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

[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.