Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)

[jcelwin]

But there are several gay actors who would have been superior to Heath and Jake in Brokeback , and all the articles about how "brave" and "daring" they were for doing these parts made me want to vomit.

Perhaps, but there are none as well known and liked that could have done it. And, like I said earlier in this thread I think looking specifically for gay actors to play the roles would seem like more of a stunt than using straight ones. They are actors, and there is no reason to look specifically for gay actors unless you wanted to make it a stunt.

I also think that it was, somewhat, "brave" and "daring", at least considering the impact it could have had on their careers. But then again Ang Lee has a bit of clout right now, and the studio was obviously behind them.

Like I have just said, actors are actors, so obviously gay actors should be given more of a break if the are better than straight ones. But thats society.

If brokeback can make 'society re-evaluate their ideals, making everyone more empathic to, and increasingly accepting of gay relationships', then this isn't a bad step.

[David Ehrenstein]

The impact its had was to give them careers. Heath Ledger was on his last legs. Did you know he made the cover of Vanity Fair ten years ago as "the next big thing"? He's been in bomb after bomb after bomb. And prior to this year no one had ever heard of Jake Gyllenhaal, so the whole notion that they're "big names" is simply untrue.

Personally I would have preferred Chad Allen (who was on the Westen series Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman among other things) for "Ennis" and Doogie for "Jack"

[jcelwin]

I don't agree with you about this, especially not Heath Ledger. They couldn't have predicted what the outcome would have been. They could only have guessed, and if the film bombed badly then it really wouldn't have helped their careers and possibly been even worse than another film bombing.

But like I said, I don't think the gamble was that great either with quite a good team behind it. But there was still that gamble. Either way, I don't know what they knew about the film before they signed up, so I really can't say for certain.

[David Ehrenstein]

Either way, I don't know what they knew about the film before they signed up, so I really can't say for certain.

That's true of any actor who takes any role whatsoever.Nothing special about this one.

[Michael]

Personally I would have preferred Chad Allen (who was on the Westen series Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman among other things) for "Ennis" and Doogie for "Jack"

Awesome choices.

David E, I really enjoyed reading your experience with Laundrette. I was about 17 years old when I first read about this "gay movie". I took a 5 hour bus trek to NYC to see it. Laundrette was my first gay film. I was in my last year of high school, very depressed and fretting nonstop over how the world would treat me as a gay person after graduating. My family didn't help by throwing me horror stories about gay life being joyless and hollow. Laundrette changed everything for me. Returning home from NYC, I was a new person with more fierce determination to finish school and leave the town to figure myself out and to find my "folks". I fantasized about the guys in Laundrette.. how gorgeous they were. How much I wanted to be like them. So confident, happy with themselves. Most importantly,they were my role models. After the graduation, I took the next bus and got off at Penn Station and walked straight to Christopher Street. I had already learned about the street from the magazine of the same name that I picked up at a local book store back in my town. Ty's was the first gay bar I ever entered and there I instantly made a circle of 6 friends (who had been buddies with each other for at least ten years!). If it wasn't for Laundrette, then I wouldn't be sitting here a happy, confident man.

[David Ehrenstein]

Well that just goes to show what a good movie can do, Michael.

For me Darling was a watershed. I was suffering in Flushing Queens (trying to recover from my first affair in High School.) What that film showed me was that I could be sharing a waiter in Capri with Julie Christie.

Just what the doctor ordered.

[toiletduck!]

That's true of any actor who takes any role whatsoever.Nothing special about this one.

As is this:

I also think that it was, somewhat, "brave" and "daring", at least considering the impact it could have had on their careers

Either all actors are brave and daring or none. I vote for none. Christ, the adjectives don't even apply to their performances, but the decision to accept them. Is that what we reward now? "Here's an Oscar for deciding to play a gay man even though the movie may have flopped."

I still haven't seen the flick, so I'm refraining from the argument as a whole (I probably will afterward too, because this seems like a fence that will split me down the middle), but as far as the 'brave and daring' thing goes, I'm with David through and through.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Michael]

Has anyone seen Lukas Moodysson's Show Me Love? I just finished watching it and must add this to the list of greatest gay films without any reservation. Very poignant, touching, beautiful and so true. I loved it.

