Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Larry Gross
Larry Gross is the director of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and is a pioneer in the field of gay and lesbian studies....


Year of the Queer: Hollywood and Homosexuality

(Page 4)

Once it’s been clearly established that the actors playing gay roles are not themselves gay, the next step in Hollywood’s recipe for gay themes is to push the universalism button. In other words, not only are the actors not really gay, but neither is the story. It’s not enough, apparently, that the audience can safely know that it’s not harboring romantic fantasies about an actor who’s really batting for the other team, we must also be assured that we’re not being emotionally engaged and moved inappropriately.

For a long time it has been obligatory for any gay-themed movie to be presented as universal, in order to appeal to the often mythical crossover audience. When William Wyler made the second film version of Lillian Hellman’s “The Children’s Hour” in 1961—the first version, “These Three,” also directed by Wyler, in 1936, transmuted homosexuality into adultery—Wyler was quoted: “ ‘The Children’s Hour’ is not about lesbianism. It’s about the power of lies to destroy people’s lives.” This line was later echoed by Rod Steiger in 1968 (” ‘The Sergeant’ is not about homosexuality, it’s about loneliness”) and Rex Harrison in 1971 (” ‘Staircase’ is not about homosexuality, it’s about loneliness”) about their gay roles, and by director John Schlesinger about his 1972 film (” ‘Sunday, Bloody Sunday’ is not about the sexuality of these people, it’s about human loneliness”). Even more ridiculously, in the lead-up to the 1982 “breakthrough” studio “gay film” “Making Love,” written by openly gay screenwriter Barry Sandler, producer Allan Adler was quoted, “We’re not anxious to have ‘Making Love’ defined as a gay movie.” Talking about the story of a doctor who comes out of the closet and leaves his wife for another man, Adler said, “We hope that it will be seen as a love story. It’s not a slice of gay life.”

This is an old and familiar strategy, much loved by critics as well as publicists. The pattern was set by reviewers critiquing gay playwrights and novelists. Heterosexual critics find fault with gay artists for not rising above their parochial concerns, that is, for addressing themselves to the concerns of their fellow gay people. In a 1980 letter to The New York Times Book Review, justifying his negative review of Edmund White’s “States of Desire: Travels in Gay America,” critic Paul Cowan asserted that “it’s crucial to communicate across tribal lines. Good literature has always done that—it has transformed a particular subject into something universal. Mr. White didn’t do that: in my opinion it’s one of the reasons he failed to write a good book.” Novelist David Leavitt was felled by the same ax, wielded by New York Times reviewer Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, when Leavitt published his first novel, “The Lost Language of Cranes,” in 1986. Lehmann-Haupt seemed quite sympathetic to the novel, and congratulated Leavitt for creating explicitly homosexual characters, thus enabling the critic to “discern a resolution to the old debate over whether or not homosexual art is inherently limited.” In other words, parochial, not universal.  And, no surprise, Leavitt didn’t quite pass the test, perhaps because he was “subtly biased in favor of [a homosexual character’s] outlook.”  Better luck next time.

In contrast, when a gay writer is praised, artistic success will be defined as having achieved universalism. Lehmann-Haupt, ever vigilant on the ramparts of literature, was more charitable toward Edmund White’s 1988 novel, “The Beautiful Room Is Empty,” but no less focused on the main question. His review opened: “The subject is homosexuality in Edmund White’s new novel…. There are in the book explicit scenes of lovemaking. So the question is immediately posed: Is this a novel of parochial appeal, or can anyone, regardless of sexual preference, appreciate it?” Fortunately for White, he passed the test, if only barely, as “there is much in [the novel] that makes one uncomfortable, if only because it is so specific in its sexual appeal.” The novel concludes with the narrator witnessing the Stonewall riots, and Lehmann-Haupt concluded his review: “Gay liberation has arrived; it is their Bastille Day and we find ourselves cheering, even in the face of what we know is to come—and what Mr. White must surely write about in another sequel. Such is the subtlety and strength of [the novel] that we actually find ourselves cheering.” Note that “we” who are cheering are clearly not gay, even though gay people read The New York Times. And note that “what we know is to come”—AIDS, of course—somehow in Lehmann-Haupt’s mind casts the value of gay liberation in doubt.

In 1993 playwright Tony Kushner astonished the theatrical world with the success of his epic, “Angels in America,” winning Pulitzer and Tony awards and selling out theaters for a two-part, seven-hour “gay fantasia on national themes” (as “Angels” was subtitled). Critics were predictably quick to see Kushner’s work in a broader, dare we say, universal light. Writing in the Chicago Daily News under the appropriate headline “Angels reaches beyond gay issues,” Richard Christiansen offered a representative sample: 

Some of the reason for Kushner’s success can be attributed to the strength of his voice as a member of the increasingly vocal gay community of this country. Angels springs directly from a gay political, social and sexual culture, and it expresses that culture with pride, force and eloquence….  But Angels in America, which roams across heaven and earth in its fantasy, is considerably more than a well-written gay play. For the first time in years, an American playwright has succeeded in painting on a broad canvas, exploring “national themes” on a grand scale….  Much of its story is necessarily bleak, dealing with death by AIDS, but the play is also an amazingly vibrant and joyous work, celebrating not only the gay spirit but the eternal resilience of a confused and besieged humanity.

