Blue is the Warmest Color
Director: Abdellatif Kechiche
Writers: Abdellatif Kechiche and Ghalia Lacroix. Based on the book Le Bleu est une couleur chaude by Julie Maroh.
Cast: Adèle Exarchopoulos, Léa Seydoux, Salim Kechiouche, Aurélien Recoing, Catherine Salée, Benjamin Siksou, Anne Loiret, Benoît Pilot
Overview
A talky French drama about two women falling in and out of love, Blue is the Warmest Color shows the evolution of a complex and multifaceted relationship. While glacially paced, this is a movie that offers plenty of rewards for viewers with the patience to read the Bible from the beginning all the way to Job. Seriously, the lists in Genesis of who begat who take forever to get through and anyone who can make it through those parts will have no trouble with this film.
Synopsis
Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is a typical, if rather introverted, French teenager. When Adèle first has sex with her boyfriend, she finds the experience unsatisfying. At a lesbian bar, she meets Emma (Léa Seydoux) and the two begin a passionate relationship. Eventually the two move in together with Adèle taking up a career as a teacher, while Emma pursues work as a fine painter. However, their domestic relationship leads to a routine that leaves Adèle lonely and Emma unsatisfied. When Adèle has an affair with one of her coworkers, Emma kicks her out. More time passes and Adèle has trouble moving on. When she receives an invitation to an art show featuring Emmas' paintings, she goes and manages to find closure to this chapter in her life.
The Queering
Blue is the Warmest Color is filmed with explicit scenes that are designed more to develop and advance the characters than they are to titillate or arouse. Of course, as a gay man, I cannot say I can really judge how titillating they actually are. Of course, this being a character focused piece this a slow moving meditation on the nature of love and relationships. There is little effort to focus on queer or lesbian issues specifically. Adèle goes through a period where she is clearly questioning her sexuality and has to face homophobia from friends when the suspect that she is dating a woman, but this becomes a non-issue once she moves in with Emma. Futhermore, the characters never come out to anyone that the audience is made aware of. As it is, outside of a scene where Adèle marches in an anti-austerity march, the film is largely apolitical.
This doesn't stop the film from raising questions about depictions of female sexuality and desire. Given that the director is a man, the male gaze is of course utilized but as far as I could tell, never subverted nor averted. However, Director Kechiche does raise questions about it. In one scene, a character comments on how men are the ones who most often depict female sexuality in spite of the fact that men cannot know what women really experience when it comes to sex. It's a philosophical question and one reflective of Platos' views of art in general. Plato, as it were, had a pet peeves was that since our world was merely a copy of his beloved Forms, then the highest thing art could aspire towards was being a second hand imitation of a copy of a copy of the "original" forms.
It makes sense then, that Kechiche films Blue is the Warmest Color in a cinema vérité style with many hand held camera shots, no voiceover, and a minimal soundtrack. Blue is the Warmest Color tries to be real, even while it acknowledges in sometimes subtle ways that it's not. Furthermore, all we ever see of Emmas' drawings or paintings of Adèle are brief glimpses, yet there implications that the Kechiche is trying to frame Adèle through the same lens that Emma views her in. That is just as Emma paints Adèle on canvas, so too does Kechiche attempt to present Adèle through the eye of the camera.
When people refer to the "male gaze", they invariably mean the "straight male gaze". But this raises the question: Is there a difference between the straight male gaze and the lesbian gaze and if so, what is it? Furthermore, can a difference between the two gazes be established at all without resorting to gender essentialism?
At the end of the day, it is Kechiches' willingness to address this issue that sets Blue is the Warmest Color apart. At nearly 3 hours, with little action, combined with the slowest of plots, it would seem that this would be a drag to sit through. It is a testament to those involved that Blue is the Warmest Color manages to be engaging from start to finish.
Recommendation
For fans of dialog heavy films that focus on characters over action or plot, this would be worth crossing the most depressingly warm blue ocean in existence in order to see.
The Rating
3 out of 4 stars.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label lesbian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lesbian. Show all posts
May 10, 2014
Queer Review: High Tension (2003)
High Tension
Director: Alexandre Aja
Writers: Alexandre Ajas and Grégory Levasseur
Cast: Cécile De France, Maïwenn, Philippe Nahon, Franck Khalfoun, Andrei Finti, Oana Pellea, Marco Claudiu Pascu
Overview
As a slasher flick, there are times when High Tension succeeds as a bloody descent into pure horror. However a third act twist causes the proceedings to wind up reveling more in homophobia, than the workings of the Grand Guignol.
