I think you're not giving JG a fair shake. This is an interview we're reading, after all. It's not like he sat down with Word and cranked out a Master's thesis on the topic. Granted most of us have long-ago stopped over-relying on filler words and sounds like "like" "you know" and "um." But I still use them - especially when speaking about a topic in which I am not particularly well-versed.

His lazy diction aside, the fact is, as I have reiterated many times to many different people since reading JG's comments, he is merely trying to get his mind wrapped around a concept upon which even the gay academy cannot come to a firm conclusion - i.e., is homosexuality something you are or something you do.

This is precisely Proulx's thesis, I feel. Ennis and Jack remain "not gay" because they do not take the step of moving in together, of setting up home as two men in love, which is kind of the hallmark of gay life in the modern era. They are proto-gay; they feel the tug toward spending all their time together but are prevented from taking the step because of family, society, etc.

Gay life changed a great deal in the late 60s and 70s. To think that it was ever as it is now is just silly. There was no conception of gay in Wyoming in the 60s. There were queers and cocksuckers, but they too probably had wives and kids at home. What Ennis and Jack envision (which granted did have a precedent, viz. the quote above about the two other dudes who lived together) was a life completely apart from the standards, the "loop" of which Ennis speaks.

I do not think it is so far out for JG to make the comments he did. I think he merely is trying to articulate something and does so inartfully. But, again, I dare any of us products of late 20th Century homosexuality to make a definitive statement about the ontology and precise nature of homosexual attraction.

Hi Michael, first of all thanks for the hot movies you make. I love em! Then a small critisism to your address: so the actor is vague in his explanation how he perceives the character he portrayes in the movie. But why so irritated by it? Because he doesn´t say what you Want to hear? His motives to be in the movie may be very different than we hoped for. He interprets his role differently than you, but in the end of the day who cares? It´s about the movie/ story right. Let everybody think about it what they want, incl. the actors.
Why hope the actor is the same as the character(s) they portray? Running after our own prejudice, "he plays a gay so he must be one too".

I am very glad that Michael is gay, in the shower and every other place. He is a role model that a guy can be gay, intelligent, and very succesful.

I am already so over this guy, who as the son of Hollywood parents has been expertly marketed to be the "next big thing" but like so many others before him, he just does not come across as a star on the screen. The Wall Street Journal had an article about this not too long ago. So regarding his responses, to me they sound like inane publicist spin, and Michael you are spot-on to point out how ridiculous they sound, but you are swimming upstream. Most guys I know thinks the sun rises and sets on Jake G. (....and Anderson Cooper.)

I actually don't know Jake G. Never seen him but have heard of him. It is unfortunate that actors are asked their opinion. It would be much better to let the work speak for itself.
From the previous comments I gather the story is set several generations ago, in Wyoming that would make it exponentially even longer ago. I think that the actual characters, had they existed, would be overwhelmed with feelings they have no ability to understand let alone upon which to act. Michael, you could stand for a moment to consider that your feelings are not universal, just for a moment. They are completely valid, but not universal.
It is actually my only criticism of you.

Well said Michael.

Those of you who think Jake's "interpretation" (which is a really a dumb-ass, or possibly willful misreading) is somehow valid are nuts.

As the excerpts in the post prove, CLEARLY these are gay guys (call them homosexual if you like) who fall in love, are terrified that if they live their lives openly, they will get killed (as Earl was), only to have one of them meet that fate.

That you can read this and not get it is pretty damning. It's not long. It's not complicated.

How fucked up is it that meat puppet Jake's promoting these characters as somehow too special to be gay? As though two lonely men who fall in love do so because they're lonely and not because, duh, they're gay?

Now, you may argue that the actors are marketing it like this because they're worried that a film about straight up gay dudes will be a turn off. But considering Jake's mangled speech, he can't possibly be devious.

I agree for the most part with your take on this subject, but in the end who cares what this guy thinks. He's an actor not a philosopher or queer theorist --the problem is that celebrity has become this unwieldly monster; we look to the famous for all the answers, we celebrate good looks and breeding over real brilliance. Unfortunately, doing a gay role is deriguer for all the up and coming young actors; it gives them edge or something. I just wish that these straight actors riding to fame on the backs of gay characters need to understand that --yes this is an acting job, but this fiction is drawn from reality, and the reality is gay people are not accepted by dominant culture here in the US, and we still suffer from prejudice in the face of the law. And when he states, they arent' gay, how are to read this? I suspect the subtext is that "gay" is something to be avoided as if it would taint this MAN ON MAN love, I guess because they arent living in weho or in chelsea their man on man love isn't gay? wtf!? What is gay then? I hardly would look to jake for the answer to this question. Jake has his youth and good looks now, but in the end maybe he should have finished college.

