Why would Gene Shalit interpret Brokeback Mountain homophobically?


The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) praised Gene Shalit for his response to Today show viewers who were angry and upset by his comments on Brokeback Mountain. The trouble is that he didn't retract the comments that hurt. He is entitled to his opinion, but in this case his opinion is based on an objectively erroneous view of the film.

Shalit described the character Jack Twist as a "sexual predator". There is no evidence in the film for any such interpretation. Does Shalit think that anyone who pursues their love interest is a sexual predator? Shalit said that Jack "tracks Ennis down and coaxes him into sporadic trysts." (A video of Shalit's commentary is available half-way down this page: Gene Shalit's Critic's Corner.)

All Jack does, after having been out of touch for four years, is send Ennis a postcard by general delivery. The card reads: "Friend this letter is long over due. Hope you get it. Heard you was in Riverton. I'm coming thru on the 24th, thought I'd stop and buy you a beer. Drop me a line if you can, say if your there." All Ennis has to do to avoid seeing Jack again, if he's lost interest, is not answer the card.

Anyone who was paying attention when the two meet again knows that no coaxing is required to renew their love making. Ennis takes the whole day off from work to wait for Jack and they instantly fall into each others arms on meeting. And Ennis is the one who drags Jack off to the side, shoves him against the wall and locks lips with him. Was Shalit sleeping through this scene?

Shalit said he "did not intend to use a word that many in the gay community consider incendiary [...] I very much regret using them." On the other hand he says, "My view of 'Jack' may be contrary to the view of others, but we are all entitled to our opinions." Yes, we are, but he should have been more concerned that his opinion is contrary to the facts.

After GLAAD initially responded to the show, saying that Shalit "used the occasion to promote defamatory anti-gay prejudice to a national audience," GLAAD heard from Gene Shalit's gay son, who defended his father and said his father was not homophobic. Peter Shalit, M.D., is a high profile member of the gay community in Seattle and the author of Living Well: The Gay Man's Essential Health Guide. He said, "I spoke with my dad yesterday about the issues with his review. He had no idea that his review of a movie, and his reaction to a particular character, would be seen as homophobia."

What Peter is not recognizing is that it's entirely possible for him to be right in saying that his father is not homophobic and for it to also be true that his father characterized Jack Twist in a homophobic manner in his review. No doubt Gene Shalit knows that gay men are not in general sexual predators, but the false stereotype that says they are has long been part of the homophobic culture in the U.S.

Isn't it possible that Gene Shalit was inclined by that stereotype, acting on his unconscious mind, to see Jack Twist as a sexual predator, whereas he would never be so inclined to see a heterosexual that way unless he had specific evidence? It is not unusual for people to be somewhat blind to prejudices, unless they make a concerted effort to critically evaluate their beliefs. Perhaps Gene Shalit just wasn't sufficiently critical of himself in this case and ended up saying something that is inconsistent with his consciously held beliefs. There must be some reason why a generally nonhomophobic person would apply a homophobic description to a character in a film in the complete absence of objective evidence.

It's a shame that Shalit can't simply admit that he slipped. What I especially don't understand, though, is why GLAAD would praise him for his lame apology, which completely fails to recognize why people were upset with his review and treats the whole matter as simply a difference of opinion, which is not the case.

Posted: Saturday - January 21, 2006 at 10:47 PM          

©