Queer Films

Well, that’s a wrap! Thanks to all of our followers for being with us through our viewings!...

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:52:41 -0700

Well, that’s a wrap!

Thanks to all of our followers for being with us through our viewings! We really enjoyed maintaining this blog, and look forward to watching more queer movies in the future, as we hope you do too!

It is the end of our postings though, as spring quarter draws to a close. This blog will remain up for future reference, however.

Be kind to one another;
Goodbye!

Kelsey and Brontë

Boys Don't Cry

Sat, 26 May 2012 15:00:29 -0700

The 1999 film Boys Don’t Cry changed the face of queer films. It was the first time when a mainstream film portrayed a transgender character that was not demonized. Hilary Swank’s character of Brandon (or her birth name Teena) was not shown as a killer, a sexual predator, or a deranged psychopath. Prior to this film, the most well-known representation of a trans* person was as a dangerous and deranged serial killer in The Silence of the Lambs. Due to this character’s sexual identity, they are “otherized” and deemed abnormal and therefore dangerous. In The Silence of the Lambs the killer is self-castrated and kills young women in order to stitch together a female body suit. The killer’s motive is to become a biological woman and his issues come from this inability to inhabit the appropriate body. And at the end, “normality” is asserted when the biologically and identifying female triumphs over the “unnatural” transgendered person. (The killer from Silence of the Lambs is pictured below)

Until Boys Don’t Cry, female-to-male trans* people were largely unrepresented in media. There have been a number of movies throughout history where women cross-dress in order to gain or attain something or go undercover and there has even been some representations of lesbians or even masculine women but there has been little widely-shown media on female-born but male-identified individuals.

Throughout the film, people around Brandon are constantly telling him that he is just a very masculine lesbian woman. Brandon, however, knows that he is a man, even if no one around him will believe it. When their friend Candace finds out that Brandon has a vagina (by finding her tampons), Tom and John strip her down to see her vagina and later rape her, believing her to be a woman. The brutal rape is done in order to control and exert power over Brandon by objectifying and otherizing her and therefore “legitimizing” the abuse.

The events in this film were based on the real life events of Brandon Teena (pictured below), an American trans man who was raped and murdered in Humboldt, Nebraska in 1993. More information can be found here. A Girl Like Me is another film about the true story of Gwen Araujo, a young transgendered woman who was brutally murdered by four men in 2002.

Westboro Baptist Church: Ironic Pranksters or Actually Just Dumb?

Wed, 23 May 2012 15:35:36 -0700

(Probably actually just dumb)

This week, we watched “For The Bible Tells Me So,” a documentary on the intersection of homosexuality and religion, and the ways in which they clash and coexist.

Since I already touched on religion in my last post, I’ve decided to do a more specific topic, being the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, Kansas. The group has been around since 1967, where it began as a not-for-profit association, but wasn’t really well known outside of its hometown until 1998, when the group protested at the highly publicized funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay man murdered in Laramie, Wyoming for his homosexuality. Since then, the WBC has been protesting many events including funerals, but also picketing around organizations, such as schools or synagogues.

Although the hate group have the word “Baptist” in their name, they are in no way affiliated with any mainstream Baptist organizations. Mark Potok, from the Southern Poverty Law Center claims that the WBC’s unbelievably extreme views have ostracized them from any other religion or belief system. He says that they are a relatively small group of people who have no friends on the far right, the far left, or anywhere in between. In fact, the majority of the group’s approximately 100 members consist of the founder Fred Phelps’ own family and descendents. Shirley Phelps-Roper, the church spokeswoman, says that the group protests things like the funerals of soldiers as a means of telling people that God took these lives to punish America for tolerating homosexuality. They protest to make people angry. One of the major differences I’ve noticed with this church from any other is that they don’t want to convert people. They want others to go to hell. Genuinely, they do. I think that fact alone makes this group into something else entirely; putting aside all the hate speech they spread, this makes them different.

At its core, religion is meant to help people live better lives. It often combines two strong motivators, hope and fear. I think that one of the main things that turns people off religions is the fear element; it seems a bit rude to use emotional blackmail to get people to agree to join you, doesn’t it? But hope. A powerful thing! Pretty easy to make and incredibly difficult to extinguish. Hope is like weeds of the mind; the flowery part may be chopped off and stomped on and mutilated, but it just keeps on coming back.

The WBC doesn’t particularly use either of these things. They don’t want people to join them! They want to be hated. Really, if I didn’t know better, I’d say it was an elaborate, ironic inside joke within the group. They’re mostly intelligent people too, is the thing. Most are college educated, and a number of them are rather successful lawyers. They have a law firm in their hometown of Topeka that does quite well for itself. People of the town definitely don’t like them, but if they need to win a court case, they will come to them. So the group has money and they know their rights (which is how they win when they’re sued for picketing at funerals.)

Again though…it all seems like an elaborate prank to me. They’re just too over the top. Their website is titled “godhatesfags.com” for gods’ sakes. It basically just has their picket schedule on it, which they only publicize so that counter-attacks will arrive with them. Their signs are kind of comical really, with their cheesy tie-dye gradients and bold fonts stating things like “homo sin” and then a crude stick figure depiction of anal sex. It seems like something that people would do to make fun of the stereotypical redneck conservative Americans who hate gay people, doesn’t it? When the laws are finally fixed so that queer people have equal rights, I’m half expecting them to all drop their signs and say, “finally! You all took way too long to figure this out!” It is all rather hilarious, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, the other part of me understands that despite being intelligent, some people are really just dumb as stones; and I recognize that they are in fact probably being completely serious. And it wouldn’t really explain their anti-Semitic sentiments too well. Maybe their extremism and the level of mockery they receive will convince normal homophobic people that they really are being silly; so prank or not, perhaps it’ll have the needed effect on people.

Sources

NPR

Anti-Defamation League

But I'm A Cheerleader

Fri, 18 May 2012 14:50:43 -0700

This week we watched a really entertaining movie called But I’m A Cheerleader. It is a 1999 satirical comedy directed by Jamie Babbit and written by Brian Wayne Peterson. It stars Natasha Lyonne as Megan, a cheerleader who is sent to True Directions in order to “cure” her lesbianism. Once there, Megan slowly comes to embrace her sexuality.

In my opinion, one of my most interesting parts of this film are the scenes at True Directions where men and women are taught to act according to their supposed gender norms. Being a satirical film, this is shown through the bright pink clothing for girls and blue clothing for boys. The girls are taught to clean, change baby diapers, and sit nicely while the boys are taught to fix cars, play football, and chop wood (though most all of them aren’t very successful with these lessons). Of course real life is not this conspicuous and these scenes are meant to be comedic but only because they reflect real-life social and gender expectations. Although not all women dress in all pink and men in all blue, the ideas behind the gender binary is still prevalent in reality. In addition to the gender-strict activities, the kids are also taught to identify the “root” of their homosexuality, such as being sexually abused or their mother being married in pants. Again, this is satirical but is of course based on real life ideas, as the writer based the film on his experiences in a gay reparative therapy camp.

For this post I am going to be focusing on these social constructions of gender roles and heteronormativity. The basis of most of the theories explored here will be based on readings from Feminist Theory: A Reader, specifically writing by Judith Halberstam and Anne Fausto-Sterling, both feminist theorists focused on gender binaries and queer studies.

