Gay talk show host takes aim at "brave" stars of Brokeback- Page 2

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:43am

Well put, Magdalene.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:44am

Internal problem my eye. You're making a not terribly logical argument, and you aren't making it very well.

There's a movie called Suture that has identical twins portrayed by 2 actors, one black one white. It DIDN'T work, surprisingly.

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:46am

act   
n.
The process of doing or performing something: the act of thinking.


Something done or performed; a deed: a charitable act.


A product, such as a statute, decree, or enactment, resulting from a decision by a legislative or judicial body: an act of Congress.


A formal written record of proceedings or transactions.


One of the major divisions of a play or opera.


A performance or entertainment usually forming part of a longer presentation: a juggling act; a magic act.


The actor or actors presenting such a performance: joined the act in Phoenix.


A manifestation of intentional or unintentional insincerity; a pose: put on an act.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:47am

The problem is the audience's hyper-awareness of the body. Which leads to prejudice of all types.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 10:57am

"The problem is the audience's hyper-awareness of the body. Which leads to prejudice of all types."

I don't understand what this had to do with your assertion that the roles in Brokeback Mountain should have been played by gay actors.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:00am

Again, I have NO PROBLEM with straight actors playing gay. My problem is that it is inconsistent to allow that sort of passing, but not allow the marginalized groups that are marginalized because of their body to play non-marginalized characters (and vice versa).

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:25am

exactly doxie........while I applaud the article, we seem to be attacking our own (albeit) small successes.

society is what society is....I've long stopped trying to shove my lifestyle down the throats of people. I am who I am........but if we continually attack the small successes OURSELVES.....we give the straights/christian right exactly the fodder they want

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:44am

"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.."

That's because the film never dramatized or particularized what these guys had in common and what bonded them for twenty years besides fishing and f***ing. And it literally ends in the closet.

"...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."

Absolutely right, robbiej, it's a completely retro movie in its attitude. The story is a throwback best summed up in the line from THE BOYS IN THE BAND: "Show me a happy homosexual and I'll show you a gay corpse." But for the performances, this movie is for the birds.

Vivian Darkbloom
Ramsdale, New England


Updated On: 12/16/05 at 11:44 AM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:46am

Glad someone spoke about this issue. I find calling someone "brave" for "playing gay" to be highly offensive.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:47am

"Consistent"? Was it Emerson who said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"?

Elph--I agree. I think it's important to applaud the little successes. You can be clever and attack anything, but to attack this movie because the characters are unhappy is to attack virtually all of literature and drama.

While it might be nice if Anna Karenina went on Zoloft and started seeing a therapist or Camille went to a doctor and had that cough checked out, I don't think their stories would be as interesting. Annie Proulx wrote a beautiful story and the film does it justice, which is more than you can say for many film adaptations.

It is not the responsibility of literature and film to show "positive" portrayals of gay life or any other life. That is OUR responsibility, to do in our own lives.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 11:58am

Funny you bring up BOYS IN THE BAND, T.E.D.

I find that story far more accessible than BROKEBACK and, in some ways, far less retro. It's not a bad movie...but it held nothing for me.

And I'm sorry, Joey...but I refuse to put aside my personal feelings and considerable critical faculties just because this is the movie we've all been waiting for. I was disappointed. The character I found particularly tragic was Jack, but he was simply a supporting role to Ennis' story. A story that I found wanting and pretty empty. I'll admit that I (like everyone else) bring my own emotional baggage and that is the filter through which I see this movie. But I found this film more simplistic than simple.

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:05pm

"While it might be nice if Anna Karenina went on Zoloft and started seeing a therapist or Camille went to a doctor and had that cough checked out, I don't think their stories would be as interesting. Annie Proulx wrote a beautiful story and the film does it justice, which is more than you can say for many film adaptations."

I hear what you're saying, PalJoey--the story's about tamped-down, emotionally buttoned-down lives. But that doesn't prevent it from also being a 20th century gay cliche, where inevitably the romance ends badly due to societal oppression or scandal and everyone ends up unhappy or even dead.

Natasha Rostov
Moscow, Russia

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:28pm

I have never stopped loving The Boys in the Band.

[Trisky]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:31pm

Though I have an entirely different set of baggage than you Robbie, ITA with this I was disappointed. The character I found particularly tragic was Jack.

I found his story much more poignant, maybe because he was the heart on the sleeve character and relatable in that sense but since they never really define Ennis' sexuality or why he's as mute as he is, it's hard to really empathize.

I came away from the movie thinking it was well done, but totally disattached, emotionally speaking, from the story they were trying to tell. Partly because they spent so much time elsewhere in the movie and not focused on the relationship but partly because there just seemed this invisible wall of "we're going to make this so innocuous, you'd have to be heartless to not root for these characters." There was no real emotional grit.

(On the subject of the original point, how ridiculous it is to call actors "brave" for taking on a gay role, ITA. Unless they were asking them to drop trou and actually have sex on screen, I can't see how bravery would remotely have anything to do with their decision to be paid big money to do what they get paid to do normally, act and play pretend.)