Perhaps good literature has always transformed a particular subject into something universal. But there is always a double standard in the application of the universalism criterion. And, needless to say, gay artists are not the first to have been put to the test. In an essay on “Colonialist criticism,” the Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe decried those Western critics who evaluate African literature on the basis of whether it overcomes parochialism and achieves universality: “It would never occur to them to doubt the universality of their own literature. In the nature of things, the work of a Western writer is automatically informed by universality. It is only others who must strive to achieve it.”

In a particularly condescending example of the universalism ploy, critic Mary McCarthy wrote “A Memory of James Baldwin” in 1989 in which she congratulated herself for appreciating Baldwin as her “first black literary intellectual.” What she means by this is explained as follows: “Baldwin had read everything. Nor was his reading colored by his color—this was an unusual trait.” Whether Baldwin thought McCarthy’s readings were colored by her color we’re not told. A similarly blatant example of racist universalism was reported in 1989 by Michael Denneny, who “watched an almost classic liberal, Bill Moyers, on his television show ask [Pulitzer prize-winning African American playwright] August Wilson, ‘Don’t you ever get tired of writing about the black experience?’ ” As Denneny says, this is a question of breathtaking stupidity that makes one wonder if Moyers would ask John Updike he ever tires of writing about the white experience. But, of course, we know the answer: Moyers probably equates “the white experience” with life itself; that is, it’s universal.

It comes as no surprise, then, that it’s not only Gyllenhaal and Ledger who push the universalism button when surveying “Brokeback Mountain.” A chorus of critics proclaims the film’s accomplishment in rising above the muck of gay particularity and ascending to the heights of universal humanity. What a relief.

American novelist Rick Moody’s article about “Brokeback Mountain” in London’s Guardian is headed “Brokeback Mountain is far more than a gay western. It’s a great American love story,” and it proclaims:

The magnificent thing, though, that happens during the unravelling marriages of these two men, as the film hastens toward its heart-rending completion, is that you stop thinking of these men as men, or gay men, or whatever, and you start thinking about them only as human beings, people who long for something, for some kind of union they are never likely to have.

In The New York Times, Caryn James, who has already noted that our awareness that the actors are straight “makes it easier and maybe more acceptable for middle-class heterosexual viewers—a group that does, after all, include most of us in the audience—to embrace characters whose sexual preferences we don’t share,” assures us the story “resonates with the emotions attached to any love facing insurmountable obstacles.”

It’s not only mainstream, heterosexual writers who are determined to cast this particular story in a broader frame.’s Scott Lamb quotes Damon Romine, entertainment media director for the lesbian and gay media advocacy group GLAAD: “At its most basic level, this is a story about relationships,” he says. “The love that these characters experience in many ways transcends categories of gay and straight; this is a universal love story.” Gay writer Jim Fouratt informed the readers of his Web postings, “Please do see the movie and suggest to your friends who might not that they in fact do and go with an open mind. Brokeback Mountain is not a ‘gay’ movie.  Brokeback Mountain is a ‘human’ movie for all.” 

In a similar vein, gay historian Eric Marcus tells Ryan Lee of Houston’s gay paper, “It’s absolutely a universal love story—a love story about two gay men. My vote is that Jack and Ennis are gay, and there was never any doubt in my mind.” Interestingly, Marcus was responding here in part to the objection raised by bisexual activists that the characters, who marry and have children, are more accurately defined as bisexual, even though their magnetic poles are oriented toward each other.

Next Page: Are We There Yet?

Dig last updated on Feb. 27, 2006

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By guy cap, November 24, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I gave up judging gays or trying to listen to them prove me wrong.They will be judged and then and only then will they know wether the were right or wrong.It is not my worry,however, I always try to protect myself and be prepared for GODS judgement.

