The media seem to be running with a recurring theme around this movie: (Brokeback Mountain) the “bravery” of the actors playing the roles, the “courage” it took them to do it, and the “speculation” about whether America is ready for a “gay cowboy movie.” Certainly not a position a liberal would take, so it befuddles me how the media is labeled “liberal.” Because the media has all but compared these two to war heroes for their portrayal of two closeted cowboys in a story of unrequited love and personal deception...
Now, there can be no doubt it took awhile for this movie to be made. And there can be no doubt there was a lot of fear surrounding it. And that’s what the media should be talking about. Instead of playing into the homophobia about how courageous it is to play gay, the media should be examining why it’s OK to play a rapist, a demon, a vampire from hell, a serial killer who eats his victims with fava beans and nice chianti, or any of the hundreds of sick, warped, twisted characters Hollywood puts out and we gobble up. Why do studios green-light films all the time that have gruesome plots or despicable characters, and why did this film languish for years? ...
And to all you straight actors who want pats on the back for playing gay: Until you’ve lived gay, until you’ve been denied a job because of it, or had to hide in a Hollywood closet; until you’ve had your jaw smashed or watched a generation of your friends die of a disease while government did nothing (like in the Reagan era), don’t speak to me of courage.
It takes courage to be gay and out, not to play it.
Read the rest
I was flipping through the channels last week and found a Fox "talking heads" segment where they gave airtime to some nutjob who thought Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal gettin' it on on the range was promoting "the gay agenda." When asked what this gay agenda was, he responded that it promoted anal sex and the destruction of the family.
When asked if he'd actually seen the movie...
Well, no, of course he hadn't.
But come now my fellow straight women and gay boy buddies and romantic straight boys who sigh over love stories: all politics aside, how the hell can you pass up a movie where Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are gettin' buck nekid in the tall grass?
I intend to pay money for that.
It's a romance movie, people. With hot guys. Get over it.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Let Me Tell You About Bravery... Ah, Those Sweet Gay Cowboys
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments so far. What are your thoughts?
boy on boy is more fun to watch anyway...:-)
Posted by La Gringa
I just... don't understand why a gay romantic role is supposed to be such a stretch. It's called "acting". Acting (contrary to all those deluded "I'm Method!" idiots roaming Hollywood these days demands that you PORTRAY a romantic chemistry between YOUR CHARACTER (not you) and another CHARACTER (not the actor playing her/him). For frick's sake. Oh! Gasp! You played a gay role! You must be gay!
Not necessarily. Just like if you play a romantic lead opposite Angelina Jolie, you don't have to start boinking the woman and adopting her children.
Fer spit's sake. I've played (on a strictly amateur level) lead kissing roles opposite people with bad breath, people who scare me, whatever -- and what I/character do onstage has nothing to do with what I/me do in real life.
And "gay agenda". Yeah, whatever. What about Narnia, promoting the Jesus lion based on lousy prose agenda? Huh? Huh? (I just hauled out my copy of Narnia to see why I had shoved it to the back of the bookshelf, before perhaps (probably not) going to see Wardrobe. Why? Poorly written, patronising and boring, that's why.)
Posted by Katharine
Great blog. Just one thing that bugs me... bisexuals enjoy watching hot cowboys too
Posted by werty
Post a Comment