11/16/2005
Definitions, Definitions
Here's a video interview with Jake Gyllenhaal and Ang Lee from Australian TV with some extended clips from Brokeback that you haven't seen in the trailer. Here, Jake reiterates what he said in the Details interview about the characters not being "gay" characters: "Like, these aren't, in my belief, these aren't two, like gay guys. These are two people who fall in love. And, you know, from the environment that they're in, which is incredibly lonely, and, you know, they find each other." I think he's probably not articulating his point very well in either interview, that this is a universal love story. For anyone who has read the book or seen the film can tell you, it's unabashedly gay whether that was the way they chose to define it back then or not.
(thanks matthew)
Posted 3:38 PM EST by Andy Towle in Film & TV | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Hmmm. Somehow I expected absurd, rationalizing disclaimers like that to come from Ledger not La Jake. It's just sad. Very sad, and I fear you're being too kind.
Posted by: Leland | Nov 16, 2005 3:44:09 PM
i think jake doesn't want to label them. straight, gay, whatever. they're human beings in love. and a label doesn't need to go with it.
thats how i see it.
Posted by: bobby | Nov 16, 2005 3:49:59 PM
Sad? I guess I just don't see it that way. But then again, there is nothing that Jake can say about this that someone won't have a problem with. You know the old saying, opinions are like......
Posted by: jon | Nov 16, 2005 3:52:20 PM
I agree that he may just not be articulating himself very well. It also seems as though he may look at these two guys as men who never would have proactively sought out a physical or loving relationship with another man had it not been for the situation they found themselves in.
Posted by: JimG | Nov 16, 2005 4:01:39 PM
Yes they're gay, but are they thinking that? Not at all...they're two people who fell madly in love. It's a western, gay version of Romeo and Juliet...two star crossed lovers who never have a chance at happiness. It's a tragedy. I have no beef with what Jake is saying because I lived that life. I knew I was attracted to guys, but because of the environment I was raised in it never occurred to me that I was gay. That word had a different connotation for me. I was simply in love with a man...and yes, that is gay, but it's not what my head was saying.
What's truly amazing to me is that the 30 page short story actually IS the 2 hour and 10 minute movie! Sparse dialogue, gorgeous visuals, and just about the highest intensity of emotional love that I've ever seen on film. The scene where they first leave Brokeback, and Ledger is tossing his cookies, says it all. The ache for each other and neither knows what to do about it.
Posted by: Wayne | Nov 16, 2005 4:02:45 PM
..and we wonder why str8 actors are 'brave' to play gay. Just because you create gossip to make someone be gay doesn't really mean he's gay....or bright for that matter. Jake is pretty brave to play a bottom...he'll be hearing about it for years.
Posted by: PSMike | Nov 16, 2005 4:11:42 PM
i can't understand the dialouge after jack's wife asks him ''why can't your buddy come down here to texas and fish?''
what does jack say in response, because i can't understand him........
Posted by: bobby | Nov 16, 2005 4:15:49 PM
Gyllenhaal could have gone another route to express himself. It's not like he hasn't had time to think about what kind of questions would come out of "Brokeback's" release.
To state that the love affair between the film's characters evolves because of their situation or that they were "lonely" is an over simplification by the actor.
Jake can help or hurt the film in pre-release interviews. This is not a good start. It's almost as if he's saying the characters are two men in prison and their love affair is a result of circumstance and need.
Posted by: Matthew | Nov 16, 2005 4:35:12 PM
Matthew, have you read the story or seen the film? Their relationship DID start out of circumstance and need. Does it change the fact that they're gay, no, but Ennis never shows an interest in any other man except Jack. I know, it still doesn't change anything, but circumstance and need were the driving forces of the way this relationship started.
Posted by: Wayne | Nov 16, 2005 4:42:22 PM
Poor Jake!Everyone wants him to tell world shaking news and philosophies about that movie. Actors shouldn't give interviews! It's always disillusioning.