Report this
Straticus's avatar

By Straticus, May 28, 2008 at 6:21 am Link to this comment are incredible! “the bible is against it, so need I say more, puffer?” That very line only shows you for the neanderthal you are. The Bible is against it…ROTFL…Ok…you want to talk “big picture”? You want to play the “religion” card? Well consider this, bible boy:

We have been around since the very beginning of time. We didn’t suddenly appear in the 60s. We have been hugely influential throughout ALL of time, all eras, all periods of enlightenment in art and music, philosophy and literature. Therefore, this being the case, we are ALSO a part of your god’s grand design. If you insist on discussing creation, then you have no choice but to accept the fact that we were created as well, and from the very beginning of recorded history, in your god’s image. Hey! That makes you JUST like me!!! You can quote scripture all you like; myopic mongoloids like you who are threatened by that which PROBABLY excites you tremendously have no other recourse. You make me laugh. You don’t make me the least bit angry because your “opinion” is meaningless to me, and to anybody else who understands the concept of clear thought. So by all means. Continue spewing your hatred, your incorrect statistics, and your incredibly erroneous “facts”. Want me to give you a listing of the gay bars in your town so that you might actually have the guts to act on your secret fantasies? Please, by all means, keep the nonsense coming. I find it endlessly hysterical smile

Report this

By Anwar Katiyar, September 27, 2007 at 1:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i wants hollywood movies (bf)

Report this

By nelson, September 8, 2007 at 9:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Romans 1:21-32

Report this

By kavishka, May 25, 2007 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Thanks for having me. says: It’s not about anything but the bottom line$. Homo this or that…it’s just genre demographics, marketing.

Corp Hollywood—the owners of all major and Indie studios—throw a commercial genre topic or film out based upon popular demographics. It has no point, no meaning, nothing but a quick buck for a popular title|topic|genre.

To discuss anything corp is dishing out today is like a drunk man rambling on about a splinter in his hand.

Want to get real. Have someone in DC w/a hot lawyer take corp Hollywood to court for a monopoly on the US arts. signed, free the US arts

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 2, 2007 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

Well, now, profanity and invective combined.  Nice to know that you can put two things together in the same sentence.

Not only are you unable to recognize it when you make a totally fatuous and nonsensical statement, you also can’t discern when you are making a completely unsupportable accusation, either.  You don’t know me.  Therefor, you can’t label me.  I hope, for the sake of your blood pressure, that you will calm down enough to avoid apoplexy and critically examine your statements to see that they do no credit to your position, fraught as they are with slander and calumny.  I’m sorry that you are so threatened by this whole thing that you are incapable of civil discourse, only the reflex of lashing out and name-calling.  Too bad, so sad, you’re mad.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 2, 2007 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Excuse me, Mr. Blank, but your vitriol won’t hide the fact that you made a totally illogical statement.  You can’t like or dislike something that you don’t know about.  Someone who is “in the closet” is, by definition, unknown.  I guess that escapes you.

Report this
Blueboy1938's avatar

By Blueboy1938, May 2, 2007 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

Well, Point Blank, how could you possibly know that, if they were all in the closet?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 20, 2007 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

Just came across this on the net - “Gay subculture in ‘bug chase’ sees HIV as desirable” which surfaced after a man there was jailed for deliberatley infecting others with AIDS!!!

Report this

By Erik, January 16, 2007 at 1:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks for the very insightful article. I noticed a minor factual error here:

“In 1993 playwright Tony Kushner astonished the theatrical world with the success of his epic, “Angels in America,” winning Pulitzer and Tony awards and selling out theaters for a two-part, seven-hour gay fantasia on national themes (as Angels was subtitled). Critics were predictably
quick to see Kushner’s work in a broader, dare we say, universal light. Writing in the Chicago Daily News under the appropriate headline “Angels reaches
beyond gay issues,” Richard Christiansen offered a representative sample:”

I’m originally from Chicago so I knew that the Daily News ceased publication some time before 1993
(it ceased publication in 1978 according to this Chicago Public Library timeline:

A Google search shows that Richard Christiansen is identified as a Chicago Tribune (not Chicago Daily News)theater critic:;=&q=“angels+in+america”+“richard+christiansen”&btnG=Search

See also this Chicago Tribune news release on Richard Christiansen’s retirement:

Report this

By Queer Larry, December 5, 2006 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

YO dawg im diggin the message here, its real nice.
me and my wife of a year and a half now really feel excepted at this website. keep up the verbal abuse to anyone who downs you on your orientations,ya’ll. <3respect.
ps. brokeback mountain, brokeback house, brokeback house on a mountain. peaceANDlove

Report this

By gay rape, June 2, 2006 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We are wellocme to it’s configuration.

Report this

By rape stories, May 31, 2006 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Best of the text i read about a problem.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, April 9, 2006 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In #6256, SonicEmpire wrote, in part, “Fear and loathing of homosexuals is primarily a Christian problem….”

I disagree.

The problem is a profound lack of backbone and integrity in our education system and those who work within it. Members of school boards are derelict in their duty when they disallow the presentation to students of full and complete, relevent, factual, honest information ON ANY TOPIC, including homosexuality.

It’s all politics with a healthy dose of intimidation by religious zealots. I don’t blame teachers quite as much as the administration… everyone has to earn a living and, as a teacher within the system, you either teach what you’re told to teach, or you will be unemployed.

When the learning population is fed a load of bull, either by deliberate misinformation, or by distortion of the truth, or by deliberate omission of pertinent facts, we get a “Brokeback Mountain.” Enjoy!

