Gay talk show host takes aim at "brave" stars of Brokeback

[eslgr8]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 4:00am

Openly gay talk-show host Karel (Charles Karel Bouley II) has written a very interesting column at advocate.com in which he blasts the hype surrounding the "bravery" of those involved in the making of Brokeback Mountain, especially its "courageous" stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall.

Some of his points:

"First of all, they were paid. What would you do for a hundred thousand? A million? A couple million? I’d kiss a Republican woman on-camera for that—hell, I’d even kiss Ann Coulter for a few million. Talk about bravery!

"Second...perspective, people, perspective. If gays and lesbians are to be truly recognized as full-fledged humans with all rights afforded forthwith, then we have to stop making such a big deal about things like Brokeback Mountain.

"You know what would have been truly brave? If Ledger and Gyllenhaal had come out swinging. If they had come out and said 'Yup, these guys are gay, and we played them, and what’s the big deal?'

"Bravery? No. When I look at Brokeback Mountain all I see is fear. I see the fear in two major stars of actually admitting they played gay, as they downplay in the press their characters’ sexuality."

There's a lot more in Karel's provocative column linked below.

Karel's complete column in this week's Advocate.com

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 5:00am

Brilliant article - Bravo Karel! Thanks for posting this.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 5:15am

He makes a great point.

The thing is though, we aren't accepted by all society, so some of the points are slightly moot.

But I don't think Ledger and Gyllenhall are hard done by because of this...

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 7:39am

In a perfect world, his commentary, full of salient points, would have greater value. But alas, we don't. We live in Post-Shepherd, Bush Era America, a time when the president of the US, when pressed, said he didn't know if being gay is a "choice." When the Vice President, father of a gay child, has never even given a speech espousing parental compassion toward gay children. When being gay-friendly is perceived to be immoral by many. Deprogramming is not only alive and well, but thriving in religious communities. So the making and release of this film cannot be viewed without this context.

There are scoundrals out there, moral cowards, hypocrites, and witch hunts. Gay bashing? Just calling someone gay is the ultimate put down among adolescents.

Suicide is still highest among gay teens.

So Heath and Jake just don't turn up at the top of my 2005 list of People Who Most Piss Me Off. I don't care if they are brave; I just care that love is being portrayed as an option.

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 07:39 AM

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 8:09am

This is actually why I am hesitant to see the film. I think I'd be pissed all the way through it. I have real issues with cowardice. I think I'll re-read the short story again and be satisfied.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 9:38am

The only problem with this film is that the story doesn't quiet hit home because of the orientation of the actors. Some could say that is intended (and I understand that), but this is (yet again) another hollywood gay movie starring straight actors.

Would we let white actors get away with playing Booker T, the little rock nine, or Andrew Young?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 9:51am

I still don't understand why the orientation of the actors has a damned thing to do with the film's artistic success. It's a narrow view of art and artists, pigeonholes actors unfairly, and possibly ghetto-izes them, and the very genre we're discussing. The issue of out actors playing gay is a rather separate issue. Films and plays are cast with good actors who can sell the story (and in this case, sell the film).

Not a soul bitched about ANGELS IN AMERICA being cast with straight people, on stage or HBO. In fact, there was wide-spread swooning at this very board about Patric Wilson as the closeted Mormon, and Ben Shenkman, too.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:02am

Interesting points, but I haven't really been seeing or hearing that much about "courage" and "bravery" this time around.

I remember a lot more of that when Tom Hanks appeared "bravely" in Philadephia.

And I don't think only gay actors should play gay characters. That's as silly as saying that blondes can't play Chava or Tzeitel.

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 10:02 AM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:06am

Then, shouldn't white people be able to play black roles?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:09am

If the color of their skin isn't somehow integral to the role, then why not?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:15am

Just like if their sexual orientation isn't somehow integral to the role?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:17am

Nobody's real life sexual orientation is integral to performing a fictional role.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:21am

Then why is their skin color?

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:25am

There is a huge difference between race and sexuality in terms of portrayals. Race is clear, usually, when you look at homeone. Sexuality often is not. I don't think it's discrimination. Some things just aren't believable, though.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:26am

Well if the film is about the racism a black person suffers and you cast a white actor, it's not really going to work, is it?

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:29am

The problem I have with the hoopla over the movie is that, in the end, I found it dour and morbid. I took nothing away from it. I didn't see a great love story, cause the character of Ennis (though truly brilliantly played by Heath Ledger) is completely unsympathetic. I had no idea why Jack (Jake) would obsess over him for 20 years. This, I feel, is a gay movie for straight people, practically screaming, 'LOOK AT WHAT YOU DO TO US!!!!!!!' I went through that phase of my life years ago. I felt like I was two steps ahead of this movie the entire time. Like I was looking back on a relic.

I understand completely that we are in tough times regarding our rights. But part of me also wants to just sit down and watch a movie about a hairdresser and a gay cop who fall in love during a wacky caper a la WHAT'S UP DOC? where the 'g' word is never, EVER mentioned. It just is.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:30am

why won't it work?

Why do we value what the body "reads" as more than what an actor can bring to a part?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:31am

Why do we value what the body "reads" as more than what an actor can bring to a part?

If Jake Gyllenhaal goes full-frontal in a gay love scene and he's as limp as a noodle, then I'll buy your argument.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:34am

Interesting article. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's on the list.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:35am

Robbiej, wasn't there a tv pilot with that sort of storyline being shopped around last year -- Mr. and Mr. Smith, I think.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:35am

Touchme....folowing your logic, gay actors should not be permitted to take on straight roles....

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:37am

No, my logic allows for anyone to play any part. The logic that doesn't allow for people of different groups to play different parts is the logic that doesn't let gay people play straight parts, black people to play white roles, white people to play black roles, women to play men, men to play women, etc.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:38am

But you are saying gay roles should be played by gay actors.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:39am

No, I'm revealing an internal problem with the way things are cast -- people are only casting bodies in parts instead of actors -- and I think it's wrong on so many levels.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:42am

Frankly, I don't give a hoot WHO plays a role as long as they are believable---that's why it's called ACTING!
And the only people who are "BRAVE" for doing their jobs are firefighters and cops!

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 10:42 AM