[ben d banana]

Yup, Moodysson is wonderful. Keep watching if you haven't seen the other films already, and I'd definitely stick with chronological order. I sense the final two to date will destroy you Michael.

[marty]

Show Me Love is a nice little film as is Together and Lilya 4ever is great but I don't know what Moodyson was thinking with A Hole In My Heart . I gave this film every chance but it just got worse and worse....

[Napoleon]

Yup, Moodysson is wonderful. Keep watching if you haven't seen the other films already, and I'd definitely stick with chronological order. I sense the final two to date will destroy you Michael.

The final two would destroy Chuck Norris.

[Michael]

Many thanks to davidhare for bringing up Come Undone earlier on this thread. I finally found the DVD and just finished watching it. Wow. Show Me Love yesterday, Come Undone today. What a perfect antidote to Brokeback Mountain! My partner Pedro watched them with me and he said that he's starting to really understand why I didn't care for Brokeback Mountain. At last!

Come on, folks.... please do watch Come Undone if you haven't seen it yet. Halfway through the film, I wanted to press the STOP button after being so involved with the relationship of Mathieu and Cedric - the lush, seductive, breezy summer days of dating and falling in love because I was so afraid that they would break up. I won't say more but I must that the film is so painfully true in the way it portrays the first gay love. And also how it comes with the painful, scary process of self-awareness as a gay person at the same time. Pedro and I were completely stunned by how well the film expressed this experience, like it was telling our story. We both went through the same thing with past boyfriends. Simply incredible.

[Andre Jurieu]

Yeah, so jumping in again - perhaps a bit late, but I'll ask for your forgiveness in drudging up old news.

An impasse that Andre reached with David before was that when the minority is trying to make headways into the majority, it takes baby steps.

There's definitely some truth to this, but on the other hand, despite all of these baby steps, straight, white men are still very much at the top of the heap, and our mainstream films still very much encourage white- and male-dominated American culture.

A minor point, but I just want to clarify that I'm not actually saying that minorities must take baby steps in order to accomplish their goals and make progress within the population. My point was just that minorities have to keep expending a large degree of effort over time if they wish to continue their progress within society versus the majority, simply due to the numbers. They might take baby steps over time if they choose to, but they might also make gigantic advancements or make large public statements capable of drawing attention if they are capable of doing so. Though I mostly agree with the example that ben provided, the increments don't really matter so much as the constant exertion of pressure to reform the conventional power structure within society.

The original impasse around this idea came from someone saying they were tired of making an effort versus the majority, that it was no longer their desire to keep doing so, and that it was no longer their responsibility to bridge the gap between the minority and majority (it was the majority's turn). I simply asked why any majority would make the effort to bridge the gap and offer equality to a minority group without being lobbied or convinced to do so by the minority, unless the majority had some other incentive beforehand (which, sadly, is usually only for financial profit).

Of course, who wants to hear that their life and its artistic expression needs to be watered down for Joe Lunchbucket?

Agreed. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that the acceptance of the watered down version might be a necessary for the ultimate acceptance of the more complex, realistic version.

Rather than forcing the viewer to cross the gap himself and try to relate to homosexual characters on their own terms, he gets to see a homosexual relationship dressed up in familiar romantic conventions and stripped of all of its modern, urban social context...

Which isn't exactly the wrong method when confronting such idiotic behaviors as homophobia. I'm not actually overly qualified in psychology, but it seems that human characteristics such as homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. are based upon rather simplistic reactions - kind of immature behaviors retained by adults. I'm guessing the problem with attempting to rationally explain to the perpetrators why their behavior is immature is that a complex explanation often doesn't stick. Getting them to accept an entire culture is not an easy action. You would probably have to offer a simple explanation as a prelude and work your way towards a more complex explanation that reflects reality. You would need to show the party holding the phobia that the underlying/essential/fundamental characteristic isn't actually something to be feared, and doing so would probably require displaying this characteristic is universal and relatable. After the acceptance of this universal characteristic the acceptance of other characteristics have to be built up in incremental steps, until a fully representational image becomes acceptable. Hence if you do dress a homosexual relationship in familiar romantic conventions, the viewer has to ask if the only fundamental difference in the story - that the affair is between two men - is acceptable. It's a teaching technique used for children, but it's potentially useful against an immature behavior.

