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

[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.