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

[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.