In the introduction to her book Female Masculinity, Judith Halberstam discusses The Bathroom Problem. The Bathroom Problem comes up when people with non-binary gender identities don’t feel safe and respected going into gender-specific public bathrooms. For example, someone born with male genitalia may identify as a woman but not feel comfortable using a public women’s restroom as they run the risk of being ostracized for using it. Likewise, someone with female genitalia but male identifying may fear using the men’s restroom in public, fearing violence or shame. Or someone may not identify with either gender and not feel comfortable in either bathroom! Or someone may identify with their birth gender but simply choose to dress more androgynously and still feel unsafe in gender-specific restrooms. This is something that many cisgendered individuals often overlook because it is not an immediate problem they have to deal with. However, this is the cause of tremendous anxiety for many queer people. The root of this fear and anxiety is our society’s such strict gender norms. Although it may not be as blatant as in But I’m A Cheerleader, we still largely unconsciously expect people to conform to the gender that society pushes upon them. Although The Bathroom Problem is just one of the problems faced by people of ambiguous genders, it is one of the most tangible that they face on a day-to-day basis. But why is this even a problem? How can we make such a human right (to go pee!) accessible and safe for every gender identity? Halberstam believes that we need to start operating in a world where people simply do not assume each other’s gender. Indeed, most people do not conform completely to their gender expectations. Even someone who identifies with their assigned gender may not identify with the strict gender norms. It is an absurd notion to expect everyone to act like the cut-out image of their assigned gender. But it isn’t until someone completely deviates from their assigned gender that society punishes them. However, if we were more accepting of “gender deviants” (though I don’t like that phrase) then they wouldn’t have to feel self-conscious when using public restrooms. Of course this is a lot to ask right now but we are making progress! Unisex bathrooms are popping up more and more, which is a good first step. Perhaps someday we will have all gender neutral bathrooms and maybe even gender neutral societal expectations.

Not a single person in the film fully identifies with the expectations of their gender, namely because they are simply absurd. Even men feel emotions and I don’t believe a single woman wants to be objectified and abused by society. That is why gender binaries not only pose a problem for queer individuals but for every single person in society. In addition to tackling the problem of gay reparative therapy camp, But I’m A Cheerleader did not come out and say this but through satire and comedy it pointed out these problems in society at-large.

But I'm a Cheerleader: Real Life "Pray the Gay Away" Clinics

Wed, 16 May 2012 15:21:15 -0700

In the movie But I’m a Cheerleader, the main character, Megan, is sent by her parents to a specialized clinic to “pray the gay away.” Her parents, friends from school, and her boyfriend sat her down for an intervention, and she was delivered an ultimatum: go to the clinic or you won’t be allowed to stay here anymore. At this point, Megan still identifies as heterosexual, and is confused and hurt by her friends’ and family’s accusations, but concedes to attend True Directions all the same.

What follows is a string of comical characters and circumstances in Megan’s time at True Directions; it’s a satire. Taken out of context, and when it is not happening to yourself, or just a person sure and comfortable with their sexuality, it is funny. In my research, I read mostly journals from reporters who went undercover to the real life versions of True Directions, and what happens in But I’m a Cheerleader isn’t even that exaggerated. After all, the movie was written by someone who attended one of these clinics. Nowadays, these clinics have become so laced with controversy that they’re difficult to find! Most will not come outright and say what it is they do to their homosexual patients. Not to mention, the American Psychological Association (APA) declared in 2009 that the therapy given at these clinics cannot actually change a person’s sexual preference, and can be potentially harmful to the patient’s psyche.

Former presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann and her husband own a “Christian counseling clinic,” a widely accepted code term for a facility that administers gay reparative treatment. A former patient of the Bachmann’s clinic came forward about the treatment he received there as a teen. The Bachmann’s denied his accusations, but the man’s information correlated with an undercover video filmed by a gay rights advocacy group who visited the clinic last year.

A person’s sexual preference can not be changed. Almost no one has a sexuality that is black and white, but no form of therapy or brainwashing can actually change it to be something it is not. It should be mentioned that these clinics are pretty exclusively operated by Christian groups; they prey on young Christians, afraid that their God won’t love them unless they are straight. Telling these people that if they try hard enough, they can change and that then their God will love them is extremely damaging. It’s not doable; they will become more and more depressed as they continuously fail at their impossible task and many commit suicide. Of those who don’t, the vast majority are deeply unhappy.

One of the worst parts of these clinics in my opinion, is that they charge their patients! A fair sum too (one of the journals I read said $600 for a 6 day program.) Most will be claiming to just adhering to their Christian beliefs, and “helping out” the homosexuals by “fixing” them. Obviously a load of bologna though! These clinics simply spread denial and hate, and they make you pay them…for them to make you feel bad. Humans are so ridiculous sometimes, I’m sorry, it’s just all so ridiculous. I feel like sometimes, people need to be reminded of the true teachings of their religion; we’re talking specifically about Christianity here, but Christians are not the only ones who are cruel to people different than them. The leaders of these clinics have justified their behavior by claiming to help these people, and you know what? Most of them genuinely believe that’s what they’re doing. One man, an ex-ex-gay who owned one of these clinics in the UK closed the place after hearing of a former patient’s suicide, and instead formed a support group for queer Christians called “Courage.” This also meant accepting his own homosexuality, however! Which is something most of the leaders of these clinics are not willing to do (most of them seem to be “ex-gays”.)

It’s important for people of faith to find a balance and a compromise between themselves and their beliefs. Queer people are perfectly capable of being happy Christians! I myself am not a religious person, so perhaps I’m not the best to give advice on this matter, but I feel like it is something that has to be reconciled within oneself. From what I know about Jesus Christ, he was a kind, compassionate person. Even if he didn’t agree with something you were doing, he wouldn’t dislike you for doing it. I feel as if he were the kind of guy to maybe even ask you why, and if you could explain yourself well, I think he’d see your side of the story and understand. I have a hard time believing Jesus would hate anybody! I’m pretty sure he’d be pretty confused by all this mess of shaming people for being queer, and he may even be a bit miffed that the people wielding the hate claim to be doing so in his name.

Sources

ABC News

The Times

One last note! Here’s an example of one of these clinics, that I believe may be still running. Glee fans will recognize the name (something I’m sure was a bit of tongue in cheek on the writers’ part!)

Queer Legislation

Mon, 07 May 2012 20:09:00 -0700

This week we watched The Laramie Project, a 2002 film based on the play of the same name which tells the story of the aftermath of the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. This film premiered at the 2002 Sundance Festival and later aired on HBO. After watching it, we realized we knew close to nothing about actual legislation about queer human rights. We researched it and posted our findings here.

Queer rights legislation in the United States has been accomplished and continues to change mostly on a state-by-state basis. Until 2003, sodomy laws in 14 states stated gay sex was illegal (rather any forms of sodomy, although most heterosexual couples would have never been prosecuted or persecuted.) However, in 2003 Lawrence v. Texas passed in the United States Supreme court and invalidated all sodomy laws, thus making it (and therefore same-sex sexual activity) legal throughout the country. Of course this doesn’t mean that people’s attitudes towards queer people were welcoming but it was an important step in queer legislation.

Currently same-sex marriage is recognized in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont plus Washington, DC. In addition, Washington and Maryland both passed laws in 2012 to begin granting same-sex marriage licenses though they may be revoked by the Novermber 2012 voter referenda. Same-sex marriage could be performed in California between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008 before voters passed Proposition 8 which then prohibited same-sex marriages. Recently, the ruling has been found to be unconstitutional, and therefore the laws could change in the near future. The same-sex marriages performed in California during this time retained their legal status after the passing of Prop 8. Some states also recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in other states though they do not allow them to be performed in their state. In addition, six states recognize some form of same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. All legalizations of same-sex marriage have been achieved through court rulings and legislative action not through voter referendums. The constitutions of 42 states define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman” and 30 states explicitly ban same-sex marriage unions. For more details on same-sex marriage in the United States go here.

