Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MediaCulture

Hollywood's Year of the Queer

By Larry Gross, Truthdig. Posted February 6, 2006.


How far we think we've come with movies like 'Brokeback Mountain' may well signify how far we have to go.
Advertisement

As the crescendo of Hollywood's awards season builds toward the climax of Oscar night, only the resolutely oblivious could fail to have noted that this is the year of the queer. Or, to put it both more politely and more to the point, the year of "gay for pay" actors. The announcement of the Oscar nominations, with eight going to "Brokeback Mountain," gave entertainment reporters their expected lead: "The star-crossed cowboys of 'Brokeback Mountain' emerged as Oscar trailblazers, the story of doomed love between two men poised to become the first gay-themed film to lasso the top prize."

For all the hype and hoopla one might think that this was something new. Alas, truth be told -- not one of Hollywood's specialties -- there is little that is new in this year's "breakthroughs." Still, every time we go around the familiar track, there are differences, and they are worth noting even while we experience deja vu all over again.

So, let's start with this year's "explosion of Oscar-baiting performances in which straight actors play gay, transvestite or transgender characters" as Caryn James put it in the New York Times (Nov. 20, 2005). Philip Seymour Hoffman has already won Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild awards for his portrayal of Truman Capote, the most obviously gay writer of the 20th century, if we forget that Oscar Wilde died in 1900. Less acclaimed, Peter Sarsgaard plays a gay Hollywood screenwriter and Campbell Scott a closeted studio executive in "Dying Gaul." There is an understated but plot-crucial gay role played by Hubert Kound in "The Constant Gardener."

The ever-popular trans-front is well covered by Cillian Murphy's Irish transvestite in "Breakfast on Pluto" and, among the award-magnetic roles, Felicity Huffman's Golden Globe-winning portrayal of a man undergoing sex reassignment in "Transamerica." But without doubt, the most heavily publicized and discussed performances of this year's crop are those of Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in "Brokeback Mountain," the so-called gay cowboy movie that won best picture honors at the Venice Film Festival.

"Brokeback Mountain" is based on a New Yorker short story by Annie Proulx that was published in 1997 and almost immediately became known around Hollywood as a hot property that somehow never quite got off the drawing board. The option was held by James Schamus, then by Scott Rudin, who wanted to make the film with openly gay director Gus Van Sant, after "Good Will Hunting" gave him big-screen clout; not surprisingly, Hollywood rumor cast Ben Affleck and Matt Damon as the likely leads. The project never got going, and eventually was picked up by Schamus, with director Ang Lee.

The saga of a strong gay-themed plot that somehow can't get made is a Hollywood staple, and those who've followed these tales will recall the fate of Patricia Nell Warren's 1970s bestseller "The Front Runner" and Randy Shilts' biography of Harvey Milk, "The Mayor of Castro Street," both optioned many times but still not produced. Each time there is a successful gay-themed studio film, there is hope for it and other queer properties, and "Brokeback," too, has unleashed a flurry of optimism on this front. But, of course, everyone's waiting to see what happens at the box office, as well as at the awards ceremonies.

Which brings us back to this year's array of gay characters and plots. New? Different? Frank Rich in the New York Times proclaimed a "runaway phenomenon" that signals a turning point in the "cultural war" of our times, and Newsweek critic Sean Smith sees in it the "potential to change the national conversation and to challenge people's ideas about the value and validity of same-sex relationships. In the meantime, it's already upended decades of Hollywood conventional wisdom."

Still, there's much here that's neither new nor different, and neither challenges the public's ideas nor upends Hollywood conventions. When it comes to the recipe for handling gay themes and the sexuality of movie stars, "Brokeback Mountain" is decidedly familiar territory. Let's count the ways.