Synopsis
Marie (Cécile De France) and Alexia (Maïwenn) travel to the French countryside to visit Alexia's family. However, it isn't long before a demented serial killer shows up, kills the family and kidnaps Alexia, while Marie sneaks a ride in the back of his truck. What follows is a tense cat and mouse game, with Marie alternatively trying to free Alexia from the killers chains or seeking a means of signaling for help from authorities.
The Queering
(Spoilers ahoy! as there is no way to analyze this film without explicitly discussing the nature of the twist itself)
High Tension is gory, make no mistake, but the pacing and suspense level are kept high enough that it still manages to be an entertaining thrill ride, at least until the twist ending introduces homophobia by invoking the psycho lesbian trope. Typically, I am not one who goes for a lot gore in my films, but this particular horror endeavor is slickly enough made that the splatter element didn't bother me. Although I will admit to a few moments where I was paying more attention to the inside of my eyelids than what was occurring on screen. Basically, this falls comfortably within the realm of torture porn, a genre I generally avoid. The score (which for whatever reason reminded me of the one from Halloween) and the gritty - yet stylish - cinematography come together to create an atmosphere of pure dread.
However, the ending cannot be ignored, as it informs everything that happened before. As the "big reveal" reveals, the "killer" was Marie all along, and she simply hallucinated him into existence in order to disassociate herself from the terrible acts that she commits. It is a ludicrous twist, one that has been done before (although not quite like this), and requires that the audience accept that an entire car chase occurred only in Maries' mind. That's not even it's worse sin, as the reason why Maria turns into a killer in the first place is because of her sexual attraction to Alexia. Thus Maries' descent into madness and subsequent murder spree are intractably linked to her sexuality. In other words, the twist manages to be both ableist and homophobic at the same time.
There is nothing terribly original about this movie, which is neither good or bad as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of references and nods to past horror efforts. This makes sense given the horror genre's tendency towards self cannibalism. Reviewers who liked the movie called these references homages, while those who took a dim view labeled them "rip-offs". I bring this up only on the off chance that someone out there was wondering what the difference between a "homage" and a "rip-off" happens to be.
Recommendation
In spite of being well made, there is no need to go to high lengths to see this (unless one really likes torture porn), the low tension road should work just fine.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Alexandre Aja
Writers: Alexandre Ajas and Grégory Levasseur
Cast: Cécile De France, Maïwenn, Philippe Nahon, Franck Khalfoun, Andrei Finti, Oana Pellea, Marco Claudiu Pascu
Overview
As a slasher flick, there are times when High Tension succeeds as a bloody descent into pure horror. However a third act twist causes the proceedings to wind up reveling more in homophobia, than the workings of the Grand Guignol.
Synopsis
Marie (Cécile De France) and Alexia (Maïwenn) travel to the French countryside to visit Alexia's family. However, it isn't long before a demented serial killer shows up, kills the family and kidnaps Alexia, while Marie sneaks a ride in the back of his truck. What follows is a tense cat and mouse game, with Marie alternatively trying to free Alexia from the killers chains or seeking a means of signaling for help from authorities.
The Queering
(Spoilers ahoy! as there is no way to analyze this film without explicitly discussing the nature of the twist itself)
High Tension is gory, make no mistake, but the pacing and suspense level are kept high enough that it still manages to be an entertaining thrill ride, at least until the twist ending introduces homophobia by invoking the psycho lesbian trope. Typically, I am not one who goes for a lot gore in my films, but this particular horror endeavor is slickly enough made that the splatter element didn't bother me. Although I will admit to a few moments where I was paying more attention to the inside of my eyelids than what was occurring on screen. Basically, this falls comfortably within the realm of torture porn, a genre I generally avoid. The score (which for whatever reason reminded me of the one from Halloween) and the gritty - yet stylish - cinematography come together to create an atmosphere of pure dread.
