Film Freaks
Tags: Aimee and Jaguar, Basic Instinct, Being John Malkovich, bisexuality, film, Gasoline, gay lesbian and bisexual, High Art, lesbian, Lesbians on film, LGBT, Mulholland Drive, psycho lesbians 
On the silver screen lesbians tend to fit into one or all of the following categories:
1. Insane
2. Lonely
3. Trying to have a baby
Trans women can add freak to the list and bisexual women can throw a pinch of conniving into this heady mix. Even films made by women who love women very often end up putting the hom in homicidal, the bi in bizarre and the t in touched.
As someone who loves film and loves to review film, I very often sit down with a sigh and think, “Ok, HAL, you know this is going to be depressing, look for the positives”. There very often are so many positives; good writing, good acting and just the basic will to make a film. Shooting a movie is an extremely difficult exercise, which is why there are so many names rolling up the screen at the end of your cinema experience. Imagine trying to get a fifth of that amount of talent together in the same place at the same time and literally on the same page. It’s a logistical nightmare. This is why I get depressed when the film is just another cliched lonely lesbian, psycho bi or lonely trans feature.
As far as mainstream Hollywood is concerned, you can all the way back to Rebecca‘s evil, sadistic Mrs Danvers or further back again to schlock horror films to see how they love to use us as stock-psychos. I just don’t think that you can over-state how important it is to have positive representations of ourselves on the big screen. Can you name the last lesbian, bi or trans female character you saw on screen? I’m not talking about same-sex kisses as per Jennifer’s Body. Chloe, maybe? Nutter. Vicky Cristina Barcelona? Titillating nutter.
I remember talking to my Dad about this when Basic Instinct came out. He couldn’t understand why people protested about its depiction of a bi character as a murderer. By his logic, some murderers are bisexual. True. My argument was “where’s the balance?”, most bisexuals are very happy, well-adjusted people who live normal lives but we don’t see them. Happy queers are invisible onscreen, so therefore feel invisible off it.
It’s when we make the films ourselves that I get my hackles up. Now I know it’s not up to every queer artist out there to express only this aspect of themselves through their art. I do, however, think that they have the responsibility to ensure that their work doesn’t perpetuate negative stereotypes.
The sense of a missed opportunity is over-whelming after watching a film like High Art (left), for example. I know many people love it, but this is a high-profile film about a lonely nutjob who needs drugs to be happy. Oh and she’s gay so that explains it. Feel free to reef me over the coals if you are a fan. I stand by the point that, no matter what writer/director Lisa Cholodenko was trying to get across, all people were left with was the idea that lesbians sit around in darkened rooms and take drugs as a break from being mad and having sex.
We all pile in to LGBT film festivals to watch films like Gasoline about lovers are on the run after murdering one of the pair’s mother; New Best Friend about a promiscuous bisexual college student who dies of a drug overdose; on the depressing end there’s Aimee and Jaguar a true story but where is the positive one to give balance? Even talking about it gets me down.
About ten years ago, we were lucky enough to have a couple of films come out that were made by men who – joy! – weren’t interested in exploiting us. Mulholland Drive had the wonderful Naomi Watts rocket to stardom after a truly awesome performance in what has to be one of the best films of the first decade. Being John Malkovich proved that Cameron Diaz could act. However, as wonderful as they are, these films were all about oddness, adding a queer woman to the mix just ratcheted up the weird.
There are many female (and male) LGBT directors out there who are working their arses off getting us up on the big screen or there on the small one. Angela Robinson, Jamie Babit and Rose Troche stand up and have a HAL hug. The rest of you, do better please.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1a259060-3c8c-4e04-acd3-54d5aee8dbb5)
Popularity: 1% [?]
No related posts.
Loading ...
In Defense of Lesbians and Film…
Why is it that no matter what the medium, lesbians feel like they are misrepresented, exploited and stereotyped? Film is no exception. There is always a cinematic lesbian whose performance gets us real life lezzies up in arms about how we are being unfairly portrayed. Perhaps it is a symptom of long-term marginalization and invisibility, resulting in a fervent need to be validated. Enter minority complex stage right. Why else do we take it so personally when that on-screen lesbian does something crazy like has a baby, kills someone, or (gasp!) wears the wrong shoes?