Report this

By SonicEmpire, April 1, 2006 at 1:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fear and loathing of homosexuals is primarily a Christian problem and it also isn’t that greatly looked upon in the Muslim faith, but in the jewish faith homosexuals are more accepted as well as in the Native American culture and in some spiritual religions. It is also primarily an American problem. In Europe most people could care less who you date as long as you are not coming onto them. I saw Brokeback Mountain and I thought it was a good film, but it could have had a more intense ending I felt. The part where Gyllenhaal dies flashed by to quickly and I’m sure that slow people in the audience didn’t get it. I can’t believe that Crash won the Oscar, it wasn’t a good enough film. I could understand if Capote, TransAmerica, North Country or some of the other good films won if not Brokeback Mountain, but instead it was crash, which has a good valid message, but I think that crash was chosen on purpose not to anger or alienate most Americans who disagree with homosexuality. The Oscars did get lower ratings, because people were expecting Brokeback Mountain to be best picture, so many didn’t watch it. What I found offensive was the song that was chosen ‘It’s hard out here for a pimp’, I felt it was compleetely inappropriate and offensive to women and thsoe performing just made minorites look stupid.

Report this

By sam moat, March 16, 2006 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just hope Hollywood shows that Brokeback did not have a message by making a movie about two gay cowboys who quit riding side saddle, straighten up and fly straight.

Report this

By A. Syndi, March 15, 2006 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wasn’t the premise of Same Time, Next Year basically the same….people married to others meet for a yearly tryst?  In an age were 1 in 2 marriages will dissovlce within 5 years, the struggle to stay in a relationship when society makes it easy to get out doesn’t have any drama unless someone in the relationship is using the marraige to evade society’s scorn.

Report this

By GoZero, March 5, 2006 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All you folks waiting for the film industry (or the nightly snews/infotainment) to reflect the reality of the world we live in need to get in line (we have extra chairs…). African American men cannot have loving wholesome relationships with African American women, white/other women, or even other African American men in the minds of the media’s powerbrokers and culture fascists.

That’s why Oprah and Condi must remain single women if they want to remain popular because being single they reinforce the notion that they have no real practical (African American) counterparts/options for companionship and thus frame themselves (and their race) as freaks of nature and maintain white america’s self delusion.

Report this

By Ron Samuels, March 4, 2006 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Because centuries end with the “00” years and begin with “01” years, as there was no “year zero,” Oscar Wilde actully died in the 19th century, not the 20th.  I guess that means Truman Capote’s distinction, if Mr. Gross is correct, as “the most obviously gay writer of the 20th century” is secure.

Report this

By S. Beckner, March 1, 2006 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HELLO! Anybody out there ever heard of a guy named Fassbinder? Thirty years ago, Fassbinder’s films explored every aspect of homosexual life, including his 1978 opus “Year of Thirteen Moons”, in which a gay man undergoes a sex change to gain the sexual favor of of his straight ‘object d’amour’. Considering that BBM doesn’t approach Fassbinder’s high water mark on this subject, yet none of the critics have referenced his films when discussing the picture, I suggest that we take a harder look at Hollywood’s greatest prejudice—subtitles.

Report this

By E. C. Bogle, February 21, 2006 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The reason ‘The Guardian’ and other sources call ‘BBM’ a “universal love story” rather than a “gay love story” is that their writers cannot imagine gay men who do not fit their stereotypes of such persons: effeminate, bitchy, urban, promiscuous, etc.  And if such stereotypes aren’t there, the characters can’t really be gay.  Another strategy of avoidance is to see the stereotypes anyway:  as one local critic with blinders on wrote, the story reflects “the gay lifestyle.”  No further elaboration on how.

All good stories must have conflict at their center.  What is unusual about ‘BBM’ is that it is indeed a universal love story about gay characters who face their own kind of conflicts, especially Ennis’s own homophobia.  Some stories about other minorities also reach universality.  It is, however, both more difficult and easier for gay stories to achieve universality in the eyes of readers/viewers.  More difficult because men are terrified they will violate their own stereotype of what a “real man” is if they empathize with the characters.  Easier because rarely is a gay man or lesbian brought up in a glbt milieu.  African-American children are taught to be like their “brothers” and “sisters.”  Some glbt children, to fit in, force themselves into the stereotypes—like the lesbian who told a PFlag group that when she finally gave up on being straight, she went out and bought three pairs of men’s jeans and a man’s suit so she would fulfill the image her West Texas community had of such people.  Others, however, like Jack and Ennis and myself and millions of others, are perfectly ordinary products of their own background who have no desire to fulfill any of the old-fashioned ideas.

That is the contribution of ‘BBM.’ There is no “gay lifestyle,” no stereotypes, just people struggling with life, which, as Larry McMurtry said on ‘CBS Sunday Morning’ February 19, is difficult for each person in each person’s own way.  And as Ennis says, “If you can’t fix it, you got to stand it.”