First, there's the daring casting of valuable properties, excuse me, actors, in potentially controversial roles. Every time one of these screenplays comes along, there's the usual game of figuring out which actors might be cast in a gay role. The presumption, often unspoken but often explicit, is that such roles are career poison. Newsweek's Smith quotes an unnamed "top producer" opining about Jake Gyllenhaal's choice of the role: "It's the most stupid move he could make. It'll alienate his teen-girl fan base and could kill his career. What a waste."

Similar views were expressed about his co-star, Heath Ledger. But, the facts are quite different. In reality, "gay for pay" roles have frequently been undertaken by certifiably (or at least ostensibly) straight actors. The fact that few filmgoers remember the 1969 movie "Staircase" is due more to its mediocre script than to the fact that two of Hollywood's most notorious heterosexuals, Richard Burton and Rex Harrison, starred as a long-time gay couple. Similarly, Shirley MacLaine ("The Children's Hour"), Rod Steiger ("The Sergeant") and Marlon Brando ("Reflections in a Golden Eye") all survived the career threat of a gay role, even while their characters all paid the obligatory price by committing suicide.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from MediaCulture! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nice Article
Posted by: Pockymon on Feb 6, 2006 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haha. Jake and Heath both said Jack and Ennis weren't gay/bi? *sigh* Well, luckily for them, art is always up for interpretation.

Somewhat similar situation happened in Japan many years ago in regards to not-quite-hetero love stories. There was a rash of stories about two GAY men who catch hell, then one or both try to have a hetero relationship, and then the girlfriend gets pregnant, there's drama, and one of the gay men stays with her to live happily every arfter to raise the baby in a properly heterosexual environment. Quite boring, but that was the trend.

As it is now, I'm not entirely sure what the trend is. Probably something equally uninspiring. Personally I enjoy cartoons with gay themes (and a PLETHORA of endings, let me tell you). The whole point of these movies was to say "Look, living a gay life is like being a drug addict: you only hurt yourself and the ones you love. Be selfless and raise a family." It wasn't a fear of disease or even murder/death; it was (and still is) a fear of disappointing mom and dad and not fitting in. (Heh, I'll get in trouble for saying this, but Japanese people are all about appearances. Hence it's okay to screw men (or ladies if you're a lady), but just take care of your business, won't you?))

I'm in the camp that welcomes some variety in my media experience. You can only tell "and then the penis enters the vagina" so many different ways. Good call with pointing out that Hollywood creats its own myths about what the public will tolerate. Hollywood should stop reading its own headlines and start - dare *I* say it - reading mine, my fellow Eljayers', the students', gee, I dunno, the Public's. Boredom is rampant.

And just remember 'Christian right': Their story may have ended tragically, but they probably had better sex than 'you'. ~_^

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nice Article Posted by: Lizka
» RE: Nice Article Posted by: monkeywrench
Brits Did it 20 Years Ago
Posted by: Bab5nutz on Feb 6, 2006 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a British film made in 1986 that is still light years of anything that Hollywood has ever done.
My Beautiful Laundrette is about two working-class guys who transform a rundown laundrette in the Eastend of London. In the course of working together, they become lovers. And to add real fuel to the fire, one of the men is Pakastani, and the other man [a very young Daniel Day Lewis], is a former skinhead!
It might be slightly dated, but it is definitely worth checking out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brits Did it 20 Years Ago Posted by: monkeywrench
» Awesome Movie Posted by: CatDad
Yes, Mrs. Lincoln, but how was the play?
Posted by: johnc271 on Feb 6, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But what about the movie, Mr. Gross?

The sad truth is that if two gay men played these roles, and if the overarching theme was about homosexuality, this film would have been relegated to gay film festivals.

Universalism isn't necessarily bad. If a film is primarily about, say, mountain climbing, and remains deep in the accoutrement and culture of that milieu, why would anyone not a climber want to watch it? Sometimes we pass because we just aren't interested. Sometimes mass appeal is a good thing. But I think in delving into a subject we know little about, we are always going to look for the human connection, why other humans do things differently than we do. Maybe Brokeback Mountain has some universal appeal because it's not about a particular brand of sex. Maybe love is universal. As is hatred. On its own, without all the critical baggage such as the reviewer here must roll into the theater, the film is excellent.