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:31 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:36pm

I, also, have no problem with the tragic nature of this story. I don't think we have to worry about people seeing these guys as the representation of the gay community. We have more visibility than that.

It seems, though, like if we go the other direction (normalize being gay -- a la Will and Grace), we have a different problem. The trick is to have both things happening simultaneously -- dramatization and normalization. That is the key to the social movement, and having these stories helps more than anything. Well, anything except living our own lives proudly, openly, and lovingly.

{steps off soap box}

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:36 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:40pm

An actor's "body" is their absolute most important facet. Especially in movies. You're not going to cast a short chubby guy in the role that calls for the tall dark and handsome. You're not going to cast somebody who's skin is white as Booker T. Washington. Yes, you can put people on stilts or in black face, but then you immediately lose realism and anything goes.

That's almost a form of homophobia to say only gay people should play gay people, because who you have sex with is not the entire facet of your being. It's not the entire who you are, it is just your sexual orientation. Absolutely ridiculous. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Oh, and I have no problem with this movie, but I do have a problem with Jake Gyllenhaal telling the press he doesn't think his character is gay. Especially with Ang Lee coming around the corner with a followup that Jake is crazy and the characters are most definitely gay. I'm sure they established that at some point during the filming of the movie. I'm really irritated by the media trying to pass it off as a love story that transcends the boundaries of gender. Again, homophobia... so it's only okay if you are deeply in love with one another? The characters are gay, get over it.

But apparently Jake is kind of crazy anyway. Hot but crazy.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:40pm

"Not a soul bitched about ANGELS IN AMERICA being cast with straight people, on stage or HBO."
That actually isn't true. At least one letter to the Advocate expressed what I think many may have felt: Why were ALL the gay roles on TV played by straight actors? The same had not been true on Broadway, where the cast included openly gay actors.

“I don't care if they are brave; I just care that love is being portrayed as an option.”
I do believe that the most important thing is that the movie was made in the first place, and that a film that under other circumstances would have been a gay “niche” film with no potential for making over $2 already made ¼ of that its opening weekend. People will see this film to whom it’s never even occurred that two men could love each other passionately for twenty years, let alone twenty minutes.

“The only problem with this film is that the story doesn't quiet hit home because of the orientation of the actors.”
I have felt that way about many films, whose impact was for me lessened by the fact that the actors were only "pretending" something which many if not most of us agree to be an immutable part of our nature. (I know I'll get plenty of flak on this statement.) But in the case of Brokeback, both characters were to all outward appearances straight, and considered themselves (in the case of Ennis certainly, though less so for Jack) “not queer.” (Their words.) So two straight actors playing these roles somehow works quite well for me in this film.

“I haven't really been seeing or hearing that much about "courage" and "bravery" this time around.”
Really? That hasn’t been my experience in the articles and quotes I’ve read.

“I didn't see a great love story, cause the character of Ennis (though truly brilliantly played by Heath Ledger) is completely unsympathetic.”
Unsympathetic to you, however I found great sympathy for his plight, loving another man so deeply and yet being unable to admit it, even to himself. The final words he utters are hardly the words of an unsympathetic man.

“Following your logic, gay actors should not be permitted to take on straight roles....”
Of course gay actors should be allowed to play straight, and vice versa. Personally, I feel a greater impact when I know that a gay role is being played by a gay actor. And there have been many times when I have seen a straight actor give a (to all outward appearances) excellent performance, yet never for a moment did I buy him as gay. Ironically, it seems that we’re more able to spot a gay actor trying in vain to appear straight (so many comments on this phenomenon on this board), but rarely do people complain that a straight actor wasn’t believable in a gay role. I think that far too often a "straight acting" gay character is just a straight actor not able to appear anything but straight in a gay role.

“The story is a throwback best summed up in the line from THE BOYS IN THE BAND: “Show me a happy homosexual and I'll show you a gay corpse.”
Except that The Boys in the Band was a contemporary piece from a time when gay men (for the most part) knew nothing but self-hatred, and Brokeback Mountain is a period film, exposing the tragedy of the closet, at a time when so many of us are out and happy and leading successful and open lives, in longterm relationships, getting married, etc. We can watch Brokeback and not see it as the ONLY reality, which was true when The Boys in the Band, or The Children’s Hour, or Tea and Sympathy and countless other films about "pathetic homosexuals" were made. Also, unlike those earlier films, the love between Ennis and Jack is shown to be a deep and enduring and life-altering thing, and people seeing the film are exposed to the concept of same gender love as something to be valued (even if the two men (especially Ennis) didn’t seem to feel that way at the time.

“The only people who are "BRAVE" for doing their jobs are firefighters and cops!”
Well, I’d add stuntmen to the list, and trapeze artists, to name just two showbiz professions, but it is true that actors are rarely called on to be truly brave, and in 2005 to think that this film will somehow prevent Heath and Jake from continuing to play nothing but straight roles in the future, or that this film will somehow prevent them from being cast in leading roles makes absolutely no sense.