Report this

By Michael O'Neill, February 14, 2006 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Sir or madame,
re: request

last week I wrote and sent in my opinion through this form on the brilliant piece “Year of the Queer…”  For whatever reason it has not been posted. I wasn’t very smart and copy it for my own intentions, because I presumed it would be available here. It was the only copy I had. I might like to try to expand my thoughts on Brokeback Mountain and it would be helpful for me to refer to that piece I sent in. Would you be so kind to send me back a copy of my opinion.
Thanks mucho,  Michael O’Neill

Report this

By Milton Jones, February 10, 2006 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just a note: anyone interested in seeing a movie about gay people with actual gay people playing in it should go rent Torch Song Trilogy. Better acting and you actually feel something, proving that you can be authentic and “universal” at the same time.

Report this

By Lyle, February 10, 2006 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Frank: (Comment #3055)
You said:  “I for one am not really interested in watching two men getting rearended by each other.”
Do you know, according to research I have read, that a majority of gay men do not participate in anal intercourse?  Straight men just assume their penis has to be inserted somewhere and that is what gay men do.  You are incorrect, if you assume that.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, February 9, 2006 at 11:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Frank - #3054 & #3055 -

I have no problem with your “aversion” to watching, but what I do have a problem with is your ASSUMPTION that what you don’t want should apply to everyone.

Oh, I realize you didn’t actually SAY that… but I’d bet a month’s pension that’s your attitude.

That’s the MAJOR problem in a heterogeneous society… the so-called “majority” somehow ASSUMES the right to dictate, or try to dictate, its values, beliefs and behaviors as the only correct ones and everyone else must either comply, or at the very least, remain “in the closet.” You hear it all the time… “I don’t care if he’s a homo, just so long as he doesn’t flaunt it in public.”

What the (fictional) “moral majority” conveniently forgets is that this is NOT their country exclusively… that everyone in it has an EQUAL right to participate as he or she chooses just so long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do the same.

The homosexual population IN NO WAY interferes with the heterosexual population’s right to “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.” So why does this (fictional) majority assume it has the right to interfere with the members of minorities rights to do the same?

Please answer.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, February 7, 2006 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In #2850, Francois LaFleche posted “The homosexual minority will never be treated exactly the same as the majority, no minority is.”

This statement caused me to pause. I have some doubt it’s entirely correct* but, for the life of me, I can’t understand WHY this situation exists.

* (Aren’t we ALL part of some minority or other? Even the Ozzie & Harriet “American” family doesn’t come anywhere near representing a MAJORITY of families… at least none I’ve ever known. And, to stretch a point, if you’re not Oriental, you’re sure as hell in a MINORITY position on this planet!)

Anyway, exactly WHAT is this (fictional) majority AFRAID OF? In the case of homosexual activity amongst males, does anyone on this forum KNOW of any male who has been sexually assaulted by another male? I’m not talking about the “straight” male who, during a drinking binge, winds up having sex with another guy, and then in the morning going berzerk because he enjoyed it but can’t handle what that might mean. That’s not sexual assault in my books. In short, unless it’s a case of forced RAPE (a la the scene in DELIVERANCE in 1972), we have to assume all other sexual activity between men is CONSENSUAL… so what’s the problem?)

It’s my confirmed belief, that this fear by males of sexual contact with other males is TAUGHT… it’s a LEARNED BEHAVIOR. Remember, I stated that it’s the FEAR that is taught. I “guess” most “straight” males have no wish to engage in sex with another male just as I “guess” most “gay” males have no wish to have sex with a female. But where does the FEAR come from… the kind of fear that would enrage someone to point of assault and murder?

Report this

By Frank, February 5, 2006 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr Lafleche, You are absolutely right.
I for one am not really interested in watching two men getting rearended by each other.

Report this

By Frank, February 5, 2006 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr Lafleche, You are absolutely right.
I for one am not really interested in watching two men getting rearended.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, February 4, 2006 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

J. Miller in #15 wrote: “To me the sad thing is that people give a crap about Hollywood in the first place. If someone spends 1 minute thinking about what is said and done in Hollywood that is sad. Who cares?”

In a way I agree but the clear fact is that what Hollywood puts on film often, in many minds, becomes FACT. For example, our general understanding of the “Old West” is almost entirely a FICTION gathered from decades of watching “Westerns.”

Or how about an analysis of all the war movies that have flickered on our silver screens? Aren’t they almost ALL crafted through the lens of the West? Isn’t “God” and “right” ALWAYS on “our” side?

Hollywood’s output would be of no great concern if students were taught critical thinking in grade school. Perhaps then we’d have fewer mental robots populating our leadership.

