criterionforum.org

I haven't seen the movie either, but I disagree that gay actors should have played the parts. And, I doubt that straight actors were cast for controversy sake.

Using gay actors would seem more like a 'stunt' to get tongues wagging. Using actors that would get people into the cinema and would fit the role seems much more reasonable, and much less controversial. Besides, they are actors aren't they?

And, just because Ang Lee isn't gay doesn't mean he has to be bad at directing a [gay] love story. I'm sure that he could do a much better job with the material that most (perhaps all) of the gay directors out there.

jcelwin wrote:Using gay actors would seem more like a 'stunt' to get tongues wagging. Using actors that would get people into the cinema and would fit the role seems much more reasonable, and much less controversial. Besides, they are actors aren't they?

While I agree they're actors (there's nothing "brave" about taking the roles, it's called a career move), I do believe that relatively speaking no one would care about gay actors playing gay cowboys. It wouldn't be on the cover of magazines, it wouldn't be constantly mentioned on TV, and it would likely just be considered, were it to be considered at all, an "arthouse", "gay" film

jcelwin wrote:And, just because Ang Lee isn't gay doesn't mean he has to be bad at directing a [gay] love story. I'm sure that he could do a much better job with the material that most (perhaps all) of the gay directors out there.

It is a hell of a lot better than Even Cowgirls Get The Blues.

ben d banana wrote:I do believe that relatively speaking no one would care about gay actors playing gay cowboys. It wouldn't be on the cover of magazines, it wouldn't be constantly mentioned on TV, and it would likely just be considered, were it to be considered at all, an "arthouse", "gay" film

I think the reason for this though is because you would be hard pressed to find a couple of famous gay actors. If you could compare the controversy of a film with equally famous gay, or straight actors playing the roles, I would think that the gay actors would cause more of a stir.

You are probably right about the film being classified more as an '"arthouse", "gay" film', though. However, I think the main reason for this would probably be that there are not very famous gay actors and director that the viewing public would notice straight away (at least I can't think of any off the top of my head). Also, classifying the film as a 'gay' film may depend more on the directors sexuality than the actors.

But the real test will be to see what section the video shop on the corner puts the film in!

The following is by far the best blog and discussion on BBM. It did seem that the majority of the die-hard fans are gay and women, or maybe sexually ambiguious males who happen to make out with males.

Wow, thanks Kieslowski_67 for turning my head to that blog. Fascinating reading, shredding new lights on many things. Thanks again.

I think the reason for this though is because you would be hard pressed to find a couple of famous gay actors. . .

Add ". . . that could play cowboys, are out of the closet, and have made Hollywood films before" and I could start to agree.

I think the reason for this though is because you would be hard pressed to find a couple of famous gay actors. If you could compare the controversy of a film with equally famous gay, or straight actors playing the roles, I would think that the gay actors would cause more of a stir.

If Ang Lee directed it with a sizable budget, it would have caused every bit as much a stir as it did. I suspect Ang Lee wanted to downplay the "gayness" of it (i.e., the association between the film and gay culture), which makes a certain amount of sense.

I suspect Ang Lee wanted to downplay the "gayness" of it (i.e., the association between the film and gay culture), which makes a certain amount of sense.

And why is that, praytell?

or maybe sexually ambiguious males who happen to make out with males.

ie. Closet Queens.

(I haven't seen the film, but I'll try anyways)

Because if Ang Lee wanted to make a film to connect with the gay community/gay culture, he probably wouldn't make it about cowboys in Wyoming. He would make something more like The Wedding Banquet.

One thing that I think is being overlooked in these discussions is that different people probably had very different goals for this film. Ang Lee may be trying to make one thing, his producers may be trying to market it as something else, Proulx undoubtedly wrote the story for another purpose, and everyone with an opinion writing about the film is bound to use the film to accomplish something else (e.g., convince their readers that they aren't homophobic, convince their readers that they are homophobic, etc.).

Saying the film isn't about homosexual love is a bit like telling someone that when you look at them you don't think of them as being black. At least judging from the comments, the film is very much about gay love, but it is presenting it in a context that sheds it from all of the social-context associations of gayness (e.g., gay culture). Ehrenstein's problem, as far as I can tell, is that people are not recognizing that by shedding that context you also shed most, if not all, of the value that the film provides for that community: bringing further recognition to it, presenting something that speaks to most gay men's experiences, presenting any sort of perspective within that community.

Some people seem to be making these two points about the film simultaneously: (1) It is not a gay film and (2) It is a landmark gay film. You can't have it both ways.

Ehrenstein's problem, as far as I can tell, is that people are not recognizing that by shedding that context you also shed most, if not all, of the value that the film provides for that community: bringing further recognition to it, presenting something that speaks to most gay men's experiences, presenting any sort of perspective within that community.

Bingo!

There are two arguments being made about the film: (1) It is not a gay film and (2) It is a landmark gay film. You can't have it both ways.

