tracker
News on your favorite shows, specials & more!
pixeltracker

Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'

Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'

Katurian2 Profile Photo
Katurian2
#1Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 3:32pm

http://gawker.com/5866417/

Anyone else encounter this review and come away with similar thoughts? I thought it was a bit off mark for Brantley to bring up the sexual orientation notion, though otherwise comparisons to Liberace and Judy Garland aren't necessarily unwarranted. Either way, he seems to be on Gawker's 'naughty list,' which isn't altogether a nice place to be.


"Are you sorry for civilization? I am sorry for it too." ~Coast of Utopia: Shipwreck

FindingNamo
#2Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 3:35pm

ETA I assumed the link was commenting on todays feature Brantley wrote on Jackman, although I too pointed out the creepiness of Brantley's theme in the original thread on the Back on Broadway reviews.

TODAY Brantley wrote an article that expanded on his creepy theme from the Back on Broadway review. Today's piece really grossed me out. Talented writers not dancing along the edge of their own pyscho-sexual fantasies could make something out of his thesis, but that Brantley piece seems to have been constructed out of nothing more than a pile of crusty Kleenexes. I wanted to take a shower after.


Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none
Updated On: 12/8/11 at 03:35 PM

Broadway Joe Profile Photo
Broadway Joe
#2Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 3:39pm

Hugh is not alone. I'm as straight as it gets and I also love musicals and I loved Hughs show. We do exist! haha

Katurian2 Profile Photo
Katurian2
#3Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 3:40pm

I think the one sentence that really put it over the edge was,

"...despite - or perhaps because of - his firmly affirmed marital status Mr. Jackman often gleefully comports himself onstage in the manner of what, in less enlightened times, might have been called a flaming queen."

The latent history and stereotypes he's pulling at from, even if Jackman does happen to be bisexual (I'm of the camp he's not though), are generally quite rude and absolutely unnecessary. It reeks with the whole submissive outing that well... shouldn't even exist in 'enlightened times.' With anyone, but especially a man as outwardly well loved by the community as Hugh Jackman is.


"Are you sorry for civilization? I am sorry for it too." ~Coast of Utopia: Shipwreck
Updated On: 12/8/11 at 03:40 PM

WiCkEDrOcKS Profile Photo
WiCkEDrOcKS
#4Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:04pm

Ben effing Brantley should be the last person trying to "out" anyone, considering the fact that he still says he's straight.

Jordan Catalano Profile Photo
Jordan Catalano
#5Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:06pm

"Whaaaaat? You think I'm GAY?!"

Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'

blaxx Profile Photo
blaxx
#6Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:14pm

Ben effing Brantley should be the last person trying to "out" anyone, considering the fact that he still says he's straight.

He does? I was sure he had come out some time ago.



Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE

Katurian2 Profile Photo
Katurian2
#7Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:32pm

Pretty sure he's out, since he was on Out Magazine's power list a few years back: http://www.wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/memo-pad-made-men-waiting-time-stitching-up-500928


"Are you sorry for civilization? I am sorry for it too." ~Coast of Utopia: Shipwreck

Jordan Catalano Profile Photo
Jordan Catalano
#8Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:33pm

Well so were Jodie Foster and Anderson Cooper.

FindingNamo
#9Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:36pm

No, no, no, no and again, no. It's neither rude nor unnecessary to talk about somebody's sexual fantasy appeal to ALL genders instead of writing the old cliche about how all the ladies want to have Hugh Jackman and all the men want to be him when in fact many ladies want to be him and many men want to have him and every other permutation we can imagine. What's creepy is Brantley dealing with his own pent up sexual desires and projecting them onto "Hugh's audience."

I have zero problem with writers publishing fantasies about the sexuality of performers, it's the stuff legendary careers are built on. The problem is that a GOOD writer, could pull such a Jackman piece off (sorry) with aplomb and Brantley is not that writer. Hell, the SNL writers cover the territory with such skill and economy in their "Hugh Jackman: The Most Masculine AND Feminine Man in the World" sketches that Jackman appeared in the most recent one. So, OBVIOUSLY this is something he is not ashamed to trade on. What's irksome about the Brantley review and today's piece is Brantley's inability to own it the way Jackman does.


Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

Mister Matt Profile Photo
Mister Matt
#10Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:43pm

Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'

Brantley is channeling Beverly Leslie.


"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

FindingNamo
#11Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:44pm

Here's today's piece in the Times, read it before it's not free.


God, I hate Brantley so effin much for this kind of ****e:
Hugh Jackman Keeps His Pants On


Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

Mister Matt Profile Photo
Mister Matt
#12Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 4:52pm

But, oh, what a gap separates Le Jackman and La Garland.

By Brantley's own stereotypical standards, if he wasn't out, he is now. All he needs now is to propose to Liza Minnelli.


"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

EricMontreal22 Profile Photo
EricMontreal22
#13Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 5:21pm

What bothers me most, as others have said, is Ben simply isn't a strong enough writer, at least in this piece. It's a useless article that seems to be trying to say something but in fact kinda says nothing at all by the time you get to the last paragraph.

"So there were mementoes from both Hughs. But I never felt he was selling off pieces of his heart, which I assume is equally divided. (Whose isnt?) That organ he keeps to himself, and I suspect that hell live the longer for doing so. "

Wha? He acts like this is some brand new trend. I can think of dozens of actors (usually with a theatre background) who do the same thing. They just aren't as high profile, but the same could be said of Patrick Wilson, for example, easily couldn't it?

The article seems to imply that there's nothing a gay man would find appealing or relateable in, say, the heroes from Oklahoma and Carousel, which I don't think is true at all.

"Technically, you may object, theres only one Hugh Jackman. Hes that strapping, muscle-flexing actor who plays the manly mutant Wolverine in the lucrative X-Men movie franchise. But wait a minute. Isnt he the swivel-hipped song-and-dance man who won a Tony Award in 2004 playing the epicene entertainer Peter Allen in The Boy From Oz?

The point of Mr. Jackmans show  which ends its limited, sold-out run on Jan. 1 and is the hardest ticket in New York to come by  is that he contains, if not multitudes, then a teeming crowd of two."

Again, wha? He's talking about two vastly different roles he played on stage. That in a one man, very Broadway (and partially Peter Allen inspired) show you see both of those aspects doesn't seem all that shocking, or revelatory to me.

Gaveston2
#14Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 5:27pm

No competent writer would devote four paragraphs to Judy Garland's alleged "love/hate relationship" with her audience (sans a shred of evidence BTW) only to assert that her performance behavior has nothing to do with that of Hugh Jackman, the subject of the article.

I think Brantley is clear enough that he isn't implying anything about Jackman's private sexual behavior. What never seems to occur to Brantley is that maybe Jackman isn't the only one who has moved on from Brantley's half-century-old stereotypes.

SeanMartin Profile Photo
SeanMartin
#15Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 5:30pm

Just as an initial side note, I gather Ben never saw him in OKLAHOMA. Woof.

But be that as it may, the bottom line is WHO CARES? Havent we *slightly* progressed past the point when "screaming queen" is an insult? Sweet Jesus, Ben, what would you say about someone like Ben Vereen, who certainly knew how to work a hip or two and no doubt fluttered the hearts of many a gay man back in the day?

I'm seriously just so freaking tired of "gay" and "queer" and "homo" being tossed around like insults when the perpetrator of same clearly cant think of anything brighter to say.


http://docandraider.com

EricMontreal22 Profile Photo
EricMontreal22
#16Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 5:33pm

Well said to both those posts. It just seems beyond useless to even write about--particularly since I'm sure the majority of Brantley's reders could care less (and are probably percentage wise more than not, gay).

Gaveston2
#17Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 5:46pm

I do think Jackman's ability to morph from musclebound action hero to lithe song-and-dance man and back again is a wonder of nature (and no doubt much hard work on Jackman's part).

