....
Jim Emerson, who does the blog over at Roger Ebert's site, is the only thing keeping me from boycotting all-things-Ebert right now. He's injecting the sanity.
From an article today with more ongoing speculation about why Crash beat Brokeback, he writes:
And from another article I read today (which I can't find again for some reason - UPDATE: found it!), someone pointed out that the jokiness that followed in Brokeback's very serious wake is just a way to keep the film, and it's inherent (though only through implication by the film itself - the film never gets anywhere near a soapbox to preach) message of "forcing people into the closet ruins not just their lives, but the lives of all they touch, and for nothing", at arm's length.
I'm not saying the joke's were all unfunny or meant to be hurtful, at least not always, but, well, it's an annoying connetion to make because Brokeback is so much better than Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?, but I don't think I've seen many parodies saying how hysterical the concept of interracial dating was, and I doubt anybody made many cracks - at least in public - about Sidney Poitier's huge black manhood ripping through that little white chick.
Still, that film was a different time, so you wouldn't have Johnny Carson making spit-lube jokes on The Tonight Show. But, as awful as GWCTD is a film in retrospect (have you seen it lately? the film does not hold up), it was a watershed moment for a specific cultural shift, much like Brokeback is today, so it's the best comparison I can come up with.
But America, which Hollywood is very much representative of, as much as Bill O'Reilly would like to say otherwise, still has a lot of work to do when dealing with same-sex love. Sure, in their own homes much of the Hollywood elite couldn't care less and haven't for decades that the costume designer, the hairstylist, that preening leading man, is a big flaming 'mo. And, like Emerson points out, gossip in Tinseltown is pretty much which half are gay, and which half are bi.
But it's still no more than behind-the-doors whispers, and that translates into the films and has for decades - it's alright to say between-the-lines that someone's gay (I could list a million films here, but the ones coming to mind are Fried Green Tomatoes and The Color Purple, where the explicit lesbianism of their respective book's was turned into a hinted at "girl's friendship" in the film versions.), but explicit gay themes in mainstream Hollywood fare just don't happen. Either the gays are funny sidekicks (see My Best Friend's Wedding) or tragic AND sexless (see Philadelphia)...
and here is where I'm seperating Brokeback from the Tragic Faggot category, because yes, the film's a tragedy, the character's lives are miserable - but there a definite shift, because the tragedy is not the fact that these men are gay, not who they are, but where and when they are. Their gayness is the only ray of sunlight in the entire film. It's the good thing, the true thing, and everything else only spoils that truth.
I'm getting off track here - yes, progress is being made, and Brokeback is a very important step in the right direction. Next we need a film where the obstacles are surmountable, and the two guys or gals ride off into the sunset together. Maybe Alma and Lureen can make a go of it for the Brokeback sequel. - Brokeback Valley?
But it's going to take Hollywood, and the rest of the country, some effort to help us make that happen. And they need to stop being so fucking scared already.
Jim Emerson, who does the blog over at Roger Ebert's site, is the only thing keeping me from boycotting all-things-Ebert right now. He's injecting the sanity.
From an article today with more ongoing speculation about why Crash beat Brokeback, he writes:
"Let's be honest. Regardless of why people cast their ballots for the other Best Picture nominees, to argue that bigotry didn't figure at all into the Academy's voting for (or should I say "against") "Brokeback Mountain" is, I think, as ridiculous as to say it was the only consideration. (Two words: Tony Curtis. Don't think he's the only Academy member who objected to the very idea of "Brokeback Mountain.") I don't know why some thought the Oscar results were all about expressing Academy members' liberalism or conservatism. But all the inane gab about how homosexuality is "no big deal" in Hollywood is just ludicrous. (Not Ludacris, ludicrous.) It may be generally true on an inter-personal level, but it were true about the business, why are so many major performers still closeted to the moviegoing public?
