake Gyllenhaal & Heath Ledger] with impeccable heterosexual credentials to make this kind of breakthrough.
-Critic and author B. Ruby Rich

Do you lot agree with that?

Discuss.

Comments

[raveninthewind.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree, mainly because the homophobia in society makes it risky for lesser-known actors to take that sort of risk. When I think of the stories about casting for Queer As Folk U.S., that opinion's born out by the evidence.

I'd like sexual orientation not to matter to anyone so that people could feel free to come out. It's getting better here in the U.S.; people are coming out earlier and earlier.

But I don't really have more to say, sorry.

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

Earlier? Mr Sulu (http://www.tvguide.com/News/Entertainment/) finally came out at 68! I suppose at least he wasn't forced to do a Rock Hudson, but still, yeesh.

[raveninthewind.livejournal.com]

There was a Time article recently on eh trend for young people to come out in high school instead of college of after.

I think he's a different case--different generation. But I'd expect even someone in his/her 30s to hesitate about coming out in Hollywood.

[babyofthegroup.livejournal.com]

I think the movie could have been *made*, but I don't think it would have been *seen*. The wide release Brokeback Mountain is going to receive would be inconceivable for a queer director and/or queer cast. It would have immediately run into the "too gay" label (uh, what's gayer than gay sex on screen?) and it would have either turned into a gay cult classic or never have seen the light of day.

Which sucks, but that's Hollywood for you.

[smonsterbite.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much my thinking as well.

[deepsix.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

Though I also agree that a queer director and/or cast would have made it "too gay", because I don't think the story is about gay people, per se. It feels almost anachronistic to me to refer to the characters as gay, given their time and place -- much like, say, Alexander the Great, or someone. Jack and Ennis (iirc their names? I suck) obviously love each other and want to be with each other the way gay people do, but there's no real "gay" construct within their culture that they'd recognise or identify with. So, I doubt that I'm expressing this very well, but I think that if the production had been overtly queer, everyone, from the actors to the audience, would have gone into the movie expecting it to be about two gay guys who love each other very much, when in fact it's just about two guys who love each other very much. It's not about love qua gay love, but love qua love, period. I think making the movie with an (apparently, stereotypically) straight cast is just about the only way to remove the gay construct from people's understanding of the story, which is I think the only way to fully appreciate it for what it is.

YMMV, of course.

[babyofthegroup.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. The real problem is that the concept of "gay" keeps evolving (apparently we're now heading into "post-gay" times, whatever the fuck those are; "mom, I'm post-gay" just doesn't have the same ring...) and different people have different conceptions of what that means. So as Ennis says in the story, he's "not no queer" (see [here (http://www.queervisions.com/arch/2005/09/brokeback_mount.html)] for the full text of the story), but he's certainly deeply in love with Jack. Maybe because we as a culture are so preoccupied with sexual orientation now (and for good reason, I think, given that people want to marginalize others based on it), the only way to cast that aside is to use non-queer director and cast.

(FWIW, the only reason I can remember their names is that I think "Jack Twist" sounds ridiculous and "Ennis" is missing a "D".)

[deepsix.livejournal.com]

Maybe because we as a culture are so preoccupied with sexual orientation now..., the only way to cast that aside is to use non-queer director and cast.

I'm pretty sure that's what I meant to say, in a v roundabout way. *g* I think it's exactly our preoccupation with sexual orientation that makes it important to remove as much "gay"-ness from the movie as possible. The characters don't really have a sexual identity -- I mean, if Ennis isn't queer, what is he? Does it matter? What I take away from the story is that one's personal sexual identity is ultimately unimportant; but this is forever at odds with one's social sexual identity, which is paramount. It's only by removing the audience's preconceived notions of Jack and Ennis as gay (which the audience would have, if the movie had been an overtly queer film) that one can see the tension between personal vs social as it affects them, and how utterly ridiculous (and dangerous) that tension is.

