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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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...)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

...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.

[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.