It's sad that Gyllenhall and Ledger had to make those lame disclaimers, especially if they felt they had to flash their hetero cred off-set. These two cowboys were definitely not "straight" who just happened to have sex with a male.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sexuality is gray and universality is bunk
Posted by: thaumaturgistguy on Feb 6, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this article. I enjoyed many of your insights.

I personally have issues with assigning deffinite sexualities to the characters of Jacl & Ennis. I don't think they are "gay" and I put that into quotations because gay is such a nebulous term. It is nebulous because sexuality is nebulous. Why must people be one thing or the other? I mean even Annie Proux laughs at the idea of them even being "cowboys". To paraphrase her, "They're not even cowboys, they're sheepherders...and piss poor ones at that." Allow the gray area to exist and don't jump to label.

With that being said, I agree whole heartedly with your observations on "universality". That is such a load of crap. Queer people are a minority, no matter how much of the mainstream media we are a part of, and so to claim that we must be universal in our expressions is crapola. Let the people who are not queer come into our reality instead of waiting for us to extend ours to thier lazy couch potato butts. There was a great interview in the documentary "The Celluloid Closet" where an openly queer, female hollywood writer talked about having to pretend she was Marlene Dietrich's man, not Marlene Dietrich. Let the non queer folk pretend they are Jack or Ennis...or even thier wives. Put yourself in any characters position regardless of your sex or sexual orientation. Isn't that what watching movies is all about? Putting yourself in that characters experience? If you can't put yourself in an experience that is not exactly like your own life then that is due to lack of your imagination and not talent of the folk producing the movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Groundbreaking gay movie? Yeah, whatever. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 6, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who thinks that Jake and Heath took a chance by playing "controversial" gay lovers should talk to my high-school-age daughter or any of her friends. At least here on the coast, the homosexuality is about as controversial as hair color.

The fact is, for much of the America I've seen – and except for evangelicals and a few pockets of ignorance – gay "issues" aren't issues at all. The "issues" seem to be in the collective mind of self-congratulatory Hollywood, where hype and inbred politics means more than quality in picking Oscar nominees, and where gay themes – one of Hollywood's pet party topics – can stir up faux "controversy." Face it: most of Hollywood is fake, including its "issues"; and when it comes to someone being gay, most ordinary people just don't care one way or the other.

Granted, some gay issues, like rights and equal protection under the law, ARE important; but a movie about a couple of guys who fall in love out on the range isn't going to affect that debate one bit.

In short: what the hell is the big deal about "Brokeback Mountain?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Big Deal??? Posted by: CatDad
» RE: No Big Deal??? Posted by: rclord
» About that coastal myopia... Posted by: JimSingle
Wonderful article
Posted by: rebeers01 on Feb 6, 2006 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well written, poignant article. For art to be percieved as successful in our society it must obtain the image and values of white, upper class, physically able, heterosexual men, even while its supposedly about (shocker) other groups of people, "Chick lit", "gay fiction", "african american lit" art forms included.

Key word here is "other." Oppression is alive and well in our so called emanicipated and liberated culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Confused
Posted by: thudson on Feb 6, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exactly why is it a bad thing for the love story in Brokeback Mountain to be seen as "universal"? Isn't that part of what we want people to know, that we are part of humanity, and many of the same fears, cares, joys and such of life are lived by us in the same way as everyone? That we are more alike than not, that we cannot be relegated to the fringe and then laughed at because we're just too different?

And I think this is what good literature does. Shows us ourselves in ways that we could not imagine. I would not be upset if a hetero came out of Brokeback Mountain saying "that was about me," because he identified with Ennis' inability to be emotionally open and available. I would not be upset if a gay man came out of it saying "that's not me" because he is in no way like either of those characters. But I bet each of them would come out feeling the power of the story of these two men as told by the movie.