However, the ending cannot be ignored, as it informs everything that happened before. As the "big reveal" reveals, the "killer" was Marie all along, and she simply hallucinated him into existence in order to disassociate herself from the terrible acts that she commits. It is a ludicrous twist, one that has been done before (although not quite like this), and requires that the audience accept that an entire car chase occurred only in Maries' mind. That's not even it's worse sin, as the reason why Maria turns into a killer in the first place is because of her sexual attraction to Alexia. Thus Maries' descent into madness and subsequent murder spree are intractably linked to her sexuality. In other words, the twist manages to be both ableist and homophobic at the same time.
There is nothing terribly original about this movie, which is neither good or bad as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of references and nods to past horror efforts. This makes sense given the horror genre's tendency towards self cannibalism. Reviewers who liked the movie called these references homages, while those who took a dim view labeled them "rip-offs". I bring this up only on the off chance that someone out there was wondering what the difference between a "homage" and a "rip-off" happens to be.
Recommendation
In spite of being well made, there is no need to go to high lengths to see this (unless one really likes torture porn), the low tension road should work just fine.
The Rating
2 stars out of 4.
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
May 8, 2013
Queer Issue: Politifacts' Rating System is a Lie (By Their Own Standards)
In an interview with CBS Face the Nation, Martina Navratilova made the claim that "In 29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay."
In response, Politifact rated the claim as being half true.
To justify their claim, Politifact points out that while 29 states do not have legislation at the state level to protect against discrimination, there are exceptions, such as those that exist for government employees, or in local municipalities that have passed anti-discrimation laws, in addition to specific employers which may also have anti-discrimination protections in place.
Politifact also points out that according to the deputy director of Lambda Legal, Hayley Gorenberg, a 1989 Supreme Court Case based around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins) *might* have set a precedent that could bar discrimination based upon an employer believing an employee is uh... "gay" (more on the word choice in the article here later).
So Politifacts' arguments boil down to two main points. One is that exceptions exist within the 29 states that do not have legislation at the state level to offer protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The second point revolves around the possibility (offered up by Gorenberg) that the Civil Rights Act might bar discrimination based upon an employer merely believing an employee is uh... "gay".
The first part of Politifact's argument holds some water. Even though Navratilove never said that "no protections exist" in 29 states, the fact that a certain number of protections do exist for certain uh... "gays" might have justified rating Navratilove's claim as "Mostly True" rather than "True".
However, the second part is complete horseshit. There has never been an actual case before a court in which an individual has successfully used the precedent set by Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to argue against discrimination based upon an employer's belief that an employee was/is uh... "gay". So any lawyer who argues that it might be *possible* that such protections exist is simply offering up an opinion on what *might* happen if a fired employee were to use it in a court trial.
This is but the first error that Politifact makes in their use of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In their article, Politifact states:
Let's break this down:
1) Navratilove used the term gay in her original claim, which is problematic in it's own right since it ignores transgender and transsexual identities (along with lesbian, bi, pan, etc...)
2) However, the number of states that do not offer up legislation that protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender identity is much larger than the number of states that protect based upon sexual orientation. Which means that to acknowledge gender identity would require a much wider analysis than what Politifact offers here.
3) I have seen it argued in the past that anti-discrimination laws for sex/gender might also apply to gender identity.
4) Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins dealt with discrimination based upon gender stereotypes (not on sexuality) it seems like it would be the sort of test case one might use to expand protection against discrimination based upon sex/gender to discrimination based upon gender identity.
5) It is therefore possible that this is what Gorenberg was refering to when she cited Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as a precedent that might offer some protections to those who are uh... "gay".
6) Gorenberg, being deputy director of Lambda Legal should know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
This all leads to the conclusion that Politifact, in order to apply Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to Navratiloves' claim, deliberately conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. I'd also like to point out the fact that while Politifact does not quote Gorenberg directly when they say "This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination" they do put the word "gay" in scare quotes.
In any case, this all makes Politifacts' arguments here really, really screwy. Navratilove makes a claim that applies solely to sexual orientation. In analyzing it, Politifact brings in a case that might apply to gender identity, yet continues to use the term "gay" for unknown reasons. Furthermore, Politifact makes *no* mention of the current state of anti-discrimination laws based upon gender identity, which have a completely different status from those that apply to sexual orientation.
This is a *gargantuan* omission. One which makes Politifact's use of the sin of omission against Navratilove extremely hypocritical.
