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

[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*