It IS a gay film (just not a very good one), and it's no landmark in any way shape or form. Three of 2005's gay films,Tropical Malady, Mysterious Skin and The Dying Gaul, qualify for landmark status.

Will ANY of the posters so enthralled with Brokeback Mountain so much as make the effort to seek them out? I eagerly await a reply.

Jun-Dai, Brokeback Mountain is very much a gay story and every gay person could identify with the story on various degrees. My opinion of BBM is not so enthusiastic because I've been spoiled by other much greater gay films. If people want a gay story that is safe and epic with "classic" overtones(like BBM), then Maurice should be the one to turn to. A much superior and perfectly realized film about one gay man's growth and liberation.

There are two arguments being made about the film: (1) It is not a gay film and (2) It is a landmark gay film. You can't have it both ways.

It IS a gay film (just not a very good one), and it's no landmark in any way shape or form. Three of 2005's gay films,Tropical Malady, Mysterious Skin and The Dying Gaul, qualify for landmark status.

Sorry, I misstated my point. I meant to say that some people are apparently trying to make both points at the same time, not that those are the only points being made.

Anyhow, if it does qualify as a gay film, then it is a landmark film in regards to its mainstreamness. That may not make it a good film, and it may not accomplish much for the gay community in any meaningful way, but it can still be something of a landmark. Using the example I pointed out before, Come See the Paradise is something of a landmark film in that it brings mainstream attention to something very important to the Japanese American community (concentration camps)--nevermind the fact that it loses a lot in making itself interesting/palatable to its white, mainstream audience.

If Ang Lee has made the most mainstream film about explicit gay love (without pathologizing the character, as in something like The Talented Mr. Ripley) thus far, then that's a landmark (landmarks are not always good things; our president is a landmark in all too many ways for my comfort), but it should be remembered that a step towards the mainstream is hardly a step forward in other ways, and it isn't always even a positive thing in general if in going mainstream it acquires too much misrepresentation. If you can point to a gay film that is as critically and financially successful, then I'll retract the bit about it being a landmark.

"Maurice" cannot hold jock of "BBM". Heck, I have never had xxx with a male, how should I know?

"Maurice" cannot hold jock of "BBM". Heck, I have never had xxx with a male, how should I know?

I don't understand these two sentences.

I have never had xxx with a male,

What are you waiting for?

Jun-Dai wrote: One thing that I think is being overlooked in these discussions is that different people probably had very different goals for this film. Ang Lee may be trying to make one thing, his producers may be trying to market it as something else, Proulx undoubtedly wrote the story for another purpose, and everyone with an opinion writing about the film is bound to use the film to accomplish something else (e.g., convince their readers that they aren't homophobic, convince their readers that they are homophobic, etc.).

Saying the film isn't about homosexual love is a bit like telling someone that when you look at them you don't think of them as being black. At least judging from the comments, the film is very much about gay love, but it is presenting it in a context that sheds it from all of the social-context associations of gayness (e.g., gay culture).

Leave it to Jun-Dai to make sense out of the chaos.

Jun-Dai wrote:Ehrenstein's problem, as far as I can tell, is that people are not recognizing that by shedding that context you also shed most, if not all, of the value that the film provides for that community: bringing further recognition to it, presenting something that speaks to most gay men's experiences, presenting any sort of perspective within that community.

And that's a valid point, but is that the goal of the filmmakers. It seems they are trying to fight the most basic battle, while Ehrenstein asks them to fight the most complex wars all at once. The more complex films he mentions are worthy of attention, but they also (unfortunately) limit their audience.

Jun-Dai wrote:Some people seem to be making these two points about the film simultaneously: (1) It is not a gay film and (2) It is a landmark gay film. You can't have it both ways.

I agree. The claim that it is not a gay film seems rather absurd, considering the characters are obviously gay.

However, I'm of the opinion that the marketing of a film and the actual film itself are two different things. So the fact that the marketing wants to tone down the "gayness" in order to attract a larger audience is one (sad) thing, but if someone actually walks out of the film saying it has nothing to do with being gay, they are probably morons (for example, see Roeper).

The more complex films he mentions are worthy of attention, but they also (unfortunately) limit their audience.

If Mysterious Skin could have afforded half the amount of publicity lavished on Brokeback Mountain then Joey Gordon-Leviit would be the front runner for the Academy Award, not the comely but vapid Heath Ledger.

Joey Gordon-Levitt gets my vote for the best performance of 2005. Brady Corbet and Jeffrey Licon are also amazing, amazing. The Independent Spirit Awards failing to nominate them is truly a travesty.

A good case in point of how BBM is using up all the available oxygen: one page of postings on Araki's superb film versus 13 pages over here.

EDIT: Shit, just knocked it over into 14!

