01/18/2006
Talk About Brokeback, Just Not the Gay Part
Last night's Tonight Show appearance by Heath Ledger was fairly remarkable, because Ledger and Leno managed to talk for a solid 15 minutes, much of it about Ang Lee and Brokeback, and never mention the word gay or anything approximating it.
Ledger: "I just looked at it as an incredible opportunity to play this, you know...complex, lonely figure..."
The omission seemed fairly obvious to me (so obvious that I actually went back and watched the fairly dull interview again), and made me wonder whether or not Heath's handlers are being calculated about the image of their rising star. Gay is not an easy word to avoid when you're talking about Brokeback Mountain.
Meanwhile, Ledger also appears in this month's GQ. I really like the following image. It reminds me of (a cleaned up version of) one of Avedon's portraits from the American West.
Heath Ledger: Hollywood Maverick [just jared]
Posted 10:06 AM 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.
Raaats, I missed that!! Why oh why did I miss that!!!!
Posted by: gabe | Jan 18, 2006 10:14:53 AM
I have to admit I'm growing a bit weary about the exsicing of the gay aspect of a gay movie. It's really troubling, escpecially when you note how they go out of their way to show the anne hathaway and michelle williams embracing as part of the trailer and leave out any contact between the two leads. This is part of the reason why I'm not disappointed that Heath does not win. He and Jake have not handled this particularly well.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 18, 2006 10:15:09 AM
I could look at Heath Ledger all day long.
Posted by: Karol | Jan 18, 2006 10:21:14 AM
BUT Andy, when Jakey was on last Friday they certainly talked about the gay thing. I hope we are just reaching and there is not an effort to degay this film now. But alas, I defer to you on this subject, you know a ton more than I.
Did you also note when Heath told Jay that the script was "perfect"?
What was up with how fidgety he was? Was he just really nervous, uncomfortable, what gives?! I thought it was cute how Jay said he would see him at the Oscars and we all know they have yet to be posted (the noms).
Posted by: Chef Boyardee | Jan 18, 2006 10:46:44 AM
What I am still livid about is Dennis Quaid's intro to the clip of Brokeback at the Globes on Monday.When he said"...it rhymes with chick flick" my stomache turned.Come on!Now, in all seriousness,I'm gay AND I HAVE MADE JOKES ABOUT THE MOVIE.However introducing a clip for a nominated film should be a reverent moment NOT a moment for inflamatory comments about said film.Imagine if his joke had been about the Color Purple or Schindler's list! People would have been wild.I think it speaks to us as a people that we are not!
I think interviews I have seen with Ledger and gyllenhall are equally troubling.When jake was setting up the clip he "brought' to Leno he said something to the effect of"Okay here's where we get it on,no kidding oohh everyone just changed the channel" WHAT ? HE IS IN THE FILM AND MAKING COMMENTS LIKE THAT!I doubt that he meant harm but people are just not thinking.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 18, 2006 10:50:28 AM
Maybe Jay's People didn't want to stir anything up and shock his ancient viewers.
Posted by: Naked Boy | Jan 18, 2006 10:52:16 AM
Actually Chris, Jake said, when introducing the clip, "this is where SOME people turn the tv off." It is a bit different in the context.
Posted by: NY | Jan 18, 2006 10:54:09 AM
His handlers want Heath to have his cake and eat it, too, so to speak. They want him to get all the acclaim he deserves, but want him to distance himself from the g-word. Sad.
Posted by: Ken | Jan 18, 2006 10:54:25 AM
I agree w/ Chef. Jake has talked a lot about the gay aspect of it. Heath has focused more (it seems) about the universality of it. I don't think a single person in the US DOESN'T know it's about two men falling in love. Yup..the marketing has pointed up some 'non-gay' aspects.......because the marketers want 'non-gays' to feel compelled to see the movie too. I just went and saw it last night for the second time. For whatever reason, I cried last night....something I didn't do at all the first time I saw it. But I cried because of how personal some of it felt. Trying to make this movie represent the 'end all' of gay movies is just as wrong as ignoring what it holds for all people. The non-stop postings focusing on this almost as a beauty contest/litmus test certainly does a disservice to anyone who is straight and loves it. You can't have it both ways. It's like the gay men and women who seem to only see a movie about the unfairness and brutality of the 'str8' world against 2 gay men. I guess that is a part of the movie.....but not to me. The damage that Ennis' causes wherever he goes because of his cowardice is the horribly sad point of the movie to me....I keep on going back to the last scene with his daughter whom he so clearly doted on his whole life......the only person he could comfortable channel his love...the person who became most like the 'better' him (bottled up, but a little more able to express love). In the end, she left him alone with nothing more than a piece of clothing. Alone in that miserable trailer, there he makes his declaration of love to Jake. To me, that story isn't really about gay. If it were just that, I'd write this movie off as another simplistic gay drama. So, if a straight actor wants to emphasize what it means to him as a straight man....well, then good for him.