Report this

By lizardo, February 3, 2006 at 9:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks to multiverse for bringing up and blowing the “universality” cover. Don’t you think it’s a gay theme when the characters’ choices are limited by their fear of discovery and the fear of violence being done to them? I heard some nervous chuckling in the theater when Ennis and Jack were seen by Alma, kissing passionately on their first reunion.  My response to that discovery was fear for them, and that undercurrent of fear IS a gay issue.

Report this

By J. Miller, February 3, 2006 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To me the sad thing is that people give a crap about Hollywood in the first place.If someone spends 1 minute thinking about what is said and done in Hollywood that is sad.Who cares?

Report this

By multiverse, February 2, 2006 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I couldn’t understand it either when the Guardian and other critics called Brokeback a universal love story. The fact that the characters are gay drives the plot. If that was taken out, some kind of convoluted process would have to take place to position the two characters together like that over such a long period and then keep them apart later. It wouldn’t be easily believable or captivating.

The sexual orientation of the characters is central to Brokeback. You can’t pick a universal story from it without shredding the entire thing.

The movie also had great visual/aural art and talented actors besides a tight story. All three combined to make it so achingly sad. Any one of those three could have made it a flop if they had not been so wonderfully done.

Report this

By Jim Kahn, February 2, 2006 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Exactly, what ARE people so afraid of regarding gay people?  Aside from all the usual religious and moral bigotry and misinformation that people usually hide behind, what IS the actual fear here?
We’re not talking about something life threatening: “I’ve got a gun-give me all your money or I’ll make you gay!”  We’re talking about a natural preference, (yes, natural!) you know, that simple energy that draws one person to another, not a required fixed behavior regarding one’s sexuality.  It doesn’t work that way.  No one MAKES anyone gay any more than anyone MAKES a person straight.  It’s not like politics or religion or hate or even abstinence, believe it or not, those you choose or learn…sex is innate.
And why does this perpetual fear and constant paranoia seem to affect more men than women?  Why ARE men so afraid…and what is it that they’re so afraid of?

Report this

By Ron Samuels, February 2, 2006 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Right you are, Ms. Bensinger, there was not a single depiction in “Brokeback Mountain” of anything resembling a “suck.”  Oh, I forgot Ennis sucking on his wife in their nude scene.  There’s more screen time in this so-called “gay cowboy movie” devoted to heterosex than the homo variety.  If straight guys knew this, there’d be a lot more of them accompanying their women, who presumably make up the bulk of the audience, to see it.  Maybe they’re waiting for the DVD so they won’t risk someone seeing them leaving the theater with a big s***eating grin after seeing Ann Hathaway’s boobs.

Report this

By Per Fagereng, February 2, 2006 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RA Earl says gays and lesbians are no threat to the American way of life. I wish they were. The American way of life (corporate, all-consuming imperialism) will kill us all. I try to be a threat, and I’m fairly optimistic. The US Empire has passed its peak, and I think it will fall within my lifetime.

RA Earl is right in saying that gays are being used as a scapegoat. A recent article in Monthly Review tells how working people in Ohio, rather than fight the boss, are fighting gay marriage. That’s really stupid.

The corporate empire doesn’t care at all about gay rights. Gays present a market opportunity, a way to distract working people, and a way to let liberals feel noble without rocking the boat.

Report this

By R. A. Earl, February 2, 2006 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re Andrea Bensmiller’s comment #6.

This is about as intelligent and well written post as I have ever read on the internet.

I’m not American (at least not “US” American) but I’ve lived in the USA, worked there and watched, and even admired the culture all my life. However, it seems to me that when anyone or any society decides that it is superior to all others some “switch” is thrown in the collective consciousness that disables their ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy, honesty and fraud, even right from wrong.

Gays and lesbians are no threat to the “American” way of life or to the family or to marriage or to the morals of the country. They never have been. Sexual orientation is NOT the problem. It’s just the scapegoat used by the fearful to cover their own inadequacies and lack of understanding of diversity on this planet.

Homosexuals contribute every bit as much as anyone else in many more ways than there’s room to itemize here. If any group is a threat to the “American way of life” it is those, of any stripe or status, whose prejudices and bigotry combine to poison their sense of reality and fair play.

There’s no room for fundamentalist thinking or behavior in the governance of a pluralistic society such as the USA pretends itself to be. Oh, it might have begun with that ideal but for some reason “US” America has lurched off the rails of democracy onto the siding of fascism. It’s an ugly thing to watch.

Hollywood is the handmaiden of Disneyland. Many “Americans,” for some unfathomable reason, have decided they’re both the REAL THING… and have moved right in.

Report this

By Ian Pepper, February 2, 2006 at 10:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Great article.
Any thoughts on the following?

There are two kinds of homophobia.
The 1st regards effeminate behavior in men to be repulsive.
The 2nd regards sexual interaction between men is an abomination.

The two types of “homophobia” are not logical corollaries, & each may & in fact does exist independently of the other.

I have known many straight men (in & out of bed - I myself am gay) who regarded 1 as acceptable, but not 2, and vice versa.

