11/16/2005
Gyllenhaal in Details
Jake Gyllenhaal does the cover of Details this month and actually says some surprising things in the interview with Benoit Denizet-Lewis regarding both his Brokeback character and the way his sexuality is perceived in real life...
Gyllenhaal stresses to me the universality of Brokeback's story ("My character could have been played by a woman and it would have made just as much sense," he says), but I'm astonished when he says that he doesn't believe Ennis and Jack are gay. "I approached the story believing that these are actually straight guys who fall in love," he says. "That's how I related to the material. These are two straight guys who develop this love, this bond. Love binds you, and you see these guys pulling and pulling and tugging and trying to figure out what they want, and what they will allow themselves to have."One of the film's producers, James Schamus, is as surprised as I am when I tell him that Jake perceives his character as straight: "Did he really say that? Well, I suppose movies can be Rorschach tests for all of us, but damn if these characters aren't gay to me. I think what Jake might have meant is that these guys lived outside of a social construction of a gay identity. There was no such thing as a gay identity for a cowboy in 1963."
If you believe the rumors in the blogosphere, Gyllenhaal might be looking for his own gay identity. In the month before I met him, two seemingly conflicting rumors circulated. The first claimed that Gyllenhaal gave way to a body double for Brokeback Mountain's nude scenes. The second said that he is bisexual and looking for an opportunity to come out.
Gyllenhaal flatly denies using a body double. As for his sexual orientation, he says this: "You know, it's flattering when there's a rumor that says I'm bisexual. It means I can play more kinds of roles. I'm open to whatever people want to call me. I've never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don't think I would be afraid of it if it happened."
I think I'll just settle on calling him delicious.
Jake [details]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:47 AM EST by Andy in Film & TV, Print Media | Permalink
Comments
delicious indeed!!!!
Posted by: Roy | Nov 16, 2005 10:59:51 AM
Yes, he is a hottie and I would love to run off with him to Montana, but I just want this patronising to stop.
"'That's how I related to the material. These are two straight guys who develop this love, this bond.'"? I've read the book-and it's 100% certified organic homo-material. If that's the 'spin' you're going to throw out on this one in order to codify straights that you've been sucking face (and more) with Heath Ledger, so be it. But you really don't have to play it in that manner.
Posted by: Gary | Nov 16, 2005 11:09:26 AM
To be a contrarian, I think Jake has a point. It's not that Jake sees them from today's perspecive as "straight", it's that Ennis and Jack see themselves as straight. In that time and place, they do not see themselves a "queer", and I think that's an important self-identifier. It was an entirely different period then.
Posted by: Ted B. | Nov 16, 2005 11:28:16 AM
It wasn't just a different time then, it still happens today. The stereotype of "gay" is the drag queens, the shirtless, daisy-duke wearing guys on parade floats, and many guys don't perceive themselves as that. It's a lot easier to accept yourself by saying that you're simply in love, or attracted to another guy, instead of labeling yourself as "gay". Now, by definition, if you love another man then you ARE a homosexual, but some guys are so afraid of the stereotype that they remove themselves from it...just like Jack and Ennis did.
I didn't come out to myself, or anyone else, until I was 33 years old. I always knew that I was attracted to other men, but I never saw myself fall under the stereotypical umbrella of being "gay", and the thought that I might be gay NEVER entered my mind. I certainly liked dick, but "gay"?? Not me. I can completely relate to what Jake is saying, and I believe there are many more men in the world who feel this way. I have no problem with the word "gay" these days, but I have friends who will never consider themselves gay even though they are sucking dick on a daily basis.
Just my opinion...