I'm doubting the sudden fear caused by total immersion into modern, urban social context of gay-culture is going to help make a homophobe understand or accept gay-culture. Of course, homophobes are going to avoid watching Brokeback Mountain, but I'm guessing the battle here is for the hints of homophobia that remain in people who are attempting to appear slightly progressive.

Even if this is true, it remains to be seen whether this has any real substance, given that the subject matter has already limited the film's audience greatly (the box office returns are quite modest for a Hollywood or Ang Lee film), most likely limiting it to people that would claim to be open minded about homosexuality and claim to be willing to watch a film about gay people in love if they thought it would be any good (granted, this is a larger audience than normally watches gay films).

So, the question becomes whether to judge the film by Hollywood box-officereturn standards, Ang Lee film box-office standards, or gay-film box-office standards. The numbers are still rather modest, but they will probably get a boost from the Award Show hype. Still it has made $23.7 million while only showing in 683 theaters (it's scheduled to go "wide" this weekend) and has made it's production costs ($14 mill) back (who knows what the final marketing costs will be?). It's status as a financial "landmark" (or not) will probably be better established in a few months after the Oscars. Of course, I'm doubting it will ever achieve Passion numbers, which would truly make it a "landmark" and cause a change in Hollywood treatment of gay material. It's really the financial landmark that will make the biggest long-term impact.

The problem on the other end of this transformation is that it also remains to be seen whether having now seen an experience of gay love (made by a straight director and cast) couched in familiar conventions and devoid of a modern, urban social context, they are any closer to understanding the gay people around them.

Well, I'd just guess that it actually doesn't. However, total understanding might be a more complex goal that the film is not actually attempting. What it may have set as a target is that it just allows for more respect for the rights of the gay community. I have a feeling this film has been targeted as a soft-campaign for the issue of gay marriage than as a film able to allow the viewer a deeper understanding of contemporary gay-culture. You don't really have to understand a culture to allow the culture to share the basic rights of any other culture within your society. It would be great if complete understanding were achieved, but it doesn't appear to be a requirement when looking at the history of social reform.

How many gay characters is too many on a Best Male Performance ballot, anyway?

Hoffman is probably the front-runner for Capote so this isn't really a case for one-and-done.

Also, while I agree that Ledger has been in his share of crap (actually I think he's kind of a crap actor in general), I'm thinking Jake Gyllenhaal has been slowly building a cult-following for awhile now, or at least since Donnie Darko (we still haven't gotten that "puke" smilie yet, have we?).

[David Ehrenstein]

The original impasse around this idea came from someone saying they were tired of making an effort versus the majority, that it was no longer their desire to keep doing so, and that it was no longer their responsibility to bridge the gap between the minority and majority (it was the majority's turn).

That someone was yours truly.

I simply asked why any majority would make the effort to bridge the gap and offer equality to a minority group without being lobbied or convinced to do so by the minority, unless the majority had some other incentive beforehand (which, sadly, is usually only for financial profit).

This is a question for Anne E. Proulx, Diana Ossana, Larry McMurtry and Ang Lee -- not gay people.

Your notion of gay being "urban" is presumptuous. L'Homme Blesse is set in a small town, likewise Come Undone and Three Dancing Slaves. While big cities have been the principle refuge for gays historically, this is changing now, and the films I've just mentioned reflect that fact.

[Andre Jurieu]

That someone was yours truly.

Yeah, I know. I didn't feel like stating it again.

This is a question for Anne E. Proulx, Diana Ossana, Larry McMurtry and Ang Lee -- not gay people.

I'd say it's a question for anyone within a society that is not homogeneous, not just specifically for filmmakers, authors, or gay people.

Your notion of gay being "urban" is presumptuous.

Actually, I'm not making this presumption (though I don't know if this might be one of the "your"s that you use to vaguely refer to anyone). I'm using the language Jun-Dai originally used in his post. When I address someone else's ideas I tend to use the same language they used for their argument.