This is a much more complex story than it is made out to be in this article. It shows us how society kills us (literally and figuratively), but it also shows how we often kill ourselves, letting our own fear and self-hate do us in.

It's so much the same story as a lot of us. We married someone we cared for and thought that was as good as it gets. Then we met someone who showed us what it meant to be intimate and vulnerable with another person, and we know that what we thought was intimacy and love paled in comparison.

We are different from the mainstream in so many ways, but also alike and I don't believe there is anything wrong with noting both, especially in a movie that is so well done, so powerful in it's portrayal of that reality.

Addressing the other issue of gay actors playing gay characters, I agree. It's time we stopped allowing studios, agents and actors get away with it. It's time to let go of the nod and the wink about it all, and let people know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confused Posted by: JimSingle
It's the 21st Century!
Posted by: bleacher preacher on Feb 6, 2006 2:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm an openly gay man who is 69 years old, back in the 1950's most of the gay pulp fiction available had one of the main characters die at the end of the story. In recent years
for Hollywood to consider a gay plot, the main character either died from AIDS or as in "Brokeback Mountain" get murdered. Well it's the 21st century and it's time to have a real gay love story where 2 cowboys(or cowgirls) ride off into the sunset on the same horse and live happily ever after!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oscar Wilde had it right
Posted by: Democritus on Feb 6, 2006 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Oscar Wilde famously said, "Life imitates art." It will be the art of "Brokeback Mountain" that finally permeates our lives and the way we think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everyone missed the point - die!
Posted by: rickel541 on Feb 8, 2006 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although this excellent commentary on Hollywood mentions the escapes through universality, actor disclaimers, how gay characters have to die or hurt in the end (anything but live happily ever after), and many other valid points, I think a major point has gone without comment... even though it only took two scenes of less than 10 seconds...

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the two gay-bashing scenes?? Isn't that what really makes it OK for Middle America? Gays are not an issue as long as we kill them off. It is not a universal point; it is very specific. The point is underscored in those two powerful scenes: "hide faggots, or we'll kill you!"

Since I am a contemporary of the characters, I can assure the historical accuracy of the attitude -- having been threatened with being killed. The tragedy is that the message is still out there, and unfortunately is included in this film, touted as breaking new ground. It even includes 'how-to' instructions! I would be just as scared for my life after this movie as I was in 1962.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Love is a Force of Nature
Posted by: NowYogi on Feb 9, 2006 1:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Gross, THANK YOU for writing this essay. And thanks to all who posted comments. Most interesting!
Having lived and worked in several all male environments (Merchant Marines, US Army, and Oil Fields), I know that there is a very BIG secret among many white rural working class men...that men love men differently than they love women. Bisexuality is more accepted than the Hollywood literary types know...how could they? From my experience, Brokeback Mountain captured that reality perfectly...even though I was aware of it THIRTY years ago. I am glad such a story finally made it to the big screen.

After seeing Brokeback Mountain, I left the theatre with tears running down my face. But I was smiling too. I felt better about the world, that the energy field of love and acceptance was expanding. YES, as the movie posted stated, "Love is a Force of Nature". To me, Brokeback Mountain is a masterpiece of film making.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warhol did it first.
Posted by: apollo on Feb 18, 2006 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article, bravo!

Andy Warhol co-directed "Lonesome Cowboys" with Paul Morrissey. "Cowboys" is not a real Western, it's a parody.

The film deconstructs Westerns. Joe Dallesandro dances with Taylor Mead to the Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour."

The "cowboys" discuss make-up, ballet, hair styles and more. Warhol twice shows homosexuality as much more important and real than heterosexual coupling. Heterosexual sex is treated with nothing but disdain here.

Get hold of a copy, i'ts very funny.

Marlon Brando's character did not commit suicide in "Reflections in a Golden Eye". He shot the soldier he thought was trying to rape his wife.
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sdg
Posted by: grener on Nov 14, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]