I haven’t yet seen Brokeback Mountain (it has yet to be released in German), but I suspect the film plays it safe by dealing with only one of these issues, while excluding the issue of effeminacy in men altogether—as well as the issues of gay culture, gay family life, gay rights, gay politics. It removes homosexuality (or rather “sex between men”) to a mythical Marlboro realm.

Most importantly, it suggests that sex between putatively heterosexual men is either a rarity in American society, and that when it does occur, it represents shattering experience that disrupts the normal lives of its protagonists.

Is any of this true?
Or do straight men have sex with men all the time, all the while telling themselves that they’re not gay, that they despise “gay” (i.e., openly homosexual, effeminate) men, & that because they are married and have children, that makes them normal matter how many men they sleep with?

In any case, that is what straight men have always told me after they had picked me up for sex.

Once straight men get past the initial shock of this film, won’t it appeal to many of them by presenting a scenario involving sex with men, real men, not fairies, that is set in a time prior to Stonewall, prior to the disruption of gender norms in American society, in an idyllic past when men could have sex with one another without being mistaken for gay?

What message will straight men take away from such a scenario? perhaps the lesson of the film is: go ahead, guys, take those fishing trips, but to be discreet, and don’t let things get out of hand. No kissing!

It is only natural that the actors in Brokeback Mountain are straight, because this is a film by, about, and for straight men.

Which won’t stop millions of gay men from jerking off to it.

Report this

By robert davies, February 1, 2006 at 10:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Interesting article on homosexuality on the Hollywood screen. A long time ago I read something re the homosexual novel: no happy ending allowed there, either, in the 40s and 50s etc.

I’d be very interested in an article on how much U.S attitudes have changed, how close Brokeback Mountain is to our present day and where the movie goes off track. Exclude the fundies. Regarding homosexuality pre-60s: nearly everyone, including many gays, was a fundie: unnatural,degenerate,“deviated prevert”—or sick,
or guilt-ridden or doomed to be unhapppy.

I see a great turn for the better, but I expect a backlash. One can’t assume that a public that puts up with Bush is going to be enlightened, tolerant if not loving.

Report this

By Ron Samuels, February 1, 2006 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Actually, Mr. Gross’s declaration that Truman Capote was the 20th Century’s gayest author is safe, since Oscar Wilde died in 1900, the last year of the 19th Century, not the first year of the 20th.  Centuries begin with a year one (1901, 2001), as there was no “year zero.”

Report this

By Andrea Bensmiller, February 1, 2006 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Though Mr. Gross’ opinion is clearly stated and well-research, I’d have to disagree with his assertion that progress towards equal representation rests mostly with Hollywood’s inability to surpass its limits.  Intellectuals (particularly liberal ones) like to argue that all of America’s limits are set not by the American public but by authoritative figures without the faith to change the system. This is total mythology that further muddies America’s ability to progress because it absolves the public from their real history and responsibility to evolve as a society.

You can see this at work in all facets of American life – from food to music. You cannot sell Americans something they do not want – whether it be European yogurt that is not sweet enough (they tried) or music that doesn’t follow basic formulaic writing and come equipped with half-naked teenagers writhing on the floor (I would know - I’m a musician). Blaming Hollywood for America’s inability to come to grips with its homophobia misses the point.

Changing societal structure is the work of radicals and businesses are not in the business of radical change – whether it be the film business, the music business, or the fast food business. They simply meet the needs of the people they sell to, and when profits drop they change their tactics.

I have personally been in the change business for 15 years now. It began with my tearful coming out to my Fundamentalist Christian family and has evolved into a long journey of change and discovery for all of us. I personally don’t feel that movies are what makes the difference to my staunchly Catholic mother, but have discovered that the idea of universality actually DOES. I know that if she sees Brokeback, she will likely be touched by the story because it will remind her of me and perhaps the other brave gays and lesbians she has met over the years who have never lied about their orientation but rather chose to engage in the long hard dialog that seeing eye-to-eye requires.

As a lesbian, I really don’t care if the actors in a gay-themed movie are gay or are straight, or go out and downplay their incidental brush with the issue. I care that for once in a long long time, there is a gay-themed movie that is universal enough to reach a lot of people and DOESN’T SUCK. I care that award winning actors are in it at all. I care that another gay –themed film was released at the same time and was so banal that it has totally gone unnoticed (Imagine You and Me). To me that is progress – THAT is what I have personally been working for all these years –  a brief glimpse of real equity.

If gay parts have to be played by gay actors and shamelessly promoted as gay, gay, gay, we will never reach the promised land. I want someday for no-one to care a wit that I am gay, just as I hope someday Americans will develop better taste in music and food. But pretending that we don’t set the bar for ourselves in all of these things is a gross error in judgement.

