Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum

AFTER “BROKEBACK”: HOW HOLLYWOOD QUIT GAY CHARACTERS -- Lew Ojeda

<< < (2/2)

CellarDweller:

--- Quote from: x-man on March 09, 2014, 02:05:26 pm ---Since my DVD library began filling up with specifically gay movies I have stopped being so concerned about what mainstream Hollywood does.  There are lots of good LGBT movies, and more continue to be made.  Most have happy endings--but not all--where LGBTs are treated realistically.  I am not asking straight people to watch them.  They probably would not be interested.  Why should they be?  I don't relate, say, to straight romantic situations in the least--just don't shove them down my throat.  In fact maybe it would be better if the mainstream movie makers abandoned their fumbling attempts to take on LGBT themes altogether.  They really don't do it very well at all. 
--- End quote ---

My 'gay' library is expanding as well, and I enjoy watching them all.

serious crayons:

--- Quote from: x-man on March 09, 2014, 02:05:26 pm ---This article continues a debate that has been running in BetterMost for some time now.  I first saw it in the gay-theme movies thread, then especially in serious crayons' sites of Should Straight Actors Play Gay Characters and Dallas Buyers Club.  Both of the latter two sites open with articles by Lowder which bear rereading.

All along, the central issue has been the uncomfortable fit when the LGBT world rubs against the straight world.  Like tectonic plates the two abrade and smash against each other.  Some claim the situation is getting better; sometimes the plates DO slip by each other easily, but more often, cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.  In BetterMost the issue finds its focus in the problems arising from mainstream Hollywood's dealing with gay themes.  All of the BM sites discussing this attack it from a slightly different angle, but basically it is the same question.  And basic to it all is the assumption that mainstream film maker's confrontation of things gay is somehow an accurate reflection of how LGBTs are regarded in contemporary culture.  Those of you who followed these threads will know that serious crayons and I have been most vocal on opposite sides of this issue.  She is saying (with good examples) that stereotypical and agenda-oriented depictions of LGBTs on screen are so good by now that we can even afford to be shown in an unflattering light, with "warts and all," and that straight people will not immediately extrapolate that all LGBTs are so suffering, sick, or dangerous.  Society in general, she might say, has wised up--and continues to do so.  She might point with pride to mainstream Hollywood's treatment of the LGBT world directly showing how the straight world REALLY feels about us.

I'm not so sure.  I HAVE moved from believing that the gay-as-tortured-victim motif and offensively ugly portrayals of LGBTs (Boys in the Band, Cruising, etc.) were not-too-subtle attempts by straight mainstream movies to warn us that being LGBT is wicked, sick, and to be avoided at all costs--even if that means drugs, lobotomies, imprisonment or death--something no parents would want for their children.  While some might say that society has become more enlightened and this is directly shown by the latest gay-theme movies and television dealing with gay themes, the darker side of me wonders if it isn't a question of the straight world just becoming more subtle in its attack.  I don't want to press that one too far because someone will demand proof of my dark agenda from today's movies and television.  I am not sure it is there.  This is because, I am convinced, the true state of the straight world's attitude towards LGBTs  is not shown on the screen any more.  Hollywood is far too clever these days (well, usually) to repeat the absurd and offensive themes and portrayals of the past.  In truth, the battle has moved on from the movie and television screens to the law courts and parliaments around the world.  I don't have to remind you of what has been happening there lately.  (And guys, let's stop using the Netherlands, Canada, and Massachusetts as our basis of comparison; let's be more realistic and wide-reaching.)

Ojeda's article suggests that Hollywood has dealt with the problems I have raised in 2 ways: first, by virtually ignoring LGBT themes since BBM, and second, a few films and television shows continue to be made but with a slight change of focus to make them more acceptable.  But at heart, nothing has really changed.  I think the article spells it out rather well.

The article concludes by more or less asking the question I asked long ago on the Straight Actors Playing Gay Characters thread: Why should we even expect mainstream Hollywood to make LGBT movies?  We are only 5% of the population; money talks; we can't buy ourselves into Hollywood.  Ojeda's answer to this question is the one I offered then:  We shouldn't expect them to.  I would go on to suggest that we shouldn't even WANT them to, because they will continue to get it wrong.  We should instead concentrate on what I call "gay movies" (as opposed to "gay theme" movies), made by LGBT studios like Here!, Wolfe, TLA, and others, who don't worry about  how it will play in Topeka or Boise or Uganda or Russia.

Since my DVD library began filling up with specifically gay movies I have stopped being so concerned about what mainstream Hollywood does.  There are lots of good LGBT movies, and more continue to be made.  Most have happy endings--but not all--where LGBTs are treated realistically.  I am not asking straight people to watch them.  They probably would not be interested.  Why should they be?  I don't relate, say, to straight romantic situations in the least--just don't shove them down my throat.  In fact maybe it would be better if the mainstream movie makers abandoned their fumbling attempts to take on LGBT themes altogether.  They really don't do it very well at all. 
--- End quote ---

I have only two brief responses:

1) I don't disagree that strongly with you. I think it's mostly a half empty/half full situation.

2) One thing that might help would be to think less about Hollywood and gay people as "them" and "us." Plenty of people in Hollywood are gay, and more gay people can aspire to work in movies, and when people have the jobs and power they can tell their own stories. Easier said than done, I know -- women are struggling with this very thing. It's hard to get the jobs and hard to get the financing. But I do think it's the most constructive approach. Gus Van Sant can tell stories about gay people that seem true to his experiences. Ellen Page can take roles that present lesbians in ways she finds valid. And so on.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page