Well, I was never one to believe that a college education confers literacy on anyone. One can make it through college and still be fairly inarticulate. Mr. G's comments seemed to me to be a badly phrased attempt to point out the universality of love. His generation is pushing the notion that the terms gay and straight are limiting, that we are fluid in our attractions. So he declares that the cowboys are not gay, they are human. They find love because of the situation, not because of how they define themselves.

But I could be completely wrong.

You should publish this story it was very well done.

Yes, David, you are wrong.

Brokeback Mountain isn't simply about two people falling in love. If one of the characters was a woman, it wouldn't be this story at all. They were both unattached when they met. If this was a "universal" love story (the bs that Jake is spouting) and not a uniquely gay one, the story would cease to exist.

The WHOLE POINT of the story, sad as it is, is that they're in this awful situation PRECISELY because they are gay. And precisely because they live in a world where it's so unacceptable that you barely think of it (to the point where they are deep denial about it until it's clear that it's not a momentary thing), and get killed for being out. And yet they fall in love, and can't help but fall in love, and can't find a way to deal with that...which is what makes it so damn sad and moving and powerful.

Here's another idiotic quote from Jake: "My character could have been played by a woman and it would have made just as much sense."

How dumb is that? If his character was a woman, what on earth would stop the other lead from having a full-on, open relationship? This isn't a story about two married people cheating on their spouses. They were young and single when they met. The whole friggin drama is based on the impossibility of two homosexual, gay men being together despite being so in love.

It most certainly is NOT about a universal couple that could well be straight.

What the idiot actor is trying to say is: even though this is a story about two gay guys (and, fact is, it is), the theme of tragic love IS universal, and that's why this story has such wide appeal. All people fall in love, and many are heartbroken. And while the situation that causes the heartbreak here is uniquely gay, heartbreak is universal. This is a powerful love story, a terribly sad love story, and everyone--gay and straight--can relate to it.

Jake has to stop putting down the gay aspect as though it's trivial, or, worse, as though it doesn't exist. Of course these are gay characters. There's nothing wrong with saying this is a gay cowboy story (unless you think "gay" is a bad thing). But you can also say--as he should have--that you don't have to be gay to get this. Just like I didn't have to be straight to cry through The Notebook!

i love the fake jellyhole nickname.

some actors need not to attempt so desperately to appear "in touch" with deeper meanings of the story.

Michael.........Thank you so much for the pictures of Wilfried. It is clear to see why he was chosen as Out magazines Porn Star of 2005. I met him while I was visiting New York this past Spring. Along with being sexy, he is also very charming........a GREAT guy!

While we are all entitled to our beliefs I feel that we all should be less critical of others. I mean give me a break, there are more important things going on in the world why give a rats @ss how a star gives an interview.I love the blog btw.

BROKEBACK MOUNTIN'? I thought that was what happened when Ruben Studdard tried to top someone!

There is no such thing as "gay".

I am so glad that Brandon Aguilar reminded us all that there is no such thing as "gay." It will make the perfect line for me to scream, the next time I am getting fucked up the ass.

I was confused too, but I thought maybe he meant so such thing as "so called" gay- like gay in quotes. Brandon- explain!

"Gay" is the eugenic term for homosexual, meaning that homosexuality is only defined by genes and not the complex interaction of genetic disposition, environmental factors and psycho-social histories that actually make a homosexual. It's like the naive notion that criminal behaviour is inherited instead of it being (again) a complex interaction of class, upbringing, perception and psycho-social interactions. The Fascists, Afrikaaners, Nazis and Zionists all use (or used in some cases) eugenic methods to determine the "purity" of their individual populations and the use of the term gay is really offensive to many (myself included).

I'm sure Jake's people are very concerned about his earning power in the future, and have given him this concept of it being a love story, not a Gay love story, to be repeated to the press to try (in their minds) and make the film appeal to a wider audience.

I'm not as articulate as JG, but....you're hot!

Just want to tell u that I love your Blog. U have such good stuff for us Gays their. Especially the PEP info u gave us.
Thanks for keeping us informed! That's very nice of u.
Take care Michael

Your entitled to your own opinion on JG but that was a bit harsh. Who care about his english skills, he makes alot of money. Jake is allowed to interpret the story any way he wishes. I agree with his view. Gays are becoming as bad as straight guys. I appreciate JG's openmind but your totally trying to pull him as gay from his role in a movie. Leave his personal life out of it just cause you seem obsessed with his own orientation. your doing what i would call straight bashing....the opposite of gay bashing...that makes you suck just as bad. Sounds like your in search of a Gay Hero and he just missed the mark. JG's take on his role is very accurate i believe. yes it is a homosexual acts that portray him as gay but his take as a straight man couldn't get any better. He's straight for goodness sake. I think what he is trying to say all in all is to respect the movie as a love story since we all relate to that. and stop trying to label him, hell respect him for trying. The Adam Levine comment was a bit much...sounds like you have a fantasy you wish fullfilled or something.