However, even if they are correctly representing Gorenberg's citation of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, Politifact is still relying on an expert opinion (which they have done in the past) as a key part of their ratings process. So even if they are correctly citing Gorenberg, they are still committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in order to justify their rating of Navratilove's claim.
In the grand scheme of things, I have no problem with Politifact or any organization wishing to present contrary opinions to publicly made claims. But in attempting to clarify the situation in this case, Politifact only managed to further muddy the waters. Combine this with their repeated use of the appeal to authority fallacy and it becomes clear that it is Politifact and their rating system which is misrepresenting the truth.
In response, Politifact rated the claim as being half true.
To justify their claim, Politifact points out that while 29 states do not have legislation at the state level to protect against discrimination, there are exceptions, such as those that exist for government employees, or in local municipalities that have passed anti-discrimation laws, in addition to specific employers which may also have anti-discrimination protections in place.
Politifact also points out that according to the deputy director of Lambda Legal, Hayley Gorenberg, a 1989 Supreme Court Case based around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins) *might* have set a precedent that could bar discrimination based upon an employer believing an employee is uh... "gay" (more on the word choice in the article here later).
So Politifacts' arguments boil down to two main points. One is that exceptions exist within the 29 states that do not have legislation at the state level to offer protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The second point revolves around the possibility (offered up by Gorenberg) that the Civil Rights Act might bar discrimination based upon an employer merely believing an employee is uh... "gay".
The first part of Politifact's argument holds some water. Even though Navratilove never said that "no protections exist" in 29 states, the fact that a certain number of protections do exist for certain uh... "gays" might have justified rating Navratilove's claim as "Mostly True" rather than "True".
However, the second part is complete horseshit. There has never been an actual case before a court in which an individual has successfully used the precedent set by Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to argue against discrimination based upon an employer's belief that an employee was/is uh... "gay". So any lawyer who argues that it might be *possible* that such protections exist is simply offering up an opinion on what *might* happen if a fired employee were to use it in a court trial.
This is but the first error that Politifact makes in their use of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In their article, Politifact states:
Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, cited the 1989 Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins. In that case, a woman sued the accounting firm where she worked because she was not offered a promotion after a senior manager told her she should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." The plaintiff convinced the court that sex stereotyping constitutes sex discrimination, Gorenberg said. This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination as a result.
Let's break this down:
1) Navratilove used the term gay in her original claim, which is problematic in it's own right since it ignores transgender and transsexual identities (along with lesbian, bi, pan, etc...)
2) However, the number of states that do not offer up legislation that protect specifically against discrimination based upon gender identity is much larger than the number of states that protect based upon sexual orientation. Which means that to acknowledge gender identity would require a much wider analysis than what Politifact offers here.
3) I have seen it argued in the past that anti-discrimination laws for sex/gender might also apply to gender identity.
4) Since Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins dealt with discrimination based upon gender stereotypes (not on sexuality) it seems like it would be the sort of test case one might use to expand protection against discrimination based upon sex/gender to discrimination based upon gender identity.
5) It is therefore possible that this is what Gorenberg was refering to when she cited Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as a precedent that might offer some protections to those who are uh... "gay".
6) Gorenberg, being deputy director of Lambda Legal should know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.
This all leads to the conclusion that Politifact, in order to apply Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins to Navratiloves' claim, deliberately conflated sexual orientation with gender identity. I'd also like to point out the fact that while Politifact does not quote Gorenberg directly when they say "This precedent could protect a straight person who appeared to an employer to be "gay" and suffered discrimination" they do put the word "gay" in scare quotes.
In any case, this all makes Politifacts' arguments here really, really screwy. Navratilove makes a claim that applies solely to sexual orientation. In analyzing it, Politifact brings in a case that might apply to gender identity, yet continues to use the term "gay" for unknown reasons. Furthermore, Politifact makes *no* mention of the current state of anti-discrimination laws based upon gender identity, which have a completely different status from those that apply to sexual orientation.
This is a *gargantuan* omission. One which makes Politifact's use of the sin of omission against Navratilove extremely hypocritical.
However, even if they are correctly representing Gorenberg's citation of Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins, Politifact is still relying on an expert opinion (which they have done in the past) as a key part of their ratings process. So even if they are correctly citing Gorenberg, they are still committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in order to justify their rating of Navratilove's claim.