Um, anyway. *shuffles off to watch hockey*

[chicklet-girl.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's right, but I think it's true -- to an extent. I think if Gus Van Sant had directed Brokeback Mountain (like he wanted to, back in the day), it would be too easy for the populace at large to dismiss the movie as a gay man's wishful thinking. Having a straight director out there saying, "This is a love story, not a gay love story" (or however he's been putting it) makes it difficult to marginalize the film.

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

*ponders*

I see what you mean, the critics and director keep stressing that this isn't a gay love story, it's just a love story full stop.

[dirty-diana.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean, the critics and director keep stressing that this isn't a gay love story, it's just a love story full stop.

I have seen it, and agree with that. It doesn't come off like what we think of as a queer movie. There's no pride flag, no angsty coming out scene, just two guys in love. Where as a "gay love story" has this whole political connotation. And you could argue that showing two guys kissing is necessarily political, and it is, but the movie very much manages to stay away from that.

A gay director would have made it more overtly political, is I think the point of that comment.

[florahart]

I do agree, and also believe this is because folks like to delude themselves about what they know and don't know about sexuality, and related to this think it's relevant whether the actor(s) and crew and whoever all else are gay. I mean, it isn't as though there aren't gay actors that play straight, straight that play gay, and straight that play straight, all of that known or not, so it follows that PROBably at leas ta time or two a gay man has played a gay character without telling anyone, you know?

I may be getting off track. But I agree, there would have been Issues for the studio and the backers and the all sorts of other folks about releasing a "queer" film. It's not that there are no queer films (course), but that they play at art houses and generally don't get a lot of exposure.

Also, yes, as far as we know Gyllenhall and Ledger are 100% red-blooded good old hetero boys, but then, I dunno, I've not been present for every sex act of their lives, so that could be a cultivated misperception, for all I know. It's certainly been done before (Rock Hudson?).

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

Like a poster above says, it's sucky, but it's probably very acurate. This way the studios can't claim they were pushing any kind of agenda or indavertantly allowing the movie to become a vehicle for a gay actor/writer/director/etc.

Which is ludicrous, because chances are good that somebody working on this film is gay. Probably a lot more than just one. But this gives them a chance to say it really was about the story, which is gorgeous and heartbreaking, and has nothing to do with anyone's political or social Issues.

And ... I kind of agree with that mentality. We aren't at a point, culturally, where we're ready for gay-films that are by gay people and for everyone. We're far too repressed still, and I'd fear some kind of backlash if anyone tried. Hopefully, Brokeback will help break down some of those barriers, simply because it really is about the story. I don't know about JG, but I have heard fairly reliable reports that Ledger is fairly clear on how gay he isn't, and while he's not exactly intolerant, he's gotten burned by rumors of gay affairs that've made him less ... open. So if someone like him is doing this, then it really is about the story. Supposedly, anyway.

I can't wait for this movie. Even though I know it's going to make me cry.

[phoenixw.livejournal.com]

I agree with the second caller - the movie would not have been seen. Not only would distribution not be available for a director not of Ang Lee's calibre, but the viewing public is way less likely to attend a film marketed as a "gay" love story. I think they are more likely to trust Lee - a director who has brougth them heterosexual love onscreen - to present them with something that may not offend their delicate sensibilities. It's fine line he's walking. Trying not to dilute the story - which really is all about homosexual love - and yet make a film that will appeal to a mainstream audience.

I hope he's successful. He's in a good position to subvert the dominant paradigm.

[theantimodel.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm in the minority on this one, which is weird because I'm generally pretty cynical about society's willingness to respect gay people, but I think it wouldn't have mattered. The buzz for the movie is big because of who the director and actors are sure, but I think the movie could have been made by a gay director just as easily. Honestly, Hollywood has been capitalizing on the popularity of gay culture for years now. I don't think that has anything to do with tolerance, or that it's terribly indicative of a trend in society towards being more accepting, but I think it does mean that hollywood recognizes that people find homosexuality interesting enough to watch tv shows and movies about at the very least.