Another topic of legislation in the United States regarding queer citizens is adoption laws. In the US, states may restrict adoption by sexual orientation or marital status. Adoptions are mainly handled by local courts and so judges or courts may accept or deny petitions to adopt on a variety of criteria.

One aspect of queer legislation that has recently been the subject of much news is the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy in the military. Previously, queer people were not permitted to serve openly in the military. However, on December 18, 2010 the US Senate voted to repeal this law. While this was a fantastic step towards equality, transsexual and intersex individuals are still banned from serving openly.

21 States as well as over 140 cities and counties have enacted laws that ban sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace. However, only 16 states have amended that law to include gender identity as well as sexual orientation.

The main point of this film, however, was hate crimes. Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered because he was homosexual. In the film, there was some footage of people who were actually questioning whether or not this constituted a “hate crime.” Since 1969, laws permitted federal prosecution of hate crimes committed against a person’s race, color, religion, or national origin and it wasn’t until 2009 that the definition was broadened to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. Now, Matthew Shepard died in 1998 so technically his murder wasn’t considered a hate crime. In fact, it was in partially in response to the death of Matthew Shepard that spurred congress to pass this bill. The FBI is required to release statistics of hate crimes in the United States, which can be found here.

The torture and murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming brought national and international attention to the existence of hate crimes in America and spurred legislation both at the state and federal levels. The national hate crime law was expanded to include actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability in 2009 partially in response to Matthew Shepard’s death. More information can be found here.

EDIT: In case you weren’t aware, North Carolina just approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. (source)

EDIT: President Barack Obama endorses same-sex marriage in America. (source)

The Laramie Project and Rural Homosexuality

Mon, 07 May 2012 14:01:19 -0700

In the film, a group of people came to Laramie, Wyoming, to interview locals for the play they were writing based on the Matthew Shepard murder and subsequent court cases. Amongst the people they interviewed were a few self-identified homosexuals. They discussed some of the difficulties of being gay in a rural location, being out to their town or not, and most of all, meeting other queer people.

One man talked about how he would go down into the city in the neighboring state of Colorado, to visit a gay bar. He claimed he would meet other men there who had been to Laramie, many of them having even lived there previously but had left due to their homosexuality. They missed it, he said.

A woman, a teacher, was an out lesbian in the town of Laramie. She expressed her fears of falling to a similar fate as Shepard did, and also fearing for her partner and child. She talked about how some women in the town, still in the closet, would refuse to be seen with her for fear of association.

Clearly, sadness and fear were popular themes amongst the gay citizens of this small Wyoming town. In rural areas, there is a distinct lack of available resources for queer people. A lot of queer culture is and was bar-centric; a lack of gay bars to meet other queer people could be a problem. There have been efforts to help queer people find places other than bars in which to meet, but still, dance clubs etc. are not places found in rural settings. Some larger cities have centers for queer youth established, too. Perhaps the biggest and most widely available resource is the internet. But that requires knowledge of certain websites, and obviously access to a computer and web connection, which are things that many people in isolated areas wouldn’t have access to.

Another thing is a lack of visibility. Many kids who grow up in rural communities have never even met a gay person (especially that they know of) and may not even know of their existence, much less be able to tell if they themselves are gay. Luckily, television shows lately have been including more and more queer characters; even those that cater to a younger audience. Unfortunately, still not everyone has access to television, and of those that do, may be not allowed to view these shows by their parents.

A common stereotype for small towns is close-mindedness. While sometimes this is true, it would seem that perhaps it is only a very small amount of people in these towns who would actively discriminate against somebody for being gay. It seems to us as though the “bad apple ruining the whole bunch” idea is what’s happening. There are still many hardships that come with being a homosexual in a rural area as mentioned above, but it wasn’t all bad. The positives of living in a small community, such as quiet, clean air, knowing many of your neighbors, etc. are still benefits that queer people can enjoy. The gay residents of Laramie loved their town. They did have some fears, but in all honesty, a fear of hate crimes will be present in an urban environment as well. Statistically speaking, violent crimes are more prevalent in urban areas. The out lesbian teacher that was interviewed met other out people who she befriended (once she came out.)

As long as there is hate and discrimination anywhere, there will be lingering fear. The biggest challenge for rural communities right now is attaining more readily available resources with information and support for queer people. Visibility is extremely important, and is vital to acceptance; a large part of what is needed in the world today.

Sources

Rural Gays and Lesbians: Building on the Strengths of Communities

"Bi The Way": Male vs. Female Bisexuality

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:09:50 -0700

Today we watched a documentary from 2008 called Bi the Way. This film followed two women, Brittany Blockman and Josephine Decker as they took a road trip across America while gathering research and experiences about bisexuality in the modern age. The women focused on five different people: David, an aspiring actor in Chiacgo; Pam, a high schooler in Tennessee who got expelled from her Catholic school for making out with a girl; Josh, an 11 year old in Texas with a gay father and progressive mother; Taryn, a dancer in LA who is in a committed polyamorous relationship; and Tahj, a hip-hop dancer in New York City who develops feelings for another man. The trailer can be watched here.

For this blog post we are going to be discussing the differences in bisexuality between the genders as expressed in the movie Bi the Way. One of the most accepted descriptions of bisexuality is expressed with the Kinsey scale of sexual responses, with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual. So bisexuals would score inbetween 0 and 6. (note: asexuality is expressed with an “X”) However, testing of this scale is very inaccurate. In the film, for example, the filmmakers visited a man who was running bisexuality tests based on this scale. He would show men different kinds of pornography and test their arousal. However, bisexuality for both men and women is much more complicated that that. This test did not take into account romantic love or attachment, which also factor into human sexuality. So although the Kinsey scale is a widely accepted scale to look at, it is difficult to test and pinpoint a person’s exact sexuality in this context.

This film presented female bisexuality and male sexuality as very different. There were a number of people interviewed who argued that female sexuality in general is more fluid and thus more open to bisexual experiences. While throughout history there has been examples of young boys experimenting in homosexuality, it hasn’t been until recently that women have begun experimenting and identifying as bisexual on a large scale. Most people in the film believed this was due to more progressive ideas and viewpoints being accepted as a society. Most families in the film, even if they did not understand their children’s bisexuality, still accepted their children (the only exception being Pam’s father, who was very conservative and kicked her out of the house when she was outed by her step-mother).

There has been a number of studies (cited here and here and here to name a few) about female bisexuality, some of them outlining the prevalence of it and others lessening or denying its existence, but the film made a point to explain how many of these studies aren’t as foolproof as they’re advertised. Most of them are focused on men only and/or don’t take into account the difference in male and female sexuality and therefore the evidence is skewed. The filmmakers themselves did not outright make any large claims about female bisexuality and usually let the people speak for themselves but they definitely made a point about the problems with studies in bisexuality and how no one has been able to adequately study its prevalence.