Posted by: Markus | Nov 16, 2005 5:35:29 PM
Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ! Snap out of it! You pathetic Marys, willing to overlook any stupid ass thing a pretty boy says. It doesn't matter what the CHARACTERS thought it was in terms of labels. We're talking about what JG said about them and it's a crock of shit to say they're not at least bisexual. Millions of straight men over the ages have been stuck temporarily in lonely circumstances and they didn't even touch each other let alone kiss, suck, fuck, or whatever else we're to imagine these two did. It's not like they're in prison for life or trapped together on a desert island with no pussy in site. I'll withdraw "sad" and submit PATHETIC. Pathetic that a young, politically liberal actor in 2005 is obviously so worried about catching something from a FICTIONAL character that he was PAID to PRETEND to be--despite the crap about being flattered that some think he's bi--BI!! He can't even say "think I'm gay"--which we all know is the rumor/fantasy. Mother of God, who gossips about somebody being "bi" except sorority girls from low rent colleges? Applaud him for doing the role, but don't excuse him for effectively trying to rewrite it post facto--the linguistic equivalent of "Boy, was I drunk last night!"
Posted by: Leland | Nov 16, 2005 6:16:39 PM
I can forgive Jake for not expressing himself very well on this point, but I can't agree with him.
Nor can I disagree with those who are disappointed in his rationalizations. Obviously, these are two characters that are not gay in the modern sense, particularly to themselves. But that's part of the problem, part of the tragedy, and Jake isn't doing these characters any favors by essentially agreeing with them and buying into the whole "they aren't really gay" crap.
Jake should also realize that this movie is an important touchstone to many, many of us, and a little more tact and sensitivity toward his gay audience could help things considerably. Just as these two characters deserved a better world to be themselves in, so do most gay people. Even today.
Anything that seems to back off or shy away from the "gay content" of this movie is a huge mistake, Jake, and really hurts your gay fans.
Posted by: adamblast | Nov 16, 2005 6:22:43 PM
Bravo Leland! That was not only well stated, but fucking hysterical.
Posted by: Matthew | Nov 16, 2005 6:32:23 PM
I really do think the issue here is Jake not articulating himself in the best way. I don't think he means to say that the characters are flat out not gay, one could not deny that they are. Straight guys don't fall in love like that because they're 'lonely'. I think he is just trying to make the broader point that it's not just about them being gay, it's more about two men who grew up in a time when society was different, much less accepting, and the power of their connection and love is the focal point of the story, and how they finally found a place where they could express their true desires. Clearly Jake has not shied away from the 'gay' aspect, he's acknowledged before that these characters are gay, and two men who are definitely in love. However, I just think Jake's comments were not thought through that well.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 16, 2005 6:41:44 PM
Perhaps everyone should scroll down to the 11/14/05 post titled: Jake Gyllenhaal Talks Brokeback. Jake was much more expressive in this interview with the Calgary Sun. Perhaps he didn't feel the right connection while giving this interview. Jake should absolutely be applauded for taking this role as he is graduating to the "A" list in Hollywood. This film is a risk he didn't have to take. I suggest that we all get behind him and focus on the bridge everyone should be working to build between the gay and straight communities. Brokeback represents another major opportunity in this regard. Hollywood has certainly changed its bias towards the gay genre in the past ten years. The next 60 days are going to be stressful for Jake as he must measure his words carefully so some idiot at a tabloid can't slap a label on his forehead or worse. Again, read the Calgary Sun post and you should find that Jake has a new take on life, his persona and his prospects for the future after the production of Brokeback Mountain. In some ways, this film has already been a life altering experience for him.
Posted by: Johnny Lane | Nov 16, 2005 8:10:38 PM
Is it any wonder that a straight guy (the verity of gossip aside) has problems getting his mind around the topic when gay people such as I still have yet to get it nailed down?
It comes down to this, The Great Gay Dichotomy: Is it something you are, or is it something you do? What qualifies us as gay? Taking on an identity or taking on actions?
If it is the former, then Ennis and Jack are not gay; it it is the latter, then evidently they are. I dare anyone to answer this question, whether in relation to themselves or Jack and Ennis.
Most charitably toward the droopy-eyed one, I would agree that Ennis and Jack are "not gay" in the sense that Oscar Wilde was "not gay." That is, they exist outside of our conception of gay life, as a lifestyle wherein two men can lead lives together or have unashmaned fleeting encounters. Ennis and Jack know the term "queer," but to them that probably would mean wearing make-up and dresses. Wilde obviously was sexually attracted to men and thereupon acted, but he would never have left his wife.
In some regard this strikes at the heart of Proulx's story: Jack and Ennis *talk* about setting home together, i.e., becoming gay, but it never happens; it is frustrated; it is dangerous (cf. the other pair mentioned in the story, one of whom was apparently murdered) and (SPOILER ALERT) in Ennis' mind, it leads directly to Jack's demise.
I only read the story this morning in my office when I should have been working. Thereafter I sought refuge in a stall in the men's room, where I sobbed for ten minutes. If you haven't read it yet, stop whatever you're doing, and read it immediately.