In reference to lesbian filmmakers, Hal believes “that they have a responsibility to ensure that their work doesn’t perpetuate negative stereotypes.” While this is a lovely pro-lesbo statement, there are some fundamental problems with its subjectivity. What exactly is a negative lesbian stereotype? Wearing Birkenstocks? Wearing Birkenstocks with socks?! How does one even begin to define such a thing in a subculture whose foundation is built on diversity and nonconformity? Should we write-off a film like High Art for its portrayal of a lesbian as a “lonely nutjob who needs drugs to be happy”? This isn’t a negative lesbian stereotype, it’s reality for a huge segment of the population. She’s not lonely because she’s gay, she’s lonely because she’s human.
What exactly is the alternative? What would a film about “good lesbians” look like? I for one have no interest in watching a wholesome lesbian couple curl up on the couch with their cat to discuss Gertrude Stein or watch reruns of the Golden Girls. Maybe that’s because I would rather do drugs and have sex. My point is not that one is better than the other, just that different lesbians have different agendas and it shouldn’t be a personal affront.
As lesbian cinephiles I think we owe it to ourselves to look past the lacklustre lens of Hollywood. It’s like trying to meet your nutritional needs with a box of Kraft Dinner. Sure it’s cheap, easy and readily available, but somehow it leaves you feeling empty, soulless and hungry for something with a little more substance. There are other lesbian films out there. It just requires stepping outside of the mainstream. Luckily we’re good at that.
I agree with you Hal, lesbians do need to step up when it comes to making LGBT art. Let’s put down our brooms and start focusing on honing our skills at the art of our crafts instead of the art of making sweeping generalizations.
Unfortunately, Lindsay, I think that, to break down barriers of perception, we need representation on screens large and small. It’s not about self-validation but about societal education.
Coming out becomes easier when you see you’re not alone. Dealing with someone coming out is easier when you see you’re not alone. It shouldn’t be inmportant but it is.
I get you Lindsay and you’re right; happiness isn’t dramatically interesting for film makers or watchers. Plus Hollywood is most definitely not the place to look for creativity.
I suppose for me it’s about balance, as I mentioned above. With every queer serial killer, ideally, there should be a queer hero. Ideally. But I am in no way suggesting we set up a score card. LGBT Hay’s Code is far from where we want to be.
I expect mainstream movie-makers to use us as they do people of colour, people with disabilities, the travelling community. Hell even strong, single women. Stereotypes are easy to use and insert as required.
It’s unfair to expect film-makers in our community to take on the mantle of stereotype-savior. It’s impossible to represent everyone, we’re all so different. However, I don’t think it’s too much to ask them not to perpetuate negative screen stereotypes such as murderers and psychos.
Birkenstocks are very welcome, butch women, femmes, those in between, bi women, polyamorous women, trans women post-op, pre-op…whoever. There are the people in our community; not serial killers and insane homicidal maniacs.
Nicely said Hal. I think you have really hit the nail on the head with the assertion that the notion of lesbian representation in film is “not about self-validation but about societal education.” Unfortunately I don’t think that this is very high on the list for our friends in L.A.
It appears that a major stumbling block towards finding a balanced portrayal of lesbians in film exists not necessarily due to misrepresentation, but a lack of representation altogether. There are many straight serial killers and psychopaths out there in movieland. There are straight artists who “sit around in darkened rooms and take drugs as a break from being mad and having sex.” The only reason these characters don’t perpetuate negative stereotypes is because the heterosexual population is so large that it escapes the narrow-minded assumptions that plague minorities so relentlessly. Oh to have such freedom of identity!
If there is one thing the film world needs, it’s gay (super) heros… people to give alternative lifestyles and spandex a good name. Where is Lesbionic Girl in her rainbow cape? Like you said, it’s all about balance – a hero for every villain, a Blundstone for every high-heel, a tool-belt for every make-up bag. You get the point.
I think we will get there. It will take time and effort and an unwavering acceptance of the diversity within our own small community. And perhaps a large Californian earthquake…