Male bisexuality has recently been under heavy discussion amongst scientists. A widely publicized study in 2005 from researchers at Northwestern University claimed to have discovered no evidence supporting the existence of male bisexuality. Their exact quote, “…with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists.”The film, from 2008 itself, discussed this particular study at length. At the time, the only things they had to discredit the study were personal anecdotes from interviewees they met along the road. Now though, in 2011 a pair of studies were released with differing procedures and search parameters, and came up with drastically different results. Both studies measured sexual arousal to stimuli (porn) and recorded the level of arousal from different types of porn (two men, two women.) Bisexual men were shown the two types of pornographies, and were expected to have a somewhat equal arousal rate to both. However, the men tended to have much more response to one or the other, similar to their homosexual and heterosexual counterparts (they more closely resembled homosexual response patterns.) The 2011 studies decided to take a different approach. Also measuring genital arousal, they recorded subjective arousal as well. Additionally, they used porn of two males and two females separately, like the first study, but they also included one which depicted a threesome between two males and a female. The bisexual men responded most strongly to this porn than the others, and stronger than the heterosexual and homosexual men did to it too. These recent studies “proved” that male bisexuality is rare, not non-existent.

These two studies are relatively small, so it’s difficult to draw generalizations from them. Not to mention, they just measure sexual arousal, erasing the romantic and emotional attraction that may influence one’s identity. Overall, it’s pretty difficult to run a proper experiment on something such as attraction, as it’s so deeply personal and individualistic.

It can be damaging for studies who make claims to be scientific (and therefore “correct”) to insist that something such as bisexuality does not exist. If a person identifies themselves as bisexual, who are we to tell them they don’t exist? Who is anyone to tell anybody that? We shouldn’t need science to validate us, and I don’t think we do, but others can and do use it as a weapon to invalidate people. Although, some people were offended by these new studies, saying that they are only telling us things we already know; well of course they are. But that doesn’t make them useless. Some people don’t know these things to be true, and won’t believe until science tells them so. And sometimes not even then. Researching for this post was difficult; information on the topic was sparse, to say the least. I do hope more research is done in the future, even if it can be…damaging. Technologies should improve, and who knows? Common sense may make a comeback, and perhaps the studies will be structured more intelligently. Maybe there will even be bisexuals conducting them!

One point argued by many people and even scholars in the film is that bisexuality, for both men and women, is just a transition stage into their true homosexuality. Many people would come out as bisexual before gaining the courage to come out with their true sexuality as homosexual. However, many other people in the movie made a point to disagree with this point. A large theme in the film was the current generation being the “whatever generation,” able to have sexual experiences with whomever regardless of gender. All in all, there were many different views of bisexuality and the film ended not having answered a ton of questions but rather introducing more. However, it never denied the existence of bisexuality but merely brought to light many issues and unknowns surrounding it.

Sources

NY Times
How Stuff Works

Imagine Me & You & "Gay Panic"

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:12:00 -0700

First, an explanation. “Gay panic” in the way I’m going to be referring to it in this post is not the bogus legal defence that has been used in an attempt to excuse hate crimes. In fact, this is something that I learned in my research for this post. It is seldom used now, and even when it was used, was often ineffective, but the fact remains that people actually tried to use this defence as a sort of temporary insanity plea; “they went into a violent rage temporarily due to a little known psychological condition called ‘homosexual panic’.” I want to laugh because I’m so horrified. Would it have been acceptable if the crime had been racially driven? Pleading temporary insanity because of an overwhelming hatred of people of color? Perhaps at some point in history. I suppose we’re only a few years on from that point for the queer community.

Despite the unfortunate history of the phrase, most young people use “gay panic” to refer to either the beginning stages of a person’s discovery of their queer sexuality, or just to someone who is very homophobic but in a non-violent, almost comical way. The man who hugs his male friend with a pat on the back and a genial “no homo.” Although it can be kind of funny, it is still homophobia (let us not downplay this.)

Through my research, I’ve noticed that the former (the type we will focus on here) can be nearly equated to a person going through The 5 Stages of Grief. Now, coming to terms with one’s sexuality isn’t necessarily a negative process! The 5 Stages of Grief are: 1. Denial, 2. Anger, 3. Bargaining, 4. Depression, 5. Acceptance. This order isn’t necessarily chronological, and some stages may be repeated. Generally, this model (theKübler-Ross model) is applied to the grieving process, so has a…sad connotation. However, due to society’s projections and expectations, there is a bit of a loss for many people in realizing a queer identity. The future that was set out for one, and one’s imaginings of the future are often rendered moot, or at least it can seem that way at first.

In the film Imagine Me & You, Rachel shows signs of going through a few of these stages. Although it isn’t blatant, and the movie doesn’t dwell on these moments, they are clear to the attentive viewer (thanks in part to Piper Perabo’s acting, as many of these are better picked up by Rachel’s facial expressions!) The most obvious one that I noticed, and I think is the most real to life of her moments, is almost like her last ditch effort to prove to herself her heterosexuality; when she and Hec are driving in the car at night and Rachel is unable to lie to herself completely about her feelings for Luce, she tells Hec to stop the car so that the couple can go into the park nearby and have sex (as they did when they had just begun dating.) Hec says she’s being crazy, but obliges anyway. It ends in awkwardness and embarrassment, but this was an important moment for Rachel. It was her bargaining stage, which I think is the most clear of all the stages when it comes to dealing with gay panic. A self-forced reversion to heterosexuality, despite acknowledging romantic and/or sexual feelings for the same sex. It’s also a shame, because this action is erasing bisexuality as a valid identity, which many don’t credit it as. In the film, it isn’t ever discussed that Rachel could potentially identify as bisexual; after she falls for Luce, she identifies herself as a lesbian. Which is something that happens in reality and is alright, but bisexuality is perfectly valid, and Rachel truly did love Hec and was attracted to him both romantically and sexually. Just a little something that bugs us sometimes.

It’s safe to say that Rachel spends most of the film in the denial stage (perhaps because this lends itself most to comedy?) Throughout the entire beginning of the film, and she flops back into her denial at random intervals throughout. The poor dear. She really does go through a lot of stressing out over this, and rightly so; she has a lot to lose. When Rachel came out to her parents after Hec left her, her mother was not thrilled. This didn’t occur until the very end of the film, and wanting a happy ending, the filmmakers sped up her mother’s acceptance into one hectic car ride. It was a shame, but alas. It’s just a feel-good romcom. During the car ride, Rachel’s mother makes several rude comments to her, which Rachel generally ignores. Her father is accepting of her right away, which I was okay with, because that does often happen! I feel as if having one parent immediately supportive and the other not was a good choice on the filmmakers’ part. It’s realistic. Her parents discussed the situation briefly in the car together, and her mother did eventually warm up to the idea somewhat. By this time, Rachel had accepted her love for Luce and was willing to do anything to be with her, and so was unfazed by her mother’s comments. In real life, those comments would still sting. Again though, it’s a romcom! A movie one watches to get away from real life. It is a cute film with a sped up and glossed over, but all in all fairly accurate representation of one coming to terms with confusing feelings towards a person of the same sex for the first time.

Sources

The Beast in the Closet by Eve Sedgwick

Kübler-Ross Model

Imagine Me and You

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:05:33 -0700

This week we decided to focus on mainstream romantic comedy queer films. For this blog we set out to watch films from every genre and a mainstream genre like romantic comedies are important to look at through a queer lens because they are so widely watched by the population. The film that we chose to watch this week is Imagine Me and You, a 2005 British-American romantic comedy written and directed by Ol Parker and starring Lena Headey and Piper Perabo playing Luce and Rachel, respectively. The two women meet at Rachel’s wedding (where Luce is the florist) and fall in love at first sight. Adhering to typical romantic-comedy tropes, the film follows Luce and Rachel, who keep running into each other in wacky situations, and the film ends with them happily together. The trailer for this film can be watched here.