Posted by: Wayne | Nov 16, 2005 12:02:51 PM
Is there anything more pathetic than queers wishing straight "hunks" are queer or bi? Get over yourselves already.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 16, 2005 12:19:41 PM
Transitioning Ted B.'s take on Jake's commentary to present day, significant numbers of young men from 18 to their late 20's consider themselves "straight" while engaging in sex with other men. Living in Austin, Texas, a college town with 180,000 full time students I have had the unique opportunity to interact with hundreds of guys with this mindset. Having owned an openly gay business that catered to college students which was walking distance from the University of Texas, I had countless hours of discussions on this very topic over a five year period. Young men often wanted to talk about this exact subject and present their rationale as to why they can identify themselves as straight yet have sex with men. Many live and socially interact as straight, when in-fact they are having sex with their "best bud" or "buddies" on the side. This begs the question as to whether a new sexual identity is emerging. Clearly, the answer is no. This behavior has been happening for millenniums. Most men who have reached a level of maturity and defined their sexual identity will eventually come to a resolution, gay or straight. I strongly believe that because younger people are being exposed to mainstream media incorporating gay characters, themes and advertising with subliminal gay overtones, the awakening about one's sexual identity is happening long before adolescence. Thus there is a segment of the population that operates in a state of identity crises long into their adult years. Again, as most of us know, there is nothing new about that either. For many gay men, the opportunity to have sex with a "straight" guy is their ultimate fantasy. And, many of these closeted "straight" guys realize that. So they are enjoying the best of both worlds, or so they think. Eventually some will choose a sexual identity, some will declare that they are bisexual and others will live in denial for most of their lives. As for Jake, I would never label him. However, I believe that his non-scripted comments in this regard indicate that he may very well be assessing his own sexual identity at some level. Only time will tell.
Posted by: Johnny Lane | Nov 16, 2005 12:57:24 PM
maybe jake sees his character as straight and heath's character as straight simply because they don't seem to be interested in OTHER men.
ok, i really have no idea. lol
Posted by: bobby | Nov 16, 2005 1:45:57 PM
Yes there is something more pathetic Larry - those that take issue with it.
Posted by: steve | Nov 16, 2005 3:13:20 PM
Steve, even MORE pathetic are those that take issue with those that take issue with it.
P.S.--I didn't think they allowed hairdressers to use the internet at work.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 16, 2005 3:57:37 PM
I came out at the age of 31, now 40 and living with two children. To be able to start a 'gay' life seemed to be the biggest present I ever had been given, but pretty soon I learned that it doesn't make that big difference. May be for the others who know me but not really for me. At the end we are all just looking for someone to love or what ever...I don't consider myself as a gay person in the first place but as a man and father.Who happens to be attracted by men.Which is nice.I fully agree with Wayne and as for Jake I'd call him delicious, too
Posted by: Markus | Nov 16, 2005 4:03:27 PM
That's why plato cuamada (burnt money) was in my view, a cool film (though some film critics said it was implicitly homophobic). It told the story of two gay lovers who for all intensive purposes were machoistic, gunslinging bank robbers...who also die in a blaze of glory after one of them strays to the straight side of things, so I suppose I can see the homophobic angle.
In any case, the point is that being gay lovers doesn't imply conforming to or adopting what the mainstream has come to accept as "gay".
My view is that true enlightenment occurs when our reaction is blase towards gays and the idea of being gay. It should be, "oh so you're gay, that's great"- on to the next subject" - neither discriminating positively or negatively.
That way, coming out as gay will be unnecessary, no more necessary than a feminine woman coming out about the fact that she's straight. The reason people "come out" (well, one reason) is because they want to declare their sexual orientation, and not have to perform straight-ness for anyone.
If identity becomes less linked to the performance of an "obvious" sexual orientation, then we're all more free to pick and choose who we want to be, not needing to conform to narrow constraints.
My 2 c...
Posted by: Peter | Nov 16, 2005 4:55:30 PM
Sexuality is a dubious thing and it's not going to get any clearer as time goes on.
As someone in college now I can tell you that the terms "gay" "straight" or "bi" are certainly out there, but just what people really do at night is another story.
Girls with Girls, Guys with Girls, Guys with Guys and a couple three-way combinations are not unheard of.