In the end, I feel that Karel raises excellent points. Remember, he is not criticizing the film, but the way the media is reporting it and certain statements that the actors and director have made about the experience of filming it and the way they would describe the film. And unfortunately there is a lot of homophobia (though perhaps mostly unconscious) in their statements and in the news coverage of the film.

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:40 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:44pm

I have to wonder, though -- this idea of not being able to buy a straight actor playing gay *as* that which he's playing -- is that not a problem of being able to separate the actor *from* his character? Of course if you know which way he swings that predisposes you to feel certain things. I think it's not exactly the fault of the actor (unless he's just bad) really, but of what we know and how it effects us, if even subconsciously. In other words, isn't not being able to buy it just as much about *what you know* about the actor as it is about his ability? Or maybe more? Or less? I think it goes without saying that while that notion of course makes sense, it's like any other time in which an actor plays something he's not -- you have to erase what you know about the person, just as much as he has to erase who he is while he's acting.

Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:44 PM

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:49pm

Well...of course it Ennis was unsympathetic TO ME. I would never speak for anyone else. Just pointing out my reaction.

The interesting thing about comparing Boys in the Band to this is that BITB is a far more sophisticated story. I don't find the chararcters to be pathetic at all. It has a greater worldview and is, in some ways, far more hopeful a portrayal of gay life than Brokeback. I don't think it's erroneous to compare the two, even though one was a contemporary look and another is a period piece. Their periods intersect. And it strikes me as...well...it just strikes me that a movie made some 35 years ago can say more about contemporary (21st Century) gay life than a movie made this year...at least for me.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:49pm

"An actor's "body" is their absolute most important facet."

I disagree. An actor doesn't have any one thing that is more important than the others. What is odd is that a white actor who grew up in the slums can't play a black man who grew up in the slums, but a black upper class British man could play the part convincingly. I just find that speaks to our need to categorize bodies and our blatant disregard for experience and the individual.

"Yes, you can put people on stilts or in black face, but then you immediately lose realism and anything goes."

But, you are okay with losing realism all the time -- you KNOW they aren't REALLY that person. You suspend your disbelief. You KNOW real people don't break into song. you suspend your disbelief. Why can't we suspend our disbelief to the bodies we see?

"That's almost a form of homophobia to say only gay people should play gay people, because who you have sex with is not the entire facet of your being. It's not the entire who you are, it is just your sexual orientation."

Nor is the color of your skin the entirity of who you are. I don't think gay people should be the only ones playing gay. But, I also dont think white people should be the only ones playing white. I also dont think asian people should be the only ones playing asian.

I'd just like to see us be more inclusive.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:49pm

Often true, that we take our knowledge of an actor's orientation with us when we see a performance. On the other hand, when a friend and I recently saw the play Buddies in West Hollywood, we knew nothing about a certain lead actor in the cast yet both of us felt immediately, this is a straight actor not believable for a moment as gay. He was a good actor and for the most part it was a good performance (he had some superb moments in one particular monolog), but we didn't buy him as gay for an instant and it had nothing to do with what we knew about his personal life.
Updated On: 12/16/05 at 12:49 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:52pm

Point taken; I guess I'd sooner say it's to be judged on a case-by-case basis -- depends on the actor, IMO. I saw an actor who -- at the time -- I thought was for all intents and purposes straight, play a gay role, and I believed every moment of it. But that could be because of who I am myself, or simply because he truly was not straight. Seeing it, I thought he was two things: a straight man with a hell of a lot of compassion for his character and the subject and a brilliant actor. But, again, could've been any one of a million predisposals.

Interesting idea, though.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 12:56pm

"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."

Actually I most certainly did bitch often and loudly about the miscasting of the crucial role of Prior with straight actor Justin Kirk, who was completely and totally clueless and unbelieveable, especially in the drag sequence with Harper. That's not to say that no straight actor could give the part justice -- just that this one couldn't.

I felt that he film as a whole lacked the urgency and passion of the stage production and I honestly believe that part of the problem stems from the the fact that the director and entire cast of the film was straight, while the director and all but one male actor in the stage version was gay (and the straight one was the weakest link in the cast IMO). There were subtleties and subtext and a camp sensibility in the Broadway production that was wholly missing from the film, to the great detriment of the material.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 1:17pm

OOOOOOh...I love that we're taking on the sacred cows!

As Lena once sang from a bathtub, 'Ain't it da truth?'

The ANGELS film completely forgot what the piece's subtitle is: A Gay Fantasia on American Themes.

They forgot to bring the gay. Not the homo-sex...the gay. That sensibility that has been honed and refined through years of oppression. That sense that you can face anything with style, flair and a sense of humor. The films was just SO FREAKING MOROSE.

And as for Brokeback, if I hear one more reviewer or pundit say that it's not a 'gay film', I'm gonna scream. Cause IT'S A GAY FILM. It just happens to be one that is aimed directly at straight people.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/16/05 at 1:20pm

So it's the PHILADELPHIA of 2005?

Interesting. I'm seeing it on Monday, I can't wait.