In the grand scheme of things, I have no problem with Politifact or any organization wishing to present contrary opinions to publicly made claims. But in attempting to clarify the situation in this case, Politifact only managed to further muddy the waters. Combine this with their repeated use of the appeal to authority fallacy and it becomes clear that it is Politifact and their rating system which is misrepresenting the truth.
October 7, 2012
Queer Review: Personal Best (1982)
Personal Best
Director: Robert Towne
Writer: Robert Towne
Cast: Mariel Hemingway, Scott Glenn, Patrice Donnelly, Kenny Moore
Overview
A mediocre effort, Personal Best does little to distinguish itself from many other sports film outside of the fact that happens to focus on queer female athletes and a tendency to shun most of the cliches that accompany the sports film genre.
Synopsis
When Chris (Mariel Hemingway) comes in last at a track event, she attracts the attention of Tory (Patrice Donnelly) an older lesbian. The two eventually becomes lovers and after Tory persuades Coach Terry (Scott Glenn) to allow Chris on the team, Chris manages to convince Terry of her talent. However, while the track team is preparing to qualify for the Olympic games, Terry ends up favoring Chris over Terry and attempts to pit the two females against each other.
The Queering
There are many things I would like to applaud about Personal Best. For one, it deals openly and honestly with a lesbian relationship, even though it came out in the early 80's. Another is that the training/sports sequences are effectively presented and usually manage to generate some suspense. Furthermore, the focus on female athletes is also a welcome change for a genre that almost exclusively focuses on men.
I also felt there was a rather deliberate effort on the part of the filmmakers to avoid many of the more annoying cliches associated with sports films. Terry never gives a grand speech about how winning is everything and TEH GLORY FOREVERZ! The plot does not conclude with the "big game" - this is actually all about qualifying for an Olympics, that thanks to the possibility of a U.S. boycott, the athletes might not even be able to attend.
However, after the writers removed all of the melodrama, speeches, and underdogs who come from behind that usually accompany sports flicks, what you have left is, well, something too bland to even be called "vanilla". Personal Best is more appropriately likened to watered down, low fat vanilla.
After what I considered a promising start, Personal Best spends most of the middle section meandering through tepid melodrama, before redeeming itself with an ending that is at least more involving than most of the material proceeding it.
However, I think it is worth comparing Personal Best to it's male equivalents, either in terms of the sports genre or it's presentation of same sex love.
As far as sports dramas go, when most sports films with male characters would be going for 11, Personal Best goes for 1. There are times when I had to remind myself that these characters were Olympic class athletes, as they almost never seem all that interested in winning, or glory, or even in doing particularly well on a given day. Maybe the lack of motivational speeches is to blame, but neither the actors or the script really do much to sell the idea that these are professional athletes locked in non-contact combat.
I've been around enough athletes to know the kinds of pressures many of them face. There are rigid diets that must be adhered to. Strict training schedules that cannot be abandoned, even when one is not on the track. One does not simply lift a few weights, perform a couple of stretches, and then wash down an ice cream Sunday with a bit of Gatorade before showing up for practice or a big game. Compare the level of pressure these characters appear to be up against and compare that to what was on display in Black Swan which was about ballet, not training for the Olympics.
There are two possible explanations for this and the truth probably lies somewhere in between them. One is that the filmmakers believe female athletes are not as competitive as male athletes. This is not true as far as I know.
The second explanation is that the filmmakers decided that the content (LESBIAN ATHLETES WOO!) was juicy enough, and that trying to spice things up further would be like adding chili powder to jalapeno peppers. The blandness of the final product shows just how wrong that thinking was. Personal Best does however manage to avoid sinking to the level of Making Love, a film that was also released in 1982 and another example of where the filmmakers appear to come down with a case of, "well we got queer content, no need to do anything else to make this interesting, like actually bother writing a decent script".
Now as far as queer content itself goes, there is another element that differentiates Personal Best from it's male equivalents. Namely that there are way more shots of the nude female form then would ever be of male characters in a mainstream film - at least for the foreseeable future. Not that this is interesting in of itself, it just goes to further highlight the double standards that continue to exist in modern cinema.