For this week’s blog posts we will be discussing two subjects: The representation/inclusion of queer people in mainstream movies and (in a separate post) the phenomenon commonly referred to as “gay panic.”

We discussed various historical examples of queer people in films in our blog post on The Celluloid Closet and although it is important to look back on historical examples, we also want to focus on modern representations of queer people and queer issues. Although there have been recent movies that tackle queer issues and include realistic representations of queer people, it is still important to understand the problems with mainstream queer movies. Imagine Me and You was released in 2005, right after Brokeback Mountain came out (in fact, trailers for Imagine Me and You were shown before Brokeback Mountain, the only relation to the two movies being gay main characters). At first it is a nice thought that mainstream movies could succeed if the story centered on a lesbian relationship because ideally it would portray them as real. And although it is miles better than many historical representations, the lesbian women being more than just a joke, but there are still a number of issues that need to be discussed regarding this film.

Imagine Me and You made over $2,635,305 at the box office. Although this isn’t awful, it is not nearly as much as other romantic comedies of the same ilk. It was only shown on eight screens in America. Although this was over seven years ago, the only newer romantic comedy films that include a lesbian relationship as the center of the plot are either foreign, independent films, or not romantic comedies. And think of the number of romantic comedies centering around a straight couple that come out every year. I can name five off the top of my head that have come out in the past year, and I’m positive there are many others. It is important to make mainstream films that include queer relationships in order to normalize the existence of queer people. Without realistic, positive, and accessible representations of normal lesbian relationships in mainstream films, we will continue to view them on the outskirts of film and therefore on the outskirts of society.

I’m not saying that Imagine Me and You is the perfect representation of queer women. There were a number of issues I took with Luce and Rachel and the writing of their relationship in this film. Although neither of them ended up being complete stereotypes and we get to feel both of their struggles (as deeply as we can while still being a light romantic comedy), the writers completely ignored many issues that lesbian and questioning women tackle in their lives. Rachel, the woman who got married, struggled with her identity as a straight woman while being in love with another woman. However, never once is this problem discussed in the film. Throughout the film Rachel tries to ignore this identity struggle and in the end she has no discussion about her identity and simply accepts her attraction to Luce. There was no question of bisexuality or other sexual orientation. Rachel’s character was portrayed as straight (as she was in love with her husband) until she met the one woman she falls in love with: Luce. I’m not saying this is wrong - of course this happens in real life - but I think Rachel’s character should reflect on herself more so it doesn’t give the audience the wrong idea about or lessen lesbian and other queer identity struggles.

In order to bring in and market to larger audiences, the filmmakers had to make the lesbian representations not only as attractive and whitewashed as possible (there are a few people of color in this movie, but they are very minor characters) but also make them seem as “straight” as possible. Both Luce and Rachel are “lipstick lesbians” - very feminine and able to blend into “the real world.” Although this is not unrealistic, it would be nice to see representation of other gender expressions by queer people in mainstream films.

That being said, there was at least one scene that I thought handled the experience and existence of lesbians very well. Luce makes friends with Rachel’s very young sister H and at one point H asks her if she has a boyfriend and Luce says no. H responds by saying that she’s sure Luce will find a boy to spend her life with some day. Luce says she’s actually going to spend her life with a woman and H says that she, too, wants to spend her life with her best female friend and “it doesn’t mean you’re a lesbian!” to which Luce just smiles. I thought it was important and good to have a character like Luce who was comfortable but realistic in her identity as a lesbian. Although they didn’t delve any deeper into her identity, and until meeting Rachel she was portrayed as very lonely, it was good to have a character who was comfortable with her sexual orientation seen through the eyes of a young girl.

Of course this film couldn’t go deeper into queer issues while staying a light, sweet romantic comedy. However, in order to influence society into accepting and understanding the deeper issues in queer people’s lives, we need more mainstream films that tackle such issues. In addition, this film was rated R despite a lack of explicit sexual scenes, or foul language. The kissing between Luce and Rachel is no more than literally rolling around on a bed of flowers (in Luce’s flower shop while they kiss tenderly.) This not only poses problems with the rating system and their relationship with queer sex, but also portrays lesbian sexuality as innocent and sweet and also not at all realistic. Again, this may just be a side-effect of this film being a romantic comedy but the lack of passionate kissing and sexuality made the love-at-first-sight and Rachel’s subsequent leaving of her husband to seem a little absurd. And what if it had been a straight couple? Wouldn’t we have gotten to see more action?

All in all, I would have liked to see the filmmakers tackle more queer issues with sexual identity instead of transporting two women into a reflection of a simple heterosexual relationship.

References:

A Depth Psychological Perspective of the Meaning of Women’s Bi-erotic Nature

Red Without Blue: A little on depression in gender/sexual minority youth

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:35:21 -0700

In the film Red Without Blue, the twins are heavily depressed throughout, and dabble in substance use, make their sexual debut at an early age, and even once attempt suicide together. According to many studies, LGBTQ youth are more at risk for these things than their heterosexual peers. It is important to note however, that these studies were more often than not performed on high schoolers, and the students would only be recorded as LGBTQ if they self-identified as such in high school.

In a few studies done on bullying in high school, students reported being harassed for sexual minority status even though they identified and presented as heterosexual. In some cases, heterosexual students were more heavily harassed in a homophobic way than were students who actually identified as LGBTQ.

One study that focused on rates of teen suicide found that LGBTQ teens were more likely to attempt suicide, but heterosexual teens were more likely to succeed. In a separate study that only looked at gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, these students were found to have been more likely to have used illicit substances, more likely to have done so at an earlier age (ex. using cocaine before age 13), earlier sexual debut, more sexual partners, more likely to exhibit suicidal thoughts or behavior; the list goes on. Why is this?

A lot of these symptoms can easily be linked to depression, but why are LGBTQ youth so much more depressed than their heterosexual peers? One could argue many things, such as a homophobic society, fear of persecution by one’s family, the threat of homelessness, fear of being alone for the rest of one’s life, etc. Also, most prevention and awareness programs used in schools are designed with a heterosexual audience in mind, completely ignoring the unique needs of gender/sexual minorities. There is a lot that schools and society in general could be doing to help fix the disparity between gender/sexual minority and heterosexual mental health status, but simply isn’t on account of factors such as homophobia, lack of awareness, or funds, etc.

Because their schools and general society are failing them, gender/sexual minority youth are unfortunately largely left to their own devices as far as seeking help or support goes. There are many organizations and resources available publicly on the internet that were not an option for the twins in Red Without Blue. This post isn’t meant to be preachy in any way, but informative. I don’t particularly want to end it with the line that states, “if you or anyone you know is feeling depressed please seek help…” because I believe those exact words are overused and as a result, glossed over as being impersonal and insincere. But I will say this: if you are feeling unhappy, and even if you don’t think you want help, it honestly wouldn’t hurt to look into some of the resources/organizations listed below. And although each of them probably have their own flaws, they still will do more good than harm. Happiness is a journey, not a destination, as is unhappiness. Life is a see-saw ride; if you hang out for the down parts, you’ll eventually bounce back up in the air again.

The Trevor Project

It Gets Better Project

Suicide Hotlines (numbers for states, countries, hard of hearing, etc.)