I think the thing that would matter though, is the fact that there aren't very many openly gay actors out there famous enough to carry a movie like this. I think that probably has more to do with why straight* actors were chosen.

*I'm not sure how much stock to put in blind items but I'm fairly convinced that Jake Gyllenhaal is bi

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

*I'm not sure how much stock to put in blind items but I'm fairly convinced that Jake Gyllenhaal is bi

Well, yeah, I thought of that when I read 'impecable heterosexual credentials' but I didn't want to mention any of that without any hard proof.

[lanthano.livejournal.com]

The movie could have been made, sure, but would it have been seen? There are lots of gay movies out there, but I think it takes something like the name recognition (and bankability) of Ang Lee for a movie to get a big enough budget to get out of the ghetto of gay-filmmaking. Otherwise it would have been made on the cheap and only shown on IFC. There wouldn't be a marketing budget to speak of.

The gravitas that Ang Lee brings to it is pretty considerable. I know people who went to see The Hulk purely because he directed it.

It's kind of nice to have a movie with gay characters who aren't dying of AIDS, completely asexual, or comedic sidekicks, and that isn't trying to say something about the gay community in general. If it were about a group of gay friends (like, say, Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss, or The Broken Hearts Club), then it might be capitalizing on the popularity of gay culture and shows like Queer Eye and The L Word. As it is, it's just capitalizing on women's penchant for seeing love stories.

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

(wandering in via Friendsfriends)

The only bit I'm surprised by is the feeling that Ang Lee has "impeccable heterosexual credentials" (I know that's not in the quote, but it seems implied); or that Lee has strictly het "cred", so to speak. Do people (in general) not remember The Wedding Banquet? That was the first Lee film I encountered, and it's still one of my favourites... the main couple are two men - cross-cultural to boot - and the ending is an odd sort of of almost-approaching-poly relationship. Although perhaps it doesn't count because it was partially not in English (which makes one wonder whether Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon doesn't count because it's entirely in Mandarin...)

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Mmm, and Heath Ledger played a gay character on an Australian TV show called Sweat. And then there was Roar. *runs from Roar*

I'm mostly amazed that Heath's all "ew, icky, had to do sex scenes with Jake FOR MY ART, woe is me." Has he SEEN the shows and movies he's been in?

[villeinage.livejournal.com]

Oh, please.*rolls eyes sarcastically*

Did this critic not read the story this movie is based on?

The only reason this movie could be made at all is that it's a bloody tragedy in which things end badly for our gay romantic leads.

Now if our heroes rode off happily into the sunset together, that would be a mainstream movie breakthrough.

And yes, I realize that's a simplistic reading of the text, but still.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

That's why it's being *critically* acclaimed, not why it's mainstream. Ang Lee made it mainstream just by signing on. Would he have signed on if it had a happy ending? Probably not, because that doesn't seem realistic for the story.

[avid-slacker.livejournal.com]

The only reason this movie could be made at all is that it's a bloody tragedy in which things end badly for our gay romantic leads.

Now if our heroes rode off happily into the sunset together, that would be a mainstream movie breakthrough.

I could not agree more. I agree that because the director is straight he gets more cred, but I think the subject matter is much more important. A film about a happy gay couple that isn't rife with stereotypes (I'm thinking Birdcage) would never be successful bacause gay isn't acceptable unless it's being used to promote some great social enlightnement.

[cat-eyed-fox.livejournal.com]

Wow, that chick/dude is a nut ball! I can't believe anyone would say that in a nationally circulated maganize.

[cat-eyed-fox.livejournal.com]

Okay I definitely need to read the quote right before posting it. Sorry. I agree completely and that makes me sad and illiterate. *hangs head in shame.

