When this blog began as a final project, neither of us had any finite plans for continuing in the future. This evening, however, I was inspired to give blogging another shot. After just having seen Lisa Cholodenko's film, "The Kids Are Alright," I felt strongly about blogging again..
I came into this film having watched the trailer, having spoken to several friends who stormed out mid-way through the film, and having read Jack Halberstam's take (here) on the film, all of which more or less pre-determined my feelings about the film. After having actually seen it myself, I feel that I am better able to say that all of the critique seemed to be on point. I agreed to go to this movie with several of my girl friends from high school, a boyfriend of theirs, and the boyfriend's friend who was in town to attend a local fraternity convention. I guess those things should have probably been a better indicator of the way in which I would ultimately react to the film, but I hoped to be proven wrong. Maybe this realization was too little, too late. I don't want to reiterate the really great analysis by Jack Halberstam, among many others I'm sure, but did want to highlight a few key points that I felt were especially pertinent, maybe mostly for self-indulgent or cathartic reasons, but I suppose that's what blogging is for?
- "Sex" Scene - The beginning of the film depicts the character of Nic, the somewhat more butch partner, and Jules, the more femmey partner, to attempt to have sex. This was horrible and extremely uncomfortable to watch for various reasons, not only due to a basic lack of intimacy, but also the inclusion of a television in the background interestingly airing gay male porn with the intention of creating arousal where there was none, the horrible whirring of the vibrator beneath the covers as Nic stared blankly at the men fucking in the back of a truck in complete disinterest, and the emergence of Jules from beneath the covers making what looks like the face one makes when exiting a particularly awful-smelling gas station bathroom.
- Red Wine Drinking Time - Nic's love for red wine, which she claims at one point is her way of combatting health problems that arise with age, made me feel bad for several reasons. I can't help thinking that red wine is a very bougie, white, upper/middle class alcoholic beverage to develop a close relationship with, which is expected in this sort of film, I suppose, but that also sheds light to how addiction, as an idea viewed at in a sort of social constructionist-esque way, similarly relates to class, race, and privilege, just as any construct. Additionally, the partner that was somewhat more butch is seen to have the drinking problem, not the other way around, which, on maybe a more base level, seems to equate an idea of deviance from "appropriate" behavior, i.e. addiction/substance-free, with a deviance from gender norms, as the somewhat more butch partner struggles to maintain her womanhood despite her "butch-ish" presentation and desire to be the breadwinner to her more feminine, domesticated wife and children. This also made me think of how certain types of drinks are perceived as being "more butch" and "more femme" and the idea of a "gendered drinking culture" with all of its ensuing implications, especially in relation to class and addiction. But maybe that is all beside the point..
- Whooo!! - The moment when Jules undoes Paul's (the sperm donor) pants with a simply ecstatic "whooooo!!" to reveal his penis. It seems evident how watching the depiction of a self-proclaimed married lesbian of 18+ years looking at a penis with bliss and excitement would make anyone disgusted with mainstream representations of more femme "lesbians" or queers, or at least I thought so. If Nic were to have strayed from the marriage and appeared in awe at the undoing of a man's pants, that seems like it would be way more queer and progressive, rather than depicting the stereotypical femme lesbian as "not having found the right man/dick" and hence seeming to "settle" for a a butch woman until that sacred moment in time, because that's "close enough." I suppose this is all expected from such a film, but I would really prefer to not go into similar films in the future expecting to see yet another stereotypical depiction...
- People of color are portrayed in the film in two very fucked up ways. Addiction is touched on again, in a more explicitly racialized way as Jules fires her Latino gardener for a "drug addiction" which she invents for fear of him ratting out her affair with Paul, the sperm donor She later refers to as a "fucked up" move. Paul, who in the beginning of the film appears to be sleeping with his beautiful African American employee, dumps her for wanting someone with more "family-oriented goals," occurring curiously immediately after she compliments him on the way he has been interacting with his children, telling him she really respects him for it and even finds it sexy. As the only two people of color in the film, both of these depictions are evidently problematic. The portrayal of the Latino as the gardener with the dopey smile and drug addiction reiterates stereotypical views of Latino/a's as uneducated and lazy, and although Jules acknowledges that her treatment of him was "fucked up," this was not evident as she never made any attempt to apologize or re-hire him. Paul similarly appears cognizant of his poor behavior and misjudgment, although he also fails to make things right or seems to actually care enough to do so. He seems regretful for only a moment after rudely casting aside his ex-flame, but only after she walks away saying "fuck you."
I guess this movie felt important to talk about for me because I feel like it is a great example of feelings of disillusionment with the mainstream LGBT movement, portrayals of queers in media, and the "fight for marriage equality" that we've all heard so much about as of late. I always go back to this question with popular television shows and mainstream films, but in what ways is this current depiction of "gay" (I feel uncomfortable saying "queer" in such a context) progressive for a larger LGBTQ, especially the Q(ueer), movement? With the recent reversal of Prop 8 and California's ban on same-sex marriage, I can't help but thinking how important and telling films such as this are in producing, reproducing, and depicting the future of the "queer" movement. I guess for now, aside from blogging, ranting, or having to go home to eat ice cream to calm down, I wonder where my place is doing something that I feel is "progressive" or "productive," or just anything. How would one go about helping to inform those who laughed at the "whoooohoo" scene, among many others, why and/or how that is problematic in propagating things that seem so regressive...or is this even a "worthy goal?"
...
-- Alex