Everyone Is Gay (an advice blog run by two women who are really funny and really smart)

CDC links (for teens, parents, school admins, etc. Info on health concerns and other things)

Sources

Homophobia in High School

Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth

The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation

Psychosocial Issues in Primary Care of LGBT Youth

CDC Page on LGBT Health

Glossary of Queer Terminology

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:34:06 -0700

In writing our next blog post we realized it would be helpful (both to us and our readers) to collect a glossary of queer terminology to help create a background of knowledge for discussing these issues.

So here they are in alphabetical order:

agender: not identifying with any gender, the feeling of having no gender

androgyne: a person appearing and identifying as neither a man nor a woman, presenting a gender either mixed or neutral

androgynous: a person who may appear/exhibit traits traditionally associated as both being possessed by men and women OR neither men nor women

aromantic: a person disinclined to romantic behavior

asexual: a person disinclined to sexual bahavior

bigender: an individual who feels that they have both a man and a woman side to their personality

binding: the process of flattening one’s breasts to have a flat chest

biromantic: the romantic attraction to both male/men and female/women, and one identifying with this orientation

biological sex: the sex assigned at birth based on genitalia and chromosomes

bisexual: the sexual attraction to both male/men and female/women, and one identifying with this orientation

butch: a person who identifies themselves as masculine, physically, mentally, or emotionally

cisgender: a person who conforms to gender-based expectations of society (also: gendernormative)

cisexual: a person who conforms to sexual orientation-based expectations of society

closeted: refers to a queer person who doesn’t disclose their gender or sexual identity to others

coming out: sharing one’s sexuality or gender identity with others

cross-dresser: a person who wears the clothing and cultivates the appearance of what culture deems appropriate for the opposite gender (note: this gender non-conforming behavior is not always related to queer identities and many heterosexual people undergo cross-dressing for a variety of reasons) (also: transvestite)

disorders of sexual development: the medical classification for intersex people

drag: wearing clothes deemed appropriate for a person of another gender

femme: feminine-identified person of any gender

FTM/F2M: term used to identify a person who was born genetically female but identifies and lives as a male (also: transsexual, transmen, female men)

gay: a male who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted to people of the same gender OR a non-gender specific way to refer to describe anyone homosexual

gender: the social construction of masculinity and femininity in a specific culture (this can take into account gender assignment, gender roles, gender attribution, and gender identity)

gender bender: an individual who bends, changes, or mixes gender conventions by expressing elements of masculinity and femininity together

gender binary: the idea that there are only two genders (man/woman) and everyone must conform to be the gender they were assigned at birth, based on their biological sex

gender cues: what humans use to attempt to tell the gender of another person (hair, clothing, body, etc)

gender dysphoria: the psychiatric term used to describe the incongruence between a person’s birth gender and their gender identity

gender expression: how a person chooses to express one’s gender identity to others (behavior, clothing, hair, body, etc) (note: gender expression may change over time or on a daily basis and may or may not conform to an individual’s actual gender identity)

gender fluid: to have a gender identity as a mix between male and female, with the amount of male and female identification ebbing and flowing

genderfuck: the idea of playing with gender cues in order to confuse, mix, or combine a culture’s stereotypes of gender standards

gender identity: an individual’s internal sense of being a man, woman, or something else (note: gender identity is internal and not necessarily visible to others)

genderqueer: a term which refers to individuals or groups who “queer” or problematize the hegemonic notions of sex, gender, and desire in a given society. genderqueers possess identities, which fall outside of the widely accepted sexual binary. genderqueer may also refer to people who identify as both transgendered AND queer, i.e. individuals who challenge both gender and sexuality regimes and see gender identity and sexual orientation as overlapping and interconnected

heteronormativity: a binary gender system in which only two genders are accepted and one’s gender must be congruent with their external genitalia and that one should display a heterosexual preference

heterosexism: the assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, intersexuality, etc.

heterosexual: a person who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex and/or gender (also: straight)

heterosexual privilege: those benefits derived automatically by being heterosexual that are denied to queer people

homosexual: a person who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted to people of the same sex and/or gender

institutional oppression: arrangements of a society used to benefit one group at the expense of another through the use of language, media, education, religion, economics, etc

intergender: a person whose gender identity is between genders or a combination of genders

internalized oppression: the process by which a member of an oppressed group comes to accept and live out the inaccurate stereotypes and attitudes applied to the oppressed group

intersex: a person who is born with sex chromosomes, external genitalia, or an internal reproductive system that is not considered “standard” for either male or female (“intersex” is the preferred term to “hermaphrodite”)

lesbian: a female who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted to other female people

LGBTIQQ: an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer and questioning

metrosexual: first used in 1994 by British journalist Mark Simpson, who coined the term to refer to an urban, heterosexual male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and life style (note: this term can be perceived as derogatory because it reinforces stereotypes that all gay men are fashion-conscious and materialistic)

MTF/M2F: term used to identify a person who was born biologically male but identifies and lives as a female (also: transsexual, transwomen, male female, new women)

neutrois: a person who does not identify with any gender

outing: involuntary disclosure of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity

pangender: a person whose gender identity is comprised of many gender expressions

panromantic: a person who can have romantic attraction to any person irrespective of sex or gender

pansexual: a person who can have sexual attraction to any person irrespective of sex or gender

passing: the ability to present oneself as any gender other than that assigned at birth and be accepted as such

polygender: identifying as more than one gender or a combination of genders

polysexual: a person who is sexually attracted to more than one gender or a combination of genders

pronouns: there are several non-gender specific pronouns that some people opt to use to describe themselves. “Hir” is used to replace “her” and “him.” “S/he” or “ze” is used instead of “he” and “she.” Some also prefer being referred to as “they” and “them.” (note: if you are unsure of how a person identifies or what pronouns to use, it never hurts to ask politely!)

queer: an umbrella term which embraces a matrix of sexual preferences, orientations, and habits of the not-exclusively- heterosexual-and-monogamous majority. Queer includes lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transpeople, intersex people, the radical sex communities, and many other sexually transgressive explorers (note: for a long time “queer” was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people)

questioning: a person in the process of questioning their sexual identity

read: (as in “getting read” or ”being read”) how a person’s gender is perceived by observers, based on gender cues/expressions

romantic orientation: romantic/emotional feelings for someone, different from sexual orientation (some people can have a romantic orientation for a certain gender or both genders and a sexual orientation for a different gender or both genders)

sex: the physically biological, chromosomal, genetic, and anatomical features associated with maleness and femaleness in the human body defined within a socio-cultural concept of what physiology denotes within a given cultural space

sexual identity: the objective categorization of a person’s physiological status as male or female or intersex

sexual orientation: the preferred term used when referring to an individual’s physical and/or emotional attraction to the same and/or different gender (note: sexual orientation is not the same as a person’s gender identity)

sexual reassignment: modifying the body to make it as much as possible like that of the other sex (may or may not include taking hormones to effect the development of secondary sex characteristics of the other sex)

sexual reassignment surgery: permanent procedures to alter the body to resemble the other sex

single gendered: identifying as either a man or woman

third-gendered: people who feel they are neither a man nor a woman, but not androgynous either and construct their own gender

trans*: variant of transgender and/or transsexual sometimes preferable in gender non-conforming communities because it focuses on the gender transgression of identity as opposed to focusing on the elements of gender or sex and because it does not separate transgender and transsexual

transgender: crossing over or transcending the common social assignment of gender at birth to incorporate one or more aspects, traits, or characteristics of the gender associated with the opposite sex

transsexual: a person whose gender identity is different from their assigned sex at birth and has taken any or all steps of physical transition so that their physical body is congruent to both their gender identity and the conventional concept of sexually male and female bodies

Note: This is not a complete list of queer terms. It is important to understand that many things influence language (such as culture, class, race, region, age, etc) and the terms we listed here are predominantly from a westernized mentality because that is the language we will be using when writing this blog. In addition, these labels are not meant to define or constrict any groups or individuals but rather to be used as a lexicon in order to discuss complicated queer topics.