Posted by: GM | Nov 16, 2005 9:53:01 PM
>>"Like, these aren't, in my belief, these aren't two, like gay guys. These are two people who fall in love.
I kind of thought that two guys falling in love was essentially what it means to be Gay. Two guys having sex may not be strictly Gay, but falling in love with someone of the same sex is my definition of homosexual.
Maybe I just don't have a grasp on the meaning of "Gay". Just because I've been Gay all my life, doesn't mean I can define it so that everyone can understand it.
I can't grasp the idea of heterosexual attraction at all, so I'm not terribly surprised that Gyllenhaal, who I assume is a straight boy, is fuzzy on the subject of homosexuality.
Like the judge said; "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
Posted by: Jay Croce | Nov 16, 2005 10:01:05 PM
To use an ancient metaphor, "describe the elephant. A snake, a spear, a leaf, a rope, a snake, a tree-trunk."
Posted by: Ted B. | Nov 16, 2005 10:36:52 PM
I think that even if the characters couldnt articulate their gayness, didnt gay identify, which is still a common occurrence, to say it's not a gay role is laughable. I dont think the way he puts it is to sidestep any attributions that Jake is gay. I think it's how he relates to the role. He's not gay, but he did the movie, and his motivation, his understanding as a heterosexual, was to picture it as just a love story, which is universal. But so many times when actors say such things, it does sound like they're playing the gay thing off to stave off any possible gay stigma, which in itself is problematic. Perhaps the movie might help.
Posted by: Felipe | Nov 16, 2005 11:13:56 PM
The bottom line: How much have we seen Rupert Everett covered in the America media since The Next Best Thing? What happened to his star? (Admittedly a horrible film that probably shouldn't be compared to BM). But ... Whereas it would be silly to think that Jake and Heath run the risk of being stereotyped on the casting couch henceforth, this still goes to show that taboos towards playing gay characters remain in Hollywood. Let's face it, Jake is trying to protect himself and his career by coming up with safe ways to describe how he tackled this character. I don't fault him, but agree that he sounds a little naive.
Posted by: ROB | Nov 16, 2005 11:27:53 PM
New topic: Why is Leland so fucking hysterical about everything on this blog?
Next topic: Why can't Leland shut the fuck up.
Really, can you not EVER see anyone else's point of view? Or do you intentionally post this crap because you crave attention?
Bravo my gay ass. You're nothing but a big fat gas bag.
Posted by: Joseph | Nov 17, 2005 1:09:33 AM
how can it be unabashadely gay if both charachters ave wives and children?
its a queer story, about the fludity and mutablity of gender and sex, the intagibles of desire...
Posted by: Anthony Easton | Nov 17, 2005 2:11:14 AM
i fucking hate this essentalist bullshit--everyone is gay who has sex with men, there is nothing but gay or straight, you are in denial if you think that sexuality could be about power or comfort or anything but acutally having one idenity that does not change at all, regardless of circumstances...
go back to reading out magazine and living in chelsea
Posted by: Anthony Easton | Nov 17, 2005 2:15:12 AM
Hallo Andy,
wonderful job you do here.
About Brokeback Mountains:
I think Jake articulate itself very well. Guys, he worked months and months on that project, read and reread the book and the scenario… Who did that job among us?
Jake does exactly know what he says and how to say it.
And what he says is correct: Ennis and Jack definitely aren't gay. They don’t even really know the meaning of it. Ennis assimilate it to “pieces of burned tomatoes” once called Earl, that guy who was beaten do death with a tire iron as Ennis was a child and Jack uses all the years in witch he can’t see his lover to discover and improve what being gay means.
They both are the fruit of fate and love outside categories just like Annie Proulx present them and Jake Gyllenhaal seas it. Nothing more nothing less.
Kisses.
Bruno
Posted by: bruno | Nov 17, 2005 4:02:38 AM
Jack and Ennis are gay, regardless of how they articulate it to themselves. One of the screenwriters for "Brokeback" said recently in an article that it is a story about two homosexual men and the women that marry homosexual men. The director and actors have said it's about two gay men. If you read the story, there's no question that they are. Sometimes a reporter will ask a question a certain way to try and illicit a certain response. This may have happened to Jake in this interview, and then he said something that wasn't articulated very well or the full meaning of it wasn't conveyed. Just my guess.
Posted by: lauren | Nov 17, 2005 9:33:29 AM