Opinion

‘Gay’ label reveals regression

All the buzz shows just how little we have progressed

By Matt Conyers

Posted on Jan. 26, 2006, at 12:00 a.m.

They are calling it groundbreaking. Revolutionizing. A landmark in film making.

But there’s a catch.

All that high praise comes with a price. A label, a juicy stereotype that no film anywhere should be saddled with no matter what the content is.

Yet, here we are, two months into the Oscar race and front-runner “Brokeback Mountain” is being lassoed with all the wrong publicity. For the film industry, it’s the same old, tired story. However, for society, it’s a step backwards. And a surprising one at that.

Six months ago, when I heard about “Brokeback Mountain,” the story of two male ranch hands who fall for each other, I figured they were releasing the film at the perfect time. Society was moving forward.

Fast forward to today and my prediction has fallen flat on its face. Director Ang Lee’s beautiful film has been met with all sorts of press. Most of it has been positive. Several critics have labeled the film as a breathtaking piece of cinematic history and the best gay cowboy movie around. Wait, hold on a second. What was that?

Yeah, you’ve heard it before: “Brokeback Mountain” is a movie about gay cowboys. It’s a description that has been passed down from regular film fan to the most famous of movie critics. They are all saying the same thing.

“That gay cowboy movie is great,” or how about my favorite description: “This film is going to change everything. I mean seeing two men together and as rough cowboys: Who would have expected it? This is mind-blowing.”

According to the critics and everyone else, the movie is risky, innovative and brave. The reviews, however, are not. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a movie about two Marlboro men in love but rather two people in love. “Brokeback Mountain” is a love story, plain and simple. If people want to talk about how big of a deal it is that two guys are kissing, then honestly, where are we right now?

For a perfect example of just how progressive we are, look no further than what Dennis Quaid was told to say before introducing the film at the Golden Globes. Instead of sticking to a subtle and endearing speech, Quaid was forced to say that Brokeback was a “dick movie,” not a “chick movie.” Yeah, you heard me right. “A Dick Movie.” That immature generalization, however, is not the worst thing I have heard about the film. Three weeks ago, Entertainment Weekly snagged that title. In a story about the film, one of the stars, Heath Ledger, discussed the nerve wracking love scenes.

“Neither of us wanted to do it again any time soon, but in the end it was just like kissing a person.”

Wow, really Heath? I would have never known a person of the same gender counted as an actual person. For all I knew they were just a bunch of armadillos running around.

Look, I don’t pretend to be on the forefront of gay rights. Heck, I am probably the last person you should talk to about the issue, and I feel I have to do a better job handling the topic. I’ve made the jokes and for that I am sorry. But even I, a registered Republican, know when something smells fowl.

By making this film’s topic a big deal, we are highlighting just how truly uncomfortable we are with gay people. If society was really moving forward, there would be no one detailing this film as brave. This would just be another classic on the sliver screen. Instead, we are embarrassing ourselves by acting like we just discovered Atlantis. This isn’t the first movie to discuss gay rights, it’s just the first one to star two matinee idols and be directed by the guy who made “The Hulk.”

Now, of course, the film deserves its share of attention, but it has to be the right kind. Hopefully, the more movies come out depicting gay love, the fewer headlines we see. Otherwise, society has a long way to go.

Matt Conyers likes armadillos.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 12:00 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.