References:

We are by no means experts in this field but as always, feel free to send us questions or comments.

Cheers,
Brontë and Kelsey

The Kids Are Alright

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:33:00 -0700

This week we watched The Kids Are Alright, a 2010 film directed by Lisa Cholodenko that won a number of Golden Globes and was nominated for four Academy Awards. This film follows the lives of a lesbian couple (Jules, played by Julianne Moore, and Nic, played by Annette Bening) and their two children (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson as Joni and Laser) as their birth father (Paul, played by Mark Ruffalo) enters their lives and family drama ensues.

For this first post we will be exploring two topics: The idea/myth of lesbian bed death and how this film treated lesbian sexuality in comparison to the portrayal of heterosexual sexual relationships.

This film is written by Lisa Cholodenko, a lesbian mother herself, and is all in all an enjoyable, relatively realistic film. That being said, we certainly had some problems with it.

The strongest aspect of The Kids Are Alright, in our opinion, is the acting. Julianne Moore and Annette Bening both superbly bring depth and understanding to the characters of Jules and Nic and their relationship is always nothing but believable. They have been together for over 20 years and, although they are very much in love, find themselves in a rough patch. The problem we found in this film lies not in the relationship between these characters but the filmmaking decisions that portray lesbian sex as boring and straight sex as exciting and altogether superior.

Lesbian Bed Death, or LBD, is a term that was first used in the late 1980s, but didn’t quite hit the mainstream until the following decade. It was, and still partially is, believed to be something real, backed up by “research.”

In this film, the phrase was never used, but it was heavily implied. In the early sex scene between Nic and Jules, Nic is the initiator (and also the more “masculine” looking out of the two) and as she does so, she mentions it having “been a while.” After the two begin to have sex, it’s awkward and neither are particularly enjoying it a whole lot. The scene was intended to be humorous, and we’ll admit, we were laughing, but there are deeper issues with this; the display is supporting the notion of the existence of LBD.

Here’s the thing: we’re not saying that LBD isn’t real for some people. However, we are saying that it is not just limited to lesbian couples. Except when heterosexual couples stop having sex as frequently after being together for 20+ years, instead of using the word “death” they claim to have “lost the spark” from their relationship. Much cuter sounding, isn’t it?

And what of these “studies?” The results have been conflicting. Not to mention, the studies themselves have been administered in such a way that caters to male behavioral patterns. For example, one study collected responses from a survey of lesbians, gay men, heterosexual married couples, and heterosexual co-habiting couples by asking one question: “about how often during the last year have you and your partner had sexual relations?” There are a few problems with this approach. The first, seemingly obvious, problem is that this question lends itself to over- or under-estimating; it forces the subject to guess. How many of us can remember how often an event such as this occurred over the past year, especially considering that these were people with long-term partners? Also, what exactly is defined as “sexual relations?” It’s something that is different for many people, and was not clearly spelled out by the researchers. The final, and probably most important issue I’m discussing here is length of the activity. According to another study referenced in the article I read, the heterosexuals reported sex lasting around 8 minutes each time, whereas the lesbians reported their typical session taking anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour; a vast difference indeed. If frequency is all that is measured, then this gets discounted entirely, despite being obviously meaningful.

In a few of the other studies mentioned, the questions were even less clear, and just asked how frequently “do you and your partner have sex?” This question is even worse than the previous as what exactly is defined as sex? Does oral sex count? How about digital stimulation?

There is also the distinct possibility that some couples don’t need to have sex to feel satisfied with their relationship. To refer to their happiness with a phrase including the word “death” is incredibly disrespectful. The notion that a relationship needs sex to be valid is another damaging patriarchal demand of which our society is afflicted with in the tons.

In the very beginning of the film, as characters are being introduced to the audience, there are two different sex scenes, one between Jules and Nic and another with Paul and his girlfriend. These two scenes are polar opposites, and not just in the sexual orientation of their participants. The first scene consists of a fully clothed Nic halfheartedly watching explicit gay porn while her partner, Jules, is giving her oral sex, hidden completely under blankets. Later, they explain that they are watching the male porn because female sexuality is more fluid and external stimuli makes it easier to imagine arousal (read more about that here) but that is not where our issue with this scene lies (though we think it would have been better to have the characters explain this more for the mainstream audience). Of course sex between two people who have been together for 20 years isn’t going to be as exciting as it was at the beginning of their relationship, and the existence of this scene is to drive home the point that Jules and Nic are struggling with their marriage, but the writing of this scene (in congruence with future scenes) cements the idea that lesbian’s sex lives are lacking in comparison to straight people’s. Minutes after their sex is interrupted by a gag with the TV remote, we see another sex scene, this time between Paul (the sperm donor) and his girlfriend. The filming of this scene is prolonged and even titillating. In comparison to the lesbian sex, both people in this scene are shown fully enjoying themselves and finish wholeheartedly.

Later in the film, after Paul is introduced to the family, Jules begins working for him as a landscape architect and they start a secret sexual relationship. The first time they kiss it is obviously very passionate, even though Jules is previously known to be a lesbian. The inclusion of an extramarital affair is not a bad decision by the filmmakers – it illustrates how Jules is lacking in her relationship with Nic – but the way in which it is portrayed is something to be aware of. First of al, the quickness of which Jules embarks on this affair is worrisome and may cause an uneducated audience to believe that lesbians find solace by engaging in heterosexual relationships when they are unfulfilled sexually by their same-sex partners. This idea is cemented when Jules and Paul’s making out very quickly escalates as they enter the bedroom. Jules quickly strips off Paul’s pants and, upon viewing his penis, her eyes widen in amazement. This shot especially irked us, as she seems pleased to be seeing a penis, despite being gay (we thought perhaps she was bisexual but she herself identifies as a lesbian). The audience is immediately shown multiple shots of them engaging in various positions of sexual intercourse, with seemingly no problems arising. This scene is graphic and arousing, even unrealistic and sugar-coated, furthering the idea that lesbian sex is lackluster in comparison to straight sex.

The idea that a woman is only a lesbian until she is provided with a man (or penis) to enjoy and be fulfilled has been told in many stories before but it was surprising to see it in such a modern, broadminded film. Although Jules does not “turn straight,” she is still written as seeking refuge and fulfillment in a man. Even though she identifies as a lesbian up throughout the film, her relationship with a man is incredibly glorified. Of course this film is miles better than many portrayals of lesbians in the past because Jules is not “turned straight” by a big, strong man. However that is not to say it is free from this dilemma.

Works referenced

http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/the-kids-arent-alright/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/
http://www.aarp.org/relationships/love-sex/news-04-2011/five_simple_ways_to_keep_the_spark_alive_in_a_relationship.html
Lesbian Sexuality Post-Stonewall to Post-Modernism: Putting the `Lesbian Bed Death’ Concept to Bed. By: Jasenza, Suzanne, Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 01614576, 2000, Vol. 25, Issue 1

Other articles to check out regarding The Kids Are Alright and the topics we explored:

Race within The Kids Are Alright and the queer community: http://www.racialicious.com/2010/07/30/the-kids-are-all-right-but-not-the-queer-movement/
The director’s response to some of the topics we brought up: http://jezebel.com/5582414/why-lesbians-might-object-to-the-kids-are-all-right

Tune in next week when we watch Red Without Blue and discuss trans* identities and discrimination.

