Response to Ben

I would encourage you to read Ben's post regarding Brokeback Mountain before proceeding. In fact, if you don't, Chuck Norris will most likely roundhouse kick you in the face.

The reason I feel compelled to respond to this article is doubly influenced: 1) I mostly disagree with the article he referenced and 2) The opinion he echoes is, I find, a common thread in the "gay intellectual" community.

The article begins, in part, with this quote:

"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."

The problem here is that of identifiability. Other people don't have a problem disassociating themselves with such creatures, for these creatures are not only fictional, they are something people absolutely, positively, cannot relate with as that creature. People don't watch movies and then wonder what it's like to eat another human being. Or at least, their ideas are entertained by an immediate revulsion that they could even think such a thing. I'm casting a rather large net here, and I realize that, but I stand by it. Society's actions would dictate otherwise if movies were affecting people in such a way that these creatures/situations caused a shift in the way society treats one another. Besides, there are people trying to quash violence in the movies, they're called the Christian Coalition.

The other problem with identifiability, and one that is more relevant to the issue of homosexuality, is how people are "repulsed" by gays on the silver screen. I am speaking directly of the philosophical concept of the "other" and how "others" (women, gays, ethnic people, etc.) are treated by society. Unlike the creatures or nasty killers in movies, the Other is one who would not necessarily be killed or abolished from society (not always the case, I know), but who operates in a double-role. They are included, allowed to participate, yet not given the same social status as those who comprise "real society". Therefore, to say that the media should be paying more attention to the atrocities experienced by fictional movie characters than fictional gay characters doesn't seem to mesh with the common view of homosexuality, as experienced by society at large. My common argument throughout this article will be just this: ANY exposure to homosexuality, outside of the normal "somebody got AIDS and died in the end" route, is a breath of fresh air for me. I could really care less if the characters playing the gay characters are actually gay.

This brings me to the bulk of the article, that of the media referencing Jake and Heath's "bravery" in this project. I have seen many, many, many interviews with both of them and this question comes up every single time. Sure, I'm totally sick of hearing it, because you'd think some of the media would read their own colleague's scribblings and realize that goddam question has been asked four-thousand times that day. However, that shouldn't suggest that I don't think it was a very brave thing for both actors.

Being gay in Hollywood, one of the gayest places on earth, necessitates this same idea of the Other I spoke of. It's definitely the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of Hollywood. No actor, male or female, would traditionally have a career should they play a gay person outside being a party-slut, drug-addicted ne'er do well who eventually dies of AIDS. Never before, in the mainstream, has the subject of homosexual LOVE been so broadly treated.

I can't imagine such a lifestyle, I can't imagine being an integral part of the flashiest, most "open-minded" place and not having a voice. Yet, I can't feel sorry for these people. I, like any other gay person, must deal with my "otherness" every day I live, but as it stands right now, I must shoulder that burden.

The article references gay actors who deserve the roles Jake and Heath got, how it isn't "brave" to play someone and then get paid millions (or however much) to do it. Yet, it IS brave. As I said before, those who aren't gay (or who are, who knows) in Hollywood are (traditionally) submitting to career suicide should they take up such a role. This isn't a closely guarded secret or something, it's told by every agent to every actor. In bringing a story such as Brokeback Mountain into the mainstream, gay people must realize that reaching the broadest audience should be the goal. Sorry to say, but if Ang Lee had cast "traditional" gay actors, who've acted in gay movies, who NO DOUBT could have given oscar-worthy performanced, this movie would not have the impact it did. Do I wish it could be different? Absolutely. Do I wish the media would shut up about the same question? Definitely. However, Jake and Heath braved something many other actors would not dare, and the finished product will do more for gay culture in the future than it would if it were released straight-to-DVD (e.g. 99% of other gay-themed movies).

Risking your career for something you know to be amazing, true, and important defines bravery for me. I completely disagree with the article that pay had anything to do with it. No amount of money (which, both Jake and Heath didn't receive their normal asking price for this movie) would make ending two young, talented actors' careers worth it. Would I think it's brave now for a famous actor to play an openly-gay, loving character? Yes, and it will be until gay people are recognized as equals in society.

Homosexuals are fighting a hard-wrought battle right now. We are on the verge of becoming an equally-represented populace. The steps taken right now by movies like Brokeback Mountain will echo far into the future and when we look back, I don't doubt the makers of that movie will be thanked.