Report this

By FRANCOIS LAFLECHE, February 1, 2006 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The conclusion should be that we still live in a country where the majority is heterosexual and is not willing or interested in viewing or hearing about the genuine homosexual experience. The homosexual minority will never be treated exactly the same as the majority, no minority is. Almost all the points brought up in this opinion piece could apply to other minorities, not just the homosexual minority.The exception of course relates to the   inability of heterosexual men in this culture to watch any gay sexual activity. There will be a woman president of Saudi Arabia before that changes.

Report this

By Per Fagereng, February 1, 2006 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think it’s interesting that “gay” movies don’t offend anyone except the Christian Right. It’s not an issue for the corporate empire. To the corporations, gays are another market opportunity.
Most folks want to be forward-thinking, but they fear to rock the boat. So they support a safe issue like gay rights (which deserves support on its own terms).

The Brokeback Mountain guys were sheep herders, and we know about them. What would really upset people would be a movie about gay soldiers in Iraq. I’m sure there are a few.

Report this

By elizabeth farnum, February 1, 2006 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Grossman’s points are certainly well taken and important. The whole Brokeback Mountain thing has been bothering me - for two reasons in particular. First, the assumption that it is more “challenging” for a straight actor to play a gay character than it is for a homosexual character in a feature film and second because I think it has spawned a wave of homophobic jokes at the dinner table, in tv commercials, and in “spoofs” like SNL.
I do think however that the story, the film, and the recognition of the film also represents something positive in our country’s attitude toward sexuality, sexual preference, gay perspective, etc. Even if it is only the generation of discussions like these which are ocurring in many places. I know that my local (semi rural) movie theatre is only showing the film because it can make money on it now, but many of us here had our doubts that we would be able to see Brokeback Mountain in our own town.

Report this

By Jose Rivero, February 1, 2006 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Susan Block is right.

Hollywood utilizes sex and morality, mixing them, massaging them, to ultimately tell the peole what is right and what is wrong. If you are right you get the girl. If wrong you will suffer some punishment. The standards of behaviour that Hollywood portrays have been confusing people for many years.

Hollywood HAS to be in some sort of concordance or agreement with the current government. Their movies are by no means independent-minded. Sadly, many people “learn” from those movies. Which by the way, are getting dumber and dumber (with some few exceptions)

Luckyly, Hollywood is not all that is there. Almodovar’s movies are pretty much based on gay characters, and by no means these moves adhere to any morally-correct standards, thank God.

There is more in the life (of a movie fan) than Hollywood.

Report this

By Susan Block, February 1, 2006 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hollywood’s denigration of lust and active sexuality does not begin and end with homosexuality.  ANY kind of active, non-reproductive sexuality is denigrated and punished in almost all mainstream Hollywood movies.  A sexually active individual - especially if it’s a female - almost always turns out to be a criminal or becomes the victim of violent crime.  Hollywood loves to exploit the sex appeal of attractive actors and actresses - after all, sex sells!  But once they’ve sold their audiences on buying their tickets to enjoy a little sexual heat, once they’ve titillated us with a scene or two of hot exciting passion, they dump a bucket of cold morality all over any form of sexual expression that doesn’t fit within the confines of marital reproductive sex.  Obviously, homosexual behaviors aren’t reproductive, and they’re rarely marital.  So Hollywood exploits gays (nonreproductive sex sells!), but almost inevitably punishes and/or denigrates them, just as it does to other sexually active characters who aren’t engaging in sex just to have babies.  With human populations exploding all over the world, you’d think we’d honor forms of sexuality that don’t result in more mouths to feed.  But Hollywood, no matter how many special effects and hip dialogues or sexy costumes they use, is mired in a very conventional morality that stands firmly against sex for pleasure.

Report this

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Dig Director's Blog

Feb. 27, 2006

OK, the votes are in and now we all, or those of us who care, will have to wait till March 5 to find out whether the high water mark of the Year of the Queer in Hollywood will have been the nominations sweep by “Brokeback Mountain,” Hoffman, Huffman, etc.  In other words, did the Academy voters actually mark their ballots for this year’s apparent favorites?  Will the foxy stalwarts of cable talk shows be proved wrong again?

When the Brokeback wave first broke over the industry the predictable consensus of the bloviators was that the “gay cowboy” film would bomb once it ventured outside the coastal enclaves into the heartland, but that it would clean up at that March madness of the lavender left known as the Oscars. 

- - -
Feb. 7, 2006

In 1983, Ed Asner, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, spoke to the Golden Gate Business Association, a gay and lesbian business and professional organization.  Asked about his advice to gay and lesbian folk not to come out of the closet in the entertainment industry, Asner replied, “Out of my own gut instinct, I [do] not consider this wise.  I know that within the gay acting community itself, many of the agents who are aware of the conflict, the bind, the grief that occurs with actors who cannot proclaim their sexual preference, [know] there’s a lot of suffering and a desire to be open about it.  And these agents and actors support me to a very large extent in advising non-publicization.” ...

- - -


Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.