published Friday, December 09, 2005 by j | email this post
really looking forward to finally seeing this.
an interesting article in slate
essentially calls out the film as not really being gay at all, and being the better for it. from reading the story, and everything i've read about the film, it seems to be a fair assesment. why can't gay men tell their own story? it seems like the only gay people involved in this film were costume and makeup assistants.
ah well, we'll have to wait for 'superman' before we can see a truly gay film.
the new yorker makes an argument that if the film is accepted by the general public, it will be because the gay relationship is doomed, which makes it safe to 'like.' but i don't think that's totally true. what makes it safe to like is that there is no question of the stars' sexuality. the red state girls can watch jake and heath make out knowing that 'they don't really mean it,' and are probably thinking about kirsten and naomi. it's hot, sure, but it's also totally pretend. we never, at any point have to deal with actual
gayness. but if they put two, hot, openly gay actors in there i'm willing to bet we would see genuine
outcry against this film, not this smattering
of lame protests.
i haven't heard anyone mention the similarity between brokeback and 'maurice
,' which is an exquisite, heartbreaking merchant-ivory film of nearly identical themes and content (only set in 1913 upper class england) starring a young and gorgeous hugh grant and james wilby. i saw this film when i was in junior high, and i remember how it sort of cemented in me what had long been a torturous question of identity. here's hoping brokeback can do the same for others.