Because they're afraid it will hurt them in the industry, that it will cost them work and big bucks. That's why. The concern is not so much that fans will not accept them, but that the decision-makers who have hiring approval will consider the performer's sexuality as yet another "risk factor" for a given a production. In a business that's all about images and illusions of power and control, being able to give the impression of covering one's ass is absolutely paramount, and studio functionaries will do anything to demonstrate sufficient CYA: committee re-writes, marquee casting, test screenings -- anything to at least give the appearance of minimizing risk, even when the result is a movie so devoid of character or individuality that nobody in particular can care much about it. At least the known risk factors were theoretically minimized.
And, as I've said before, the conglomeration of conglomerates known as "Hollywood" today is not so much in the entertainment business as in the pretend-risk-management business. The whole industry is like a Vegas casino where the overall odds may favor the house, but the odds on any given game are completely unknown. So, yes, West Hollywood is indeed a gay mecca. But that has nothing to do with the business end of Hollywood -- which is still a small, snoopy company town where half of the incessant gossip that keeps people awake nights (whether spreading it or fretting over it) is about who's really gay and who's really bi. (You think Kathy Griffin makes all this stuff up? She's a contemporary oral historian!)
Which reminds me: The Oscars are the industry's biggest public relations blitz, when Hollywood tries its darndest to get ready for its close-up and present its very best face to the public. If the biz is so ho-hum about homosexuality, who were the openly gay Oscar presenters this year?"
And from another article I read today (which I can't find again for some reason - UPDATE: found it!), someone pointed out that the jokiness that followed in Brokeback's very serious wake is just a way to keep the film, and it's inherent (though only through implication by the film itself - the film never gets anywhere near a soapbox to preach) message of "forcing people into the closet ruins not just their lives, but the lives of all they touch, and for nothing", at arm's length.
I'm not saying the joke's were all unfunny or meant to be hurtful, at least not always, but, well, it's an annoying connetion to make because Brokeback is so much better than Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?, but I don't think I've seen many parodies saying how hysterical the concept of interracial dating was, and I doubt anybody made many cracks - at least in public - about Sidney Poitier's huge black manhood ripping through that little white chick.
Still, that film was a different time, so you wouldn't have Johnny Carson making spit-lube jokes on The Tonight Show. But, as awful as GWCTD is a film in retrospect (have you seen it lately? the film does not hold up), it was a watershed moment for a specific cultural shift, much like Brokeback is today, so it's the best comparison I can come up with.
But America, which Hollywood is very much representative of, as much as Bill O'Reilly would like to say otherwise, still has a lot of work to do when dealing with same-sex love. Sure, in their own homes much of the Hollywood elite couldn't care less and haven't for decades that the costume designer, the hairstylist, that preening leading man, is a big flaming 'mo. And, like Emerson points out, gossip in Tinseltown is pretty much which half are gay, and which half are bi.
But it's still no more than behind-the-doors whispers, and that translates into the films and has for decades - it's alright to say between-the-lines that someone's gay (I could list a million films here, but the ones coming to mind are Fried Green Tomatoes and The Color Purple, where the explicit lesbianism of their respective book's was turned into a hinted at "girl's friendship" in the film versions.), but explicit gay themes in mainstream Hollywood fare just don't happen. Either the gays are funny sidekicks (see My Best Friend's Wedding) or tragic AND sexless (see Philadelphia)...
and here is where I'm seperating Brokeback from the Tragic Faggot category, because yes, the film's a tragedy, the character's lives are miserable - but there a definite shift, because the tragedy is not the fact that these men are gay, not who they are, but where and when they are. Their gayness is the only ray of sunlight in the entire film. It's the good thing, the true thing, and everything else only spoils that truth.
I'm getting off track here - yes, progress is being made, and Brokeback is a very important step in the right direction. Next we need a film where the obstacles are surmountable, and the two guys or gals ride off into the sunset together. Maybe Alma and Lureen can make a go of it for the Brokeback sequel. - Brokeback Valley?
But it's going to take Hollywood, and the rest of the country, some effort to help us make that happen. And they need to stop being so fucking scared already.
No comments:
Post a Comment