And that ability might have been explored in a thoughtful way.

But it wasn't.

EricMontreal22 Profile Photo
EricMontreal22
#18Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 6:03pm

Gaveston--absolutely. As I said for me the main problem is it's just not even an article worthy to be published in one of the major newspapers. It sounds like a random blog post of half formed ideas that go nowhere. I think it's this vague quality which is partly why people are calling the article homophobic (which I do think parts of it can be read as).

It's also short sighted. Partly because few of my friends are theatre fans, I know a TON more gay guys who have crushes on Hugh due solely to him as Wolverine (comic books, particularly the X-Men also of course have a rather massive gay following, anyway--but I doubt Brantley would ever consider that).

It is kinda refreshing and novel to have a celeb like Hugh who seems so open to show these 'two sides" of his persona I suppose--when he's doing promotion for X-Men he never would shy away from breaking out into a, perhaps "gay seeming, song and dance number if asked, etc, whereas in the past often it seems actors feel they have to keep different aspects for different audiences.

(I'm not sure if that makes sense--maybe I'm as incoherent as Brantley was being).

The Distinctive Baritone Profile Photo
The Distinctive Baritone
#19Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 6:38pm

I totally get why some people are offended by Brantley's article. However, being a straight musical theater guy myself, who has long been fascinated by matters of gender and sexual identity, I found the article really interesting.

That said, a piece like this is better suited for a middle-brow magazine, not The New York Times.

Gaveston2
#20Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 6:39pm

Hardly, Eric, you make perfect sense.

This article, coupled with the Reidel piece we discussed a week or two ago, makes me wonder if New Yorkers get any coherent writing on the theater at all.

jo
#21Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 9:52pm

Mr. Brantley uses only the image of Wolverine to represent his film work persona, in contrast to the singing-dancing Broadway Hugh. Perhaps he should also visit Hugh Jackman's more serious film work such as The Fountain, The Prestige, the little known Erskineville Kings, and Australia -- to see the dimension of his body of work that is also worthwhile evaluating, as to what inspires him as an actor/performer. There is more to the kaleidoscope of the Jackman talent, Mr. Brantley!

I am hoping that his forthcoming portrayal of the conflicted man, Jean Valjean, will provide the confluence of his multitude of talents - strong acting chops, the ability to project the image of a physically strong and aggressive character, the required singing ( recitatives and solos)- whether as powerful statements or tender expressions of sentiments, and the ability of a man to age and grow more morally strong in the process.

Looking forward to this full use of Hugh Jackman's talents!

gvendo2005 Profile Photo
gvendo2005
#22Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/8/11 at 10:47pm

Plain and simple -- Brantley isn't saying anything that any gossip columnist on either side of the Mississippi worth their salt hasn't already reported. He just wrote it very obliquely, clearly with a lawsuit in mind.


"There is no problem so big that it cannot be run away from." ~ Charles M. Schulz

miss pennywise Profile Photo
miss pennywise
#23Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/9/11 at 2:23am

Whoa. I just read the article. It's beyond creepy; it's positively "sandusky."


"Be on your guard! Jerks on the loose!"

http://www.roches.com/television/ss83kod.html

**********

"If any relationship involves a flow chart, get out of it...FAST!"

~ Best12Bars

finebydesign Profile Photo
finebydesign
#24Brantley gets Gawker roasted for calling Hugh Jackman 'gay'
Posted: 12/9/11 at 11:05am

I genuinely enjoy reading Brantley's commentary. His Little Mermaid review had a hilarious reference to a store-window designer. This though, I just can't understand, it's a non sequitur and a weird one.

I'm not afraid or offended or in disagreement with his stereotypes I just wander what his intentions were. Does he not want Hugh there? Plenty of other talented "masculine" leading men just brush Broadway off.

Since when was Kanye West a "swaggering macho"?


Videos