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

It is sadly correct. Which is surprising. See, I always thought Scott Thompson would have been far better to play the lawyer in Philadelphia, instead of Tom Hanks. That over ten years ago and yet Hollywood is still casting "impeccably het" guys to play gay main characters.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Wait, so let me get this straight. Gay actors should play gay characters and straight actors should play straight characters? Isn't the point of acting to, you know, act?

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

I think, in Hollywood's, well, not defense, but you know, in explanation of their general thought process -- damn that's a convoluted sentence. Right, okay, Hollywood is all about making the most money possible, so historically speaking, they've done that with their straight actors, because like it or not, the majority of the viewing audience is straight, so they can relate. By casting straight actors into gay roles Hollywood is attempting to draw their straight audiences away from their narrow viewpoints, by saying hey, he's straight, he's just *acting* gay. It's okay, don't be afraid, you won't catch the gay. I know, stupid, but well, no one ever said people are smart. A person is smart, people are just idiotic.

[teenygozer.livejournal.com]

Why does this have to be an either/or, or "always" situation? Because I don't think you are saying gay characters should always be played by impeccably heterosexual actors, because then we know they are "acting." That would be silly. But don't you think that gay actors should play gay characters AT LEAST ONCE IN A WHILE in mainstream movies, which they never, ever do? Notice that the writer doesn't just say "heterosexual" actors, it's written as "impeccably heterosexual" for a reason. For instance, maybe it would have been nice if just ONE of the drag queens in To Wong Fu, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, might have been gay, instead of two of them being action-movie he-man stars? That coulda been RuPaul's breakout role instead of a cameo!

And Scott Thompson would have been better in the Philadelphia role -- I think he'd have been amazing and pulled that movie up from being a sometimes tedious moral lesson into a classic movie about man engaged in a struggle to survive. I don't think he'd have had the preachy, "this is good for you, you're learning a lesson in how to be a better person!" tone of the well-meaning Mr. Hank's performance. It won an Oscar, but I don't think Philadelphia has aged well.

I saw a movie in which Alec Guiness played a Japanese businessman. He acted his talented ass off, and yet his performance doesn't ring true. Sometimes, someone who *is* whatever the character is, should play the role.

[blueandomlettes.livejournal.com]

Yeah unfortunantly I do have to agree with that. If it werea queer director or openly or even questionably gay actors it totally would have been relegated to gay movie hell. You know that shelf at your video store, sandwiched between Beautiful thing and Broken Hearts Club. Or under the gay lesbian interest genre on netflix. It wouldn't be as mainstream, would only get played in "artsy" theatres, and we all be missing out.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

Ang Lee's an excellent director though. Gay directors and straight ones had already looked into making it before Lee got on board.

[blueandomlettes.livejournal.com]

I agree he is an excellent director, I dont' know who looked into making it before, but im really glad he got on board.

[oravanpyora.livejournal.com]

You know that shelf at your video store, sandwiched between Beautiful thing and Broken Hearts Club. Or under the gay lesbian interest genre on netflix.

Sadly, >90% of titles in the gay and lesbian interest ghetto are, in my opinion, utter crap. There is the occasional gem (such as those mentioned above), but mostly it's second class directors working with sub-par "actors" on a shoe string budget.

The scripts are often adaptations of stage plays, not originally written as movie scripts. This in and of itself doesn't have to spell disaster, yet you often notice the stage origins without consulting the credits.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

...well if an openly gay director and openly gay actors were making the film it wouldn't be mainstream. So it would've been made, but not in the same way.

Heath has played a gay character before, on a TV show called Sweat. And he's *still* a jerk.

And seriously, who the fuck cares? Two hot men making out. I think we're missing the two-hot-men-making-out POINT, here.

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

Your icon really does say it all.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

*g* I agree entirely and repeatedly.

[green-queen.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I'm going through your thread and being defensive and seemingly argumentative. I'm not doing it to be argumentative, I just like getting into these things.

[hackthis.livejournal.com]

Hey, I asked you guys to discuss the comment; I wanted to see what other people thought. As long as you behave, don't pick on people, and aren't rude, have at it.