Readers of my blog know that I am a big fan of "Brokeback Mountain," but not everyone shares my enthusiasm.
One prominent gay blogger, Joe My God, had this to say about "Fakeback Mountain":
Unlike many others, I'm not dying to see two fake gays playing "straight guys who fall in love", especially after enduring unending soundbites of these fake gays reassuring worried America that they do indeed enjoy poontang in real life.
I resent that what may turn out the be the best critically received gay love movie ever, has no gay actors in it. I resent that if two gay actors had been cast, this movie would have zero visibility, regardless of its merit. I resent that America will only come to watch fake gays making fake love and I resent that casting the fake gays was the right business decision to make.
And I resent that this is how it probably always will be.
To which I posted the following reply:
While I respect differing opinions, I just don't get this obsession with casting two gay actors. It's called "acting" for a reason.
Did you complain that River Phoenix didn't really have narcolepsy in "My Own Private Idaho"? ("They should have cast a REAL narcoleptic.") Or that Ali MacGraw didn't really have cancer in "Love Story"and that Julia Roberts wasn't really a diabetic yet she played one in "Steel Magnolias"?
You said it yourself: if this movie had starred two gay actors, it would have been -- at best -- an art house flick that only gays would have seen.
But since THERE ARE NO gay stars to generate this kind of buzz, where is the harm in making a film that will reach more people?
I'll take "Completely Missing the Point" for a thousand, guys ...
P.S. I would have used the Hilary Swank in "Boys Don't Cry" example, but I'm not entirely convinced that Miss Two-Time Oscar Winner doesn't have a shenis hiding there in her Calvin Kleins ...