Are you suggesting that there's a finite amount of attention that people are willing to spend on gay cinema and BBM use capturing more than its fair share? I can see Ehrenstein agreeing with the latter part (and furthermore suggestion that BBM isn't doing what it should to expand that total amount of attention), but the former part seems a bit shaky.

David, let's start fresh on page 14. My problem with this,

David Ehrenstein wrote:

Jundai wrote:Ehrenstein's problem, as far as I can tell, is that people are not recognizing that by shedding that context you also shed most, if not all, of the value that the film provides for that community: bringing further recognition to it, presenting something that speaks to most gay men's experiences, presenting any sort of perspective within that community.

Bingo!

is that it's akin to saying there is one universal queer experience, and this isn't it, which I highly doubt is what you're trying to say.

Yes, me and the gf have seen, and loved, Mysterious Skin (and watched it w/ a lesbian friend we were shocked had never heard of it, to add to the "some of my best friends" points), I'm very interested in seeing Tropical Malady, but have not gotten around to it (along with zillions of other films), and have heard of The Dying Gaul but have not had the opportunity to even choose to see it.

My problem with this, . . .is that it's akin to saying there is one universal queer experience

how is that? Or are you talking about his posts in general and not just the part you quoted?

His agreement to your comment, which along with his previous comments, seem to imply that the film is incorrect in its portrayal of "the" homosexual experience. That everything they do, staying in Wyoming/Texas, living in denial, their initial sexual encounter, etc, is wrong, as if there is some right way.

I think you're just inferring that. The point is not that it deviates from the One Homosexual Experience, but simply that what it depicts is so marginal that it doesn't relate to what we see around us (or for most, what they've experienced). I can only interpret Ehrenstein's point as I see it and agree with it insofar as certain assumptions he makes are true, since (a) I haven't seen the film, (b) I'm not gay, (c) none of my close friends (that I might have talked to extensively about their experience of being gay, not that that's enough to allow me to argue from that perspective) are gay.

If Ehrenstein is right (insofar as one can actually be "right" on a subject like this), then what's happening is that this film, while being an incredibly marginal portion of the gay experience presented inauthentically by people that don't know enough about it (and really, how could anyone that's not gay know enough about the subject to make a personal and moving film on the matter, as opposed to a simply dramatic one?), is being celebrated by people that are altogether too satisfied with the fact that something from the mainstream has been thrown their way, even if it's just a crumb. This is what I see as Ehrenstein's main point, without all of the name-calling and ad hominem remarks that have been thrown back and forth (clearly this is an important and personal point for Ehrenstein). Correct me if I'm wrong, David.

A counter to this might be that the film effectively bridges the gap between conventional heterosexual romance and homosexual love. 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 (this is all taken from the repeated comments that the film isn't about "gay love", it's about "so much more than that" -- two human beings finding each other, and such nonsense). 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). 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. Even once I watch the film, I will be in no position to answer definitively to those two points, which might heavily weigh against this counter-argument.

Jun-Dai, this board would be so much more sensible if everyone submitted their comments and you in turn made a rational statement out of our gibberish. Of course, we'd lose all the fun of name-calling.

Jun-Dai wrote:If Ehrenstein is right (insofar as one can actually be "right" on a subject like this), then what's happening is that this film, while being an incredibly marginal portion of the gay experience presented inauthentically by people that don't know enough about it (and really, how could anyone that's not gay know enough about the subject to make a personal and moving film on the matter, as opposed to a simply dramatic one?), is being celebrated by people that are altogether too satisfied with the fact that something from the mainstream has been thrown their way, even if it's just a crumb. This is what I see as Ehrenstein's main point, without all of the name-calling and ad hominem remarks that have been thrown back and forth (clearly this is an important and personal point for Ehrenstein).

I agree with this, and understand that it's obviously important for David, and others here. David has himself stated some are happy with crumbs while he prefers a meal.

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. A bad, although contemporary and entertainment related, example being Ellen Degeneres coming out of the closet, everyone's shocked, her show ends up being cancelled, then we get Will & Grace, it becomes a hit, we get Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, and we wind up with Ellen as a popular and beloved daytime talk show host. I know, it's hardly the collapse of the Berlin Wall, but it is a measure of acceptance in an increasingly conservative (area of the) world.

Of course, who wants to hear that their life and its artistic expression needs to be watered down for Joe Lunchbucket? I'm not in anyway saying David shouldn't be upset (I know, awful white of me) by what he views as a weak compromise, but the idea that everyone who enjoys the film is patting themselves on the back for being so bold as to go to "the gay movie" and in turn deserves his scorn is objectionable.

I just find it refreshing to see homosexual characters in a movie that are not being portrayed as high-camp, sissies as has been done in countless other Hollywood films. Whether actual so-called gay cowboys really exist as is doubted by certain groups is irrelevant. Its pure fiction. I haven't seen the film yet as it is being released here in a couple of weeks time but I am not concerned about the representation of homosexuality as if the movie is supposed to represent all homosexuals. I just want to see a good movie.