Posted by: PSMike | Jan 18, 2006 11:11:19 AM
Maybe he just wanted to talk about the movie as a movie not a gay movie. What's wrong with talking about how great Ang Lee is to work with. It is the deepest charater the Heath has played maybe he wanted to discuss that and the craft.
I know we are sensitive boys but sometimes we get carried away.
Posted by: Donald | Jan 18, 2006 11:12:10 AM
I think Donald has it summed up quite nicely!
Posted by: Mark | Jan 18, 2006 11:20:57 AM
Is there any chance that you could get the full Leno/Ledger interview on video, so we could watch it here...?
Posted by: Alan | Jan 18, 2006 11:26:21 AM
Ledger is always a wreck when it comes to audience interviews. He's just nervous and not very open. As far as the lack of "gay" referencing about "Brokeback", that was not evident during Gyllenhaal's interview with Leno. Unless you're living under a rock, haven't we heard enough of the word "gay" when speaking of this film (gay cowboy movie, etc.?) Ledger has been quite outspoken of any narrow-minded "shots" taken at the movie. I really don't think there is an intentional effort to avoid "Brokeback's", yes GAY, subject matter.
Posted by: Matthew | Jan 18, 2006 11:33:25 AM
You know, a while ago my boyfriend had to go to dinner with a client who was - to say the least - homophobic. He went on and on about how San Francisco is filled with "them" and how he didn't feel safe here, etc. - and my partner is there, with his boss, his assistant, and the HR manager (who are all awesome, btw, and were letting him call the shots about this issue).
He just sat there, and didn't say anything.
After the dinner, the guy says to him, says to my partner - "So, what does your wife do?" This is after three hours, right, and he notices his ring? He turns to the guy and says "My partner, David, is a trainer who works with AIDS Service Organizations and young gay and bisexual men's community centers across the US to set up HIV Prevention Community Building Projects."
Well, the guy almost choked on his tongue.
See, I would have gone off, railed about the first comment - well, maybe not railed, but perhaps said something terse - as soon as the guy opened his mouth.
But the BF - no, not him. He lets people coast and coast and coast and dig their own hole. Some would call it avoidance conflict. I've come to see it as strategy.
Maybe Heath is doing us right by chatting amiably about this role as "perfect" and Ang as a director and how universal the character feels. Perhaps, and I've thought this before, we've come to a place where we have to be careful where we see homophobia and oppression. Not blind, not willing participants, just - careful.
Posted by: david | Jan 18, 2006 12:06:04 PM
oh yeah, I totally realize that because of all the writing I do on this issue my senses may be more finely tuned (and reactionary) than the average citizen.
I just thought it was interesting and wanted to make a note of it, not be a hysterical hen.
Posted by: andy | Jan 18, 2006 12:12:37 PM
I think it was Pauline Kael who famously observed films are about two things: Kiss, kiss and bang, bang. That means sexual fantasies and violence. The fact of the matter is the majority of the ticket buying public out there is not fantasizing about two ranch hands getting it on and may even be repulsed by the concept so I think it's inevitable that there's going to be some equivicating around the content. It seems to me Ang Lee did a terrific job of threading that needle in this market based business and managed to preserve the integrity of his fine film.
Posted by: Eric | Jan 18, 2006 12:15:20 PM
You could never be a hen Andy. Perhaps you may be a little close to this issue but the passion you bring to it is a good thing. I hope they give you a cut of the profits. I am not sure the sensitive boys out there would have embraced the movie as well as we did without your subtle little pushing.
Posted by: Donald | Jan 18, 2006 12:25:17 PM
I am of two minds on the whole excising of the word 'gay.' Is it really a sign of acceptance? I want to believe that its just no longer worth mentioning. Yet, I am sure this is marketing and handling. Despite all the talk about America being finally ready for gay love openly and frankly on the screen. Despite the fact this moving is selling out even in the heartland, hollywood is still scared to talk about it openly. I don't think we're being too sensitive here. It's at least noteworthy.
http://www.michaellenington.typepad.com
Posted by: Michael | Jan 18, 2006 12:37:54 PM
Sensitive or not, Thank you Andy for starting such an interesting discussion.Did the Dennis Quaid comment bother anyone else or just me?
