Bowie, Bros, and the friction between homophobia and mainstream success

"Bros" bombed badly at the box office and Billy Eichner is belatedly blaming backwards breeders for the debacle. But maybe Bowie's bohemian backbone provides a blueprint for hitting it big.

I saw a film all about the adventures of a LGBTQ man in a movie theater last week. But no, it wasn’t that one.

See, my fave documentary director (Brett Morgen) put out a new doc about one of my fave musicians (David Bowie), so I ponied up at Fandango to see the flick in surround sound and on a massive screen. (Dear Fandango, thanks for the “convenience.”)

Words mean nothing anymore. Like, what could be more inconvenient?

If you’re a Bowie fan, Moonage Daydream is an incredible ride. Remixed live tracks that boom and cook, incredible fan reaction shots (the Ziggy-era one are some of the purest hysteria ever captured on film), coked up skeleton wisdom, and a ridiculously fun montage of Bowie’s dance moves.

Bowie’s sexuality is addressed but only in passing. Example: He perfectly sidesteps an interviewer obsessed with his fluidity…

Interviewer: "What kind of shoes are those? Men’s shoes? Women’s shoes? Or bisexual shoes?"
Bowie: “They’re shoes shoes, silly."

Bowie toyed with sexuality and used it to provoke folks, but it wasn’t his defining feature. He shed his skin repeatedly (and paid a price for it commercially). When you make art that challenges mainstream society, it’s that much harder to achieve mainstream success. Bowie embraced that challenge.

Which brings us to the hubbub over Bros.

To catch you up: Bros, a much-hyped gay rom com, bombed badly at the box office and Billy Eichner, the brains behind it, is belatedly blaming backwards breeders for the debacle. (Is there an award for Best Alliteration in a Substack? If so, please nominate me.)

But is he right?