PS: I'm probably the youngest poster here, but don't ya think the hairdresser comment was a bit childish?
Posted by: Jason | Nov 16, 2005 5:37:48 PM
I quote from the story "...but saying not a goddamn word except once Ennis said, "I'm not no queer," and Jack jumped in with "Me neither. A one-shot thing. Nobody's business but ours." It's even in the trailer. I reckon Jake has a point.
At what point is someone "gay"? When they desire someone of the same sex? Have sex with that someone? Love them (even if no desire is involved)?
And what does the word mean*
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 16, 2005 11:07:47 PM
I spent the summer living in Provincetown, and there I was surrounded by gay men, and managed to not meet a soul who had the vibe I'm really attracted to, just a naturaly masculine well-built man who's direct & self-aware & involved with more than just the gay lifestyle. Then driving back out West I picked up a hitchhiker, a German guy who was going up to Lander Wyoming to ride horses for the month of september. He was devastatingly hot & nice, but I'll never know if he was "interested" since we only rode together for an hour. I don't know about anybody else but I'd give up a 30 yrs of the "gay lifestyle" for one year of a man-2-man relationship, such as it appears Brokeback Mountain is all about. Can't wait to see it ..
Posted by: MuscleOutlaw@aol.com | Nov 17, 2005 12:17:01 AM
If you guys are interested in gossip about Jake, check out ted cassablanca's awful truth on eonline, one of his blind vices is about a gay closeted guy named Toothy Tile making out with guys all over LA. Everyone seems to think it is Jake, would be hot but I dunno.
Posted by: Jeremy | Nov 17, 2005 3:54:22 AM
Well, I bought my first issue of "Details" today mainly because Benoit is a friend. I liked the article very much, but the photography for it was rather sucky!
Posted by: Patrick | Nov 17, 2005 7:21:29 PM
as a woman, i think it's amazing that it is socially acceptable and even considered "hot" for two straight women to experiment sexually.
i could hook up with 10 other women and still identify as straight and no one would even wonder. but as soon as a guy has a sexual experience with another guy - he's considered "queer".
it pisses me off.
personally, i think a straight guy that can find other men sexually appealing is much hotter than one who freaks at the idea of even looking at another guy "that way".
but that's just me.
Posted by: anna | Nov 18, 2005 2:49:45 PM
I can see what he is saying because, in a nutshell, he has to push the point that the film is a universal love story, not just aimed at, or for, the gay crowd. It has to go out to a wider audience that comprises straight folks, and the only way to do that is to make it seem as if it could happen to anybody. Which, it actually could. So I think he is being quite clever in this way. Or more, it's clever marketing.
His statements pertaining to himself are more difficult to fathom, but again, I find myself wondering why he doesn't just offer up a plain and simple 'thanks but no thanks'. Why the 'if it happens' part'? That's been said twice now in different mags (remarkably similar quotes though). That is harder to work out.
I do believe he would like to perhaps come out, based on several other things, but is very closeted. I don't now if he ever will, but I would hope so. The world would be a kinda cooler place with a bi or gay Jake in it.
Posted by: GeeGee | Nov 18, 2005 3:23:50 PM
I also posted this on Trent's blog. :)
Maybe Jakey-poo was falling back on the logic of the story Y Tu Mama Tambien. It's a Mexican film starring hotties Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna. Their relationship is probably a love that they could not comprehend, much like the story in Brokeback Mountain, so they tried to define it as best as they could through their lovemaking. It doesn't mean that they're gay, though.
Posted by: M | Nov 19, 2005 7:34:02 AM
If indeed it is Jake's intention to pander to a more, "universal" audience "by way" of his supposition about an indiscriminate homosexual experince realized, then his intentions could very well backfire. You see Str8s, in particular men, are FAR TOOOOO homophobic enough as it is! The last thing that they would ever want to be made aware of is that...
"Yes, this too could even happen to you big fella; it could happen to anybody."