Posted by: Chris | Jan 18, 2006 1:02:41 PM
I thought that Heath, Jake, and Jay all acquitted themselves well. Jay was respectful without being annoying (thank God he didn't ask any of those "was it icky to kiss a boy?" questions). Heath has a lot of nervous energy (he has said that the hardest part about playing Ennis was learning to be still). I don't think anyone was avoiding the gay thing, and I can't blame them for wanting to focus on the love story and the characters and the script.
As for Dennis Quaid, who gets less hot every time he opens his mouth, at least no one seemed to laugh at his idiotic "joke."
Posted by: lemurgrrrl | Jan 18, 2006 1:19:01 PM
After the Dennis Quaid comment I looked over at the man and said "did he really say that?, what an ass" To which the man replied "Yep he did but he is still so freakin hot" We did find it offensive and the reaction of the crowd let Dennis know he flopped, Heath and Michelle did not seem amused either.
I am glad other were less than amused.
Posted by: Donald | Jan 18, 2006 1:19:10 PM
Why must the word gay be used when discussing the movie Bareback Mounting? Isn't it implicit?
Posted by: Psychedelic Pariah | Jan 18, 2006 1:36:07 PM
The Dennis Quaid comment also bothered me, but at this point, I am not sure if those were his own words, or the writers'.
I also watched the interview last night, and you can totally tell how nervous Heath was. At no times was he "in charge" of the whole conversation. So, who knows, maybe his "handlers" were trying to protect him, even though I doubt it (why appeared on the cover of Advocates?) Maybe Focus Feature markerting team had something to do with it. And again, I doubt it. But maybe Jay was trying to avoid to use the word "gay" because he is known to be sensitive when interviewing people, and that he was just being careful after all those "gay cowboy" jokes he has done (including the first half of his opening on the same night of the interview.) Maybe, just maybe, we are the ones who are being too sensitive. Seriously, is there anyone in the world who has heard of the movie does not know that it is about two cowboys in love with each other? Why keep talking about the obvious, when you really want people to know that "love is a force of nature", and how universal it is.
When I first heard that there were not going to be many sex scenes, I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed. After all, "gay" films (not mainstream Hollywood ones, because we all know that they are all jokes.) have been a genre of its own with its own formulas. Over the years, after watching many "queer" films, I have come to expect tons of eye candies with many sex scenes. But I have to admit, when I saw the movie, I was so glad that the sex scenes were done to a minimum. They are not the selling points, but are just parts of the stories.
My last comment is that, one of my favourite thing about Brokeback Mountain, and how it can change people's minds is that, it does not try to do so in a didatic way, but rather, Ang and his team knows that by just telling the story the best they can, the message will be clear and even more effective. (Think about how someone keeps nagging you and tell you what to you, versus something you experience yourself and decide what you want to do.)
It is NOT their battle to fight for us. I am just glad that they are our allies and am grateful for what they have done for us. If we want to win this, we can only do it ourselves. Keep attacking our allies, who else is going to help us? ("Oh, it is not GAY enough for me...") Bottom line is, as far as I am concerned, when they finished the film, and when they released it and with a smart marketing campaign (and this inludes not to through the "gay" theme in your face, but not necessarily avoiding it), gay rights issues are again in many people's minds.
Sorry, this is such a long post, but these are my 2 cents.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 18, 2006 1:36:51 PM
Why is the word "gay" so important? If they say it's about two dudes who fall in love, does it diminish what it is about? If they say, the characters are "bisexual," should gays get upset? A lot of younger same-sex oriented people have chunked the word gay anyway as containing a lot of cultural baggage, while still being open and accepting of their same-sex identity. I think we need to get beyond the "gay" word.
Posted by: Mark | Jan 18, 2006 1:58:38 PM
I was quite suprised/impressed by the clip they played on Leno last night. There's no way around the gay angle in that clip.
Nevertheless, the marketing has always been a bit hypocritical. Roger Ebert once detailed this in a piece that described the exclusively heterosexual nature of the "for your consideration" Oscar print campaign.
Lastly the lack of offence over the Quaid remark shows how far the gay community needs to travel. Still wait'n for the straight "massa" to GIVE freedom & self respect. You'd think that this movie would have motivated people to say "enough".
But hey, you can never go wrong a w fag joke, right?
Posted by: Hadassah Weinreb | Jan 18, 2006 2:17:13 PM