Recommendation
While managing to avoid being a personal worst for anybody involved, Personal Best is anything but. Not to be avoided, but only worth seeking out for those with a strong interest in seeing lesbian characters on film, sports flicks about female athletes, or someone studying the history of queer cinema.
The Rating
**1/2 out of ****
TV Spot
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Robert Towne
Writer: Robert Towne
Cast: Mariel Hemingway, Scott Glenn, Patrice Donnelly, Kenny Moore
Overview
A mediocre effort, Personal Best does little to distinguish itself from many other sports film outside of the fact that happens to focus on queer female athletes and a tendency to shun most of the cliches that accompany the sports film genre.
Synopsis
When Chris (Mariel Hemingway) comes in last at a track event, she attracts the attention of Tory (Patrice Donnelly) an older lesbian. The two eventually becomes lovers and after Tory persuades Coach Terry (Scott Glenn) to allow Chris on the team, Chris manages to convince Terry of her talent. However, while the track team is preparing to qualify for the Olympic games, Terry ends up favoring Chris over Terry and attempts to pit the two females against each other.
The Queering
There are many things I would like to applaud about Personal Best. For one, it deals openly and honestly with a lesbian relationship, even though it came out in the early 80's. Another is that the training/sports sequences are effectively presented and usually manage to generate some suspense. Furthermore, the focus on female athletes is also a welcome change for a genre that almost exclusively focuses on men.
I also felt there was a rather deliberate effort on the part of the filmmakers to avoid many of the more annoying cliches associated with sports films. Terry never gives a grand speech about how winning is everything and TEH GLORY FOREVERZ! The plot does not conclude with the "big game" - this is actually all about qualifying for an Olympics, that thanks to the possibility of a U.S. boycott, the athletes might not even be able to attend.
However, after the writers removed all of the melodrama, speeches, and underdogs who come from behind that usually accompany sports flicks, what you have left is, well, something too bland to even be called "vanilla". Personal Best is more appropriately likened to watered down, low fat vanilla.
After what I considered a promising start, Personal Best spends most of the middle section meandering through tepid melodrama, before redeeming itself with an ending that is at least more involving than most of the material proceeding it.
However, I think it is worth comparing Personal Best to it's male equivalents, either in terms of the sports genre or it's presentation of same sex love.
As far as sports dramas go, when most sports films with male characters would be going for 11, Personal Best goes for 1. There are times when I had to remind myself that these characters were Olympic class athletes, as they almost never seem all that interested in winning, or glory, or even in doing particularly well on a given day. Maybe the lack of motivational speeches is to blame, but neither the actors or the script really do much to sell the idea that these are professional athletes locked in non-contact combat.
I've been around enough athletes to know the kinds of pressures many of them face. There are rigid diets that must be adhered to. Strict training schedules that cannot be abandoned, even when one is not on the track. One does not simply lift a few weights, perform a couple of stretches, and then wash down an ice cream Sunday with a bit of Gatorade before showing up for practice or a big game. Compare the level of pressure these characters appear to be up against and compare that to what was on display in Black Swan which was about ballet, not training for the Olympics.
There are two possible explanations for this and the truth probably lies somewhere in between them. One is that the filmmakers believe female athletes are not as competitive as male athletes. This is not true as far as I know.
The second explanation is that the filmmakers decided that the content (LESBIAN ATHLETES WOO!) was juicy enough, and that trying to spice things up further would be like adding chili powder to jalapeno peppers. The blandness of the final product shows just how wrong that thinking was. Personal Best does however manage to avoid sinking to the level of Making Love, a film that was also released in 1982 and another example of where the filmmakers appear to come down with a case of, "well we got queer content, no need to do anything else to make this interesting, like actually bother writing a decent script".
Now as far as queer content itself goes, there is another element that differentiates Personal Best from it's male equivalents. Namely that there are way more shots of the nude female form then would ever be of male characters in a mainstream film - at least for the foreseeable future. Not that this is interesting in of itself, it just goes to further highlight the double standards that continue to exist in modern cinema.
Recommendation
While managing to avoid being a personal worst for anybody involved, Personal Best is anything but. Not to be avoided, but only worth seeking out for those with a strong interest in seeing lesbian characters on film, sports flicks about female athletes, or someone studying the history of queer cinema.
The Rating
**1/2 out of ****
TV Spot
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)