Hello again, dear followers! We’re getting ready to dive into the world of queer films and have...

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:20:16 -0700

Hello again, dear followers!

We’re getting ready to dive into the world of queer films and have written up a tentative list of films we will be watching and discussing on this blog. We want to watch a wide range of films that cover as many topics/themes as possible while keeping the list to only a quarter worth of material. This list is not final and we may watch additional material but these are the films and topics we will most likely focus on for our blog posts:

The Celluloid Closet (historical representation of homosexuality in films)
The Kids Are Alright (gay marriage/domesticity, bisexuality, lesbian bed death)
Red Without Blue (trans*, gender identity, The American Dream)
Philadelphia (gay relationships, AIDS, homophobia, mainstream Hollywood film)
But I’m a Cheerleader (“curing” homosexuality, NC17 rating, gender roles)
Aimee and Jaguar (foreign film, “The Closet,” historical)
Imagine Me and You AND/OR Four Faced Liar (lesbian relationships, bisexuality, the male gaze)
Boys Don’t Cry (hate crimes, gender identity, trans* representation, rural America)
Bi The Way (documentary on bisexuality)
The Laramie Project (hate crimes, small towns, AIDS, real story)
For The Bible Tells Me So (documentary on homosexuality in religion)

So check back soon for our write up on The Kids Are Alright. And as always, feel free to give us your input/suggestions/ideas/thoughts/complaints/etc in our ask box.

xoxo,

Brontë and Kelsey

The Celluloid Closet

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:28:58 -0700

To start off this blog we watched The Celluloid Closet. The trailer can be watched here.

The Celluloid Closet is a 1995 American documentary film written and directed by Rob Epstein based on the novel of the same name by Vito Russo. The movie gives an overview on the history of queer representation in films. A full list of films depicted in The Celluloid Closet can be found here. We also read an article titled From The Celluloid Closet to Brokeback Mountain: The Changing Nature of Queer Film Criticism by Michael Bronski.

We decided to start the quarter with this film because it gives a good overview of the history of queer representation in films. It began with the first record of gay men in film, with Edison Experiment in 1895, a black-and-white film depicting a man playing violin while two men slow dance together. As the film industry progressed, queer people were rarely depicted. When they were, they were characters generally depicted for laughs, to pity, or to fear.

The most common depiction of queer people in film back then (and even now!) is as comedic sidekicks or background characters. Gay men were shown as “prissy,” with heavy make-up and “swishy” walks so that audiences knew who was supposed to be homosexual so they knew who to laugh at. This trope was often taken even further, with men cross-dressing as the butt of jokes. One person in The Celluloid Closet said, “There is no sin like being a woman.” However, one positive depiction of cross-dressing shown was with Marlene Dietrich in Morocco, as her dressing in a suit was taken seriously. The filmmakers didn’t try to hide the queer undertones or make a joke out of it.

In the 1920s and 1930s films began getting raunchy, with more sexual and violent scenes. In retaliation, Will Hays created the Hays Production Code, which served to censor Hollywood films. This means that certain men could take out certain scenes of movies for theatrical release or even change whole plots and characters. Many of these men had ties with the Catholic church so they censored many gay themes and characters from films. However, this did not stop queer representation in films but made it more underhanded, as a wink-wink-nudge-nudge to the audience. This also brought an onslaught of queers, especially lesbians, as villains. Most of these lesbian characters were either stripped of their femininity or just completely creepy and sometimes even supernatural beings.

The 1950s brought a decade of hyper-masculinity. Men in films (and thus in real life) were constantly afraid of seeming gay so they tried their best to act more masculine. However, there were certain examples of homosexual undertones in films that weren’t completely offensive, such as in Rebel Without a Cause and Calamity Jane. In both these films, the scriptwriters specifically wrote two same-sex characters (one in each film, respectively) who were to be perceived as homosexual, but because it wasn’t explicit, the films passed censorship and made it big. There was a code of queer subtext that the audience had to be clued into in order to understand; this was perhaps easier for a queer audience to pick up on as well.

However, at this time there were still many bad representations of queers in film. The vast majority of gay characters in films either ended up killing themselves or were killed by others, which did not send a good message to audiences about the representation of queers in real life.

During the gay liberation movement there were better examples of queers in film but it certainly did not end homophobia or bad representation of queer folk. People in movies continued to use the word “fag” as a light-hearted insult and depicted the queer lifestyle as dangerous and violent. When the film Making Love was released in 1982, the industry had to add a disclaimer warning audiences about the inclusion of gay sex and gay relationships, even though the sex itself was tame in comparison to many straight sex scenes in popular films at the time. One of the actor’s agents even advised them against taking the part, saying it would hurt his career.

The Celluloid Closet also commented on affection between people of the same sex, as it is much more accepted between women than between men. However, lesbian relationships are more often written as cheap titillation for male audiences.

Of course none of these tropes are bad by themselves but the problem arises when the only representation of queer people in mainstream movies is through these lenses. FIlms tell audiences what to think and serve as a blueprint for society at-large so when queer people are only seeing themselves depicted as fools or villains they are made to feel inferior.

The film ended with the message that queer representation in movies is getting a lot better and we are beginning to see more realistic representations of queer people. This is the exact idea we want to explore throughout this Queer Films blog: Are there realistic and diverse representations of queer people in film and are they adequate for audiences to understand the presence of queer people in real life?

Hey everybody! We are getting your suggestions, but we’re not replying so we can keep the blog...

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:19:39 -0700

Hey everybody! We are getting your suggestions, but we’re not replying so we can keep the blog neat and tidy and also to keep the titles easily accessible to us in our askbox.

Keep them coming! We won’t have time for a whole lot of movies, but we’re gonna try to cover a broad base, so we need all the diversity we can get. We’ll look into every suggestion and definitely consider them, so mention anything you can think of to us. Also if you’d like to second one of the ones on our tentative list, tell us!

Thanks!

Kelsey and Brontë

Hello! Welcome to Reel Queer. We are two university students who want to explore queer themes and...

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:21:00 -0700

Hello!

Welcome to Reel Queer. We are two university students who want to explore queer themes and ideas brought up in various movies throughout history. We plan to watch a new movie every week and produce a detailed blog post outlining what we watched and learned. We will also be reading scholarly articles to further our understanding.

Although we do not have a final list of movies we will be watching, we are open to suggestions. Here is a tentative list of films we might watch (in no particular order):

Imagine Me and You
Boys Don’t Cry
Philadelphia
Party Monster
But I’m a Cheerleader
The Crying Game
Plan B
I Love You Philip Morris
Velvet Goldmine
The Four-Faced Liar
Bi the Way
Heavenly Creatures
Tying the Knot
Mysterious skin
My Own Private Idaho
Angels in America
Ma Vie En Rose
Maurice
Bent
C.R.A.Z.Y.
The Times of Harvey Milk
Aimee and Jaguar
etc

Some themes we might explore include:

Trans* representation
Affection between same sex vs. sexuality/sensuality between same sex
Queer stereotypes
Common tropes
Queers as villains
Queers as jokes
Race
Religion
Gay marriage
Bisexuality
The Closet/coming out
Gender binaries within relationships
Body image
etc

The first film we will write about is The Celluloid Closet so check back soon for our thoughts on it!

Cheers,

Kelsey and Brontë