I can just hear their little phobic, shallow minds, reeling in horror as I text!
Posted by: louis | Nov 19, 2005 8:35:44 PM
I read the story. The movie is based closely on that story. Believe me -- they are gay.
Jake G. should just take a professional stance about a role he played and forget about trying to make it his personal story. He played a part, a character who is gay, and that doesn't by itself say anything about him.
The lady doth protest too much! If you know what I mean. LOL
Posted by: jessejames | Nov 19, 2005 8:45:12 PM
Jesse James, they are not 'gay', in that sense of the word, because the terminology didn't EXIST. You were 'queer' and it was not something to be celebrated. You were brought up to be straight and you didn't have gay sexual counselling or kind folks in the cowboy community that'd enlighten you as to why you had these feelings. This is a very closed view society that believes in the man/woman concept ONLY. They were force-fed the fact that they were straight from birth. They didn't have our modern liberal terms or ways of coming out.
And Jack and Ennis were poorly educated young men who knew nothing about anything, except horses and cattle. How could they have known about the gay issue.
So Jake is pretty much right to approach it in this way. I think he's thought harder about it than these comments make it seem and I think he understands the concepts of 1960's gay culture up to today's and that's what he's basing his comments on. You weren't allowed to be gay so how could you know what you were until this amazing love actually came along and happened to you.
What he's actually saying is that same-sex love exists even in the straightest of places. I can't think of a higher recommendation really. But I think his comments came across as nervous and are older comments from earlier in the year, that's what makes them look like like backpeddling but it's actually not. Whether he says the same thing in the future I don't know, but he definitely seems to have become more articulate SINCE then on these issues. Don't forget, this is the one with the rumours to deal with, he's not married and doesn't have children like Heath - who by default is now off the hook - so of course Jake has to cop all the focus alone. I applaud him for actually giving us this movie and being involved in it. He's done nothing wrong.
Posted by: Eoin Mark | Nov 20, 2005 12:25:12 PM
EOIN MARK, I agree with you. I think the realities of that time are incomprehensible for most anyone (gay or straight) who is this side of retirement age.
Nonetheless, a couple of thoughts about Jake: he may have approached it as being two straight guys, but he never says HE is straight, at least not in that "lady doth protest too much" way. Wouldn't it be cool if he actually is gay/bi yet approached the acting only from the straight angle? That would be acting, wouldn't it? If he was acting--like he's paid to do--then he could well be something other than what he was playing! Maybe he's toying with us, especially considering Schamus' follow-up remark "He really said that?"
Less conjecturally, if anyone could come out as bi right now (gay would be too much, considering the girlfriend) it would be Jake. He comes from a generation that seems open to acceptance of alternate sexualities (remember, blow jobs aren't "sex" for today's kids!), he's established himself as a fine actor, he's very charismatic and so darned cute that he probably would'nt even lose his teen fan base.
Posted by: Rand | Nov 21, 2005 7:10:43 PM
i've never met a man i didn't like...
So far each one seems to have been an individual who has shown his love toward his fellow man in a unique way that makes me think anyone could love anyone if the circumstances were ideal.
We do not live in an ideal world.
Posted by: HisHolynessDPope | Nov 23, 2005 8:41:42 PM
I have a spinal cord injury.. on disability
have asked the government, church, and private investor sector for help witha science research project with no help...
maybe you can if no one esle will help?
Go to www.shilohsoftware.com for an affiliate link to alternative posters...
Richmond, VA
Posted by: rainman | Jun 22, 2006 8:41:10 PM
hi . to me the film captures, all the fears and insceureites, and denial , that a lot off straight men go through when all thhe usual boundries of life as they know it are taken away and all they have too look at are themselfs ....
Posted by: david thomas | Aug 2, 2006 12:00:45 PM
Preved
Posted by: Alex | Jul 27, 2007 5:18:04 PM
Preved
Posted by: Alex | Jul 27, 2007 5:18:17 PM
Recent Comments