previous entry | main | next entry


January 04, 2006

Brokeback Mountain

For all you story/movies fans out there, I found an interesting review.

(No, I haven't seen/read either of them myself. Not in the mood to have my heart broken in that fashion at the moment.

From the LAWeelkly, Horsefeathers!.

Unless you’ve been tending a sheep pasture since September, you’ve doubtless heard about Ang Lee’s adaptation of E. Annie Proulx’s New Yorker short story that, according to Newsweek’s puff-adept Sean Smith, “caused a sensation... Its raw masculinity, spare dialogue and lonely imagery subverted the myth of the American cowboy and obliterated gay stereotypes.” You mean like Montgomery Clift in Red River or James Dean and Rock Hudson in Giant? How about Tosh Carillo in Andy Warhol’s Horse? Across the wide cinematic prairie, there’s nothing but gay stereotypes when it comes to cowboys, and Brokeback Mountain is no exception — what with Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal eyeing each other as they stand outside their boss’s office striking poses redolent of a Sunday “Beer Bust” at the Faultline in Silver Lake.

But readers of The New York Times aren’t supposed to know about such things. That’s why the “newspaper of (exceedingly faulty) record” sent fashionista Guy Trebay to talk to “real life” closeted cowpokes, one of whom proudly declared, “I’m a man’s man. I’m not feminine at all.” Sure. Just like those personal ads: “Straight-acting, straight-appearing, no fats or fems.” The record will show that no “man’s men” were present at Stonewall, where out and proud drag queens — far tougher than Brokeback’s poseurs — took on the cops, and jump-started a movement that now seeks to write their politically incorrect effeminacy out of gay history. But why look back? To hear it from Frank Rich, Brokeback “brings something different to the pop culture marketplace at just the pivotal moment to catch a wave.”

The crest of that wave, however, is something not that new at all — “slash” fiction. This genre of homemade homoerotica, confected by and for women, began in the 1970s (and became the subject of many a post-feminist academic paper in the 1980s) by offering gay sexual fantasies involving Star Trek characters. Today “slash” incorporates everything from The X-Files (David Duchovny being seduced by male aliens) to imaginary same-sex-capades by members of the band Franz Ferdinand. Yes, “the sisters are doing it for themselves,” and never more so than in Japan with “Yaoi” — a female-created (and -consumed) publishing genre encompassing homoerotic novels, short stories and manga animation that emerged in the wake of that country’s recognition of gays as a sociopolitical entity 20 years ago. It’s why Merchant Ivory’s Maurice was a hit there, and why primary financing for Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho was Japanese.

That's just an excerpt. There's more. More about being gay in Hollywood, the fact that the gay cowboys in Brokeback are both played by straight actors, and a lot more.

Well worth reading.

posted by AnneZook on 01.04.06 at 02:56 PM





Comments:

I read that whole article. I wasn't impressed with all the attitude the guy had. I'm going to withhold true discussion till I see the movie (this weekend) but I get the impression that BBM is different from most gay or gay themed movies.

posted by: Dail on 01.05.06 at 10:00 AM [permalink]



Well, that's kind of David's point. It's really not that different and there have been more groundbreaking movies. At least, from his perspective. He seems annoyed by the perception that this is the first "gay movie" that's ever been made and I have to admit that I've gotten a sense of that attitude from the reviews myself.

The only difference I can see between this and a dozen other movies in the last decade is that this one takes on the iconography of the American Cowboy, something that's grossly overvalued in this society anyhow, but that's a different rant.

Other than that, the reviews I've read all have that same coy air of, "look how straight men can play gay so bravely!" that's annoyed me in reviews of other movies. In addition, many of the reviewers seem to think they deserve kudos for seeing, enjoying, and reviewing a movie with a gay love theme.

Either they're astonished that Ang Lee made a good movie, which is insulting to Ang Lee, or they're astonished that there are people in Hollywood who can play characters quite unlike their own personalities, which is insulting to all good actors.

Or are they saying it's an incredible movie and you should see it? If they are, why keep harping on the gayness of it all and the astounding heterosexuality of the actors?

It's 2006 and I'm annoyed that anything touching the subject of homosexuality is still being treated like the appearance of an alien race on the planet. If an actor can play a deranged, chainsaw-wielding psychopath without comment, why can't he play a gay character without comment? No one ever finds it necessary to say that the actor does not, in fact, relax with a well-sharped chainsaw in his spare time. (The President does, but again that's a different rant.)

This isn't to take anything away from the movie, which I haven't seen because I have enough problems right now without a sad love story breaking my heart. I'm talking purely about the reviews.

posted by: Anne on 01.06.06 at 10:56 AM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?