[David Ehrenstein]

I'd say it's a question for anyone within a society that is not homogeneous, not just specifically for filmmakers, authors, or gay people.

But who gets to make the films? Who gets to market them? Who gets to see them? You apprarntly assume a level playing field, and that is by no means the case.

[Andre Jurieu]

But who gets to make the films? Who gets to market them? Who gets to see them? You apprarntly assume a level playing field, and that is by no means the case.

Only an total idiot would assume a level playing field exists when attempting social reform within our society. An uneven playing field is central to my claim that any society requires its minorities to make a greater effort than the majority in attempting to create greater equality. Jun-Dai is obviously correct in describing western culture as primarily influenced by white-male heterosexuals. I'm not really sure how you can assume I perceive a level playing field when I'm stating the effort involved is different depending on the minority group attempting to change their status. A level playing field would imply everyone had to make the same effort in order to get the same results, and that's absolutely not what I'm saying occurs in reality.

Who gets to make/market/see the films will be controlled by the (supposedly) free-market economy which we've chosen to use within western society, and which is subject to the same bias as the rest of our society. Hence the minority usually has to make a greater effort for their equal status.

[David Ehrenstein]

An uneven playing field is central to my claim that any society requires its minorities to make a greater effort than the majority in attempting to create greater equality.

But this would appear to imply that the majority isn't making an effort. Ignoring and decrying anything that fails to support the status quo requires an enormous amount of effort.

There's no future in appeasing the status quo. I say artists should stomp all over it. And the best of them (Peter Watkins, Chris Marker, Philippe Garrel, Chereau) do precisely that.

[The Invunche]

I say no one should dictate what "artists" should do.

[Andre Jurieu]

But this would appear to imply that the majority isn't making an effort.

No, it implies that the majority is making less of an effort, not that they are not making any effort at all.

Ignoring and decrying anything that fails to support the status quo requires an enormous amount of effort.

Perhaps, but I guarantee it takes more effort for the minority to make the majority realize that the status quo is incorrect or flawed.

This might be best exemplified by the fact that you've been writing for about 15 pages attempting to change the status quo (in this case, the status quo you are rallying against appears to be that that Brokeback Mountain is a "landmark" of some sort, or at the very least a "good" movie). Those who have ignored you have not spent nearly the same amount of effort as they simply ignore this thread, and those that decry what you are saying have spent some effort - a few posts here or there - but don't really have to sustain their effort since they are part of the critical majority that deem the film to be "good" and can sit back and ask the minority to "prove us wrong".

There's no future in appeasing the status quo.

Well, there might not be any honor in it from our perspective, and it might not produce interesting works of art very often, but a great deal of people have made a living appeasing the status quo, and a great deal will continue to do so in the future. Their efforts may not be very memorable as time passes, but it's not exactly an activity that cannot continue to sustain itself.

I say artists should stomp all over it.

Well ... yeah (though I tend to agree more with The Invunche's point), and I agree that artists, such as Watkins and Marker do this well. I doubt very many of us would disagree with this point, unless of course their goal is to make a lot of money. But, as they say, "it's no trick to make a lot of money... if all you want to do is make a lot of money."

[David Ehrenstein]

I say no one should dictate what "artists" should do.

What color is the sky in your world?

This might be best exemplified by the fact that you've been writing for about 15 pages attempting to change the status quo (in this case, the status quo you are rallying against appears to be that that Brokeback Mountain is a "landmark" of some sort, or at the very least a "good" movie).

Nope, I'm just bitching into the void, with no expectations of anything.

[The Invunche]

You wanna dictate the color of the sky as well, David?

[David Ehrenstein]

Sure, why not?

[Michael]

Your notion of gay being "urban" is presumptuous. L'Homme Blesse is set in a small town, likewise Come Undone and Three Dancing Slaves. While big cities have been the principle refuge for gays historically, this is changing now, and the films I've just mentioned reflect that fact.

May I also add Maurice? That gamekeeper comes out from nowhere.

Just received a comment from a good straight friend of mine and here's what she said about Brokeback Mountain: "It's a funny hybrid - trying to be all things to all people, and kind of failing on many counts".

[marty]

Just heard that a couple of cinemas in northern Queensland refuse to play Brokeback Mountain.