It’s really too soon to be editorialising on Brokeback Mountain again – particularly as I haven’t seen it and probably won’t have a chance to review it this weekend. There almost isn’t any point arguing about this – from what I can gather, the film doesn’t seem to say anything terribly controversial: when Fred Nile decries it, he’s really just suggesting that he thinks a film about gay cowboys shouldn’t exist, and if someone’s that far gone there’s not really much arguing that you can do with them. So I should just move on.
But then I read this piece by Paul Gray in the Herald Sun. It starts out okay – pointing out that American commentator Steve Bennett is going a bit far in suggesting that Hollywood is trying to “homosexualise America.” Fair call. But in amongst the disclaimers, Bennett’s argument still seems to be getting a fair run from Gray:
Yet Bennett is correct to highlight the apparently growing discrepancy between the interests of the general movie-going public and those who make the movies.
What irked Bennett, and is irking many other vocal citizens on both sides of the Pacific, is the love being showered on movies such as Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie that won four Golden Globes last week.
There are many movies and other pop culture products that highlight minority interest morality themes, and which have been richly rewarded lately.
Gray then cites Transamerica, Syriana, and the TV show Weeds as other examples, before continuing:
Despite a complete lack of nuance in his argument, and a strong hint of personal hostility towards homosexuals in his remarks, critics such as Bennett have one thing clearly right. Hollywood is into minority issues.
And it too often pushes its interests in an in-your-face way that turns off the public.
If we stick to Brokeback Mountain – and the other examples Gray cites are pretty trivial in terms of cultural impact – what’s bizarre about this is the suggestion that a single gay love story could contribute to a “growing discrepancy” between the general public and the stories told by Hollywood. Sure, gays are a minority (in several senses of the word, but the strictly literal sense is enough to work with at the moment). But this is is just one movie. How many heterosexual romances has Hollywood turned out? Given virtually every movie features a heterosexual romance as a subplot, while Hollywood gay romances could be counted almost on one hand, heterosexually oriented films would outnumber gay romances by many thousands to one. Compared to the general population, Hollywood’s representation of homosexuality is disproportionately small.
But this kind of mathematics is beside the point, really. The issue is the selectivity of such concern about over-representation of minorities. If Gray really doesn’t have a problem with gays, why is he so concerned about how often Hollywood chooses to depict them? Maverick cops with no respect for authority are a pretty small proportion of the population: is Gray equally concerned about the disproportionate number of cop movies being made? Can we expect that editorial next week? Brokeback Mountain is a romance that just happens to be about gay men: it is controversial only because a segment of the population has a problem with homosexuality.
Gray is at pains to point out his tolerance to gays in the hilariously revealing middle passage of his article. He cites with approval lyrics from The Producers that note: “Let’s face it, without fags and gypsies, there is no theatre.” It’s kind of like saying “I’m not a racist: I think Asian restaurants are great.” I don’t have a problem with La Cage Aux Folles / The Birdcage style gay humour, as such, but let’s not insist that that’s the only appropriate way for gays to be represented on screen. This is what discrimination is all about: on-screen heterosexuals aren’t defined by their sexuality, and can therefore fill any role from romantic lead to villain, but gays should remain in camp roles that emphasise their contribution to musical theatre.
All this I would normally have just let go without comment: I think those who aren’t homophobic should find the above comments pretty self-evident, and stopping to point these things out is dignifying a debate that shouldn’t exist. Yet the final paragraphs of Gray’s article chart a new low even by Herald Sun standards:
Hollywood has global impact, so the way overseas — including Third World — audiences view movies matters.
It is, if you like, the primary propaganda tool that Western society has today for communicating messages about what it believes in, and what it believes is important.
What message do movies that promote gay pride and non-judgmental attitudes towards drug dealers and transsexuals send to more conservative societies and cultures?
To put the very kindest interpretation on it, it sends a message that the West is a place with vastly different values from theirs.
The “culture wars” were once just a conflict between Left and Right in countries such as America and Australia.
TODAY, “culture war” is all too often a blood-steeped reality, when terrorists show their hatred of Western values by killing people in our cities.
It’s clear that Hollywood liberals and business heavyweights supporting George W. Bush have heavy responsibilities as Western citizens.
The prime responsibility is to be aware of the picture we are creating of ourselves when we create, highlight and most of all, adore a movie such as Brokeback Mountain.
So let me get this straight. The Herald Sun – Australia’s most read daily newspaper – is publishing an opinion piece that implies that we should moderate our expression of tolerance for minority groups on the basis that it might offend would-be terrorists?