So tonight was the first night of my Human Nature Through Film class that I am now taking at Wilkes University. Since this is the first philosophy class that I have taken since I graduated from SUNY Oneonta, I am a little bit excited about it.
One little bit of irony though. On the list of films we would be watching, there was only one that I was not familiar with. Of those that I did recognize, none were LGBTQ related, which kind of irritated me a little. However as it turns out, the one film that I was not familiar with (Keep the River on Your Left) turned out to be a documentary about a gay anthropologist.
I'm a bit embarrassed of course. I've spent all this time trying to become an expert on queer cinema and naturally, the one film I've never heard of on this list would be the queer film.
August 28, 2013
August 27, 2013
Queer Issue: When Bigotry is Addressed in Fiction, It's All or Nothing
Last night, while watching the Buffy spinoff Angel episode "Are Now or Have You Ever Been"on Netflix streaming, during a flashback set in the 1950's I noticed a brief moment where a black family was being turned away from a hotel while the hotel manager went on and on about the "Vacancy" sign out front was "a mistake". For those with a smidgen of knowledge of history will recognize this as a nod to the horrible practice of hotels and other businesses would outright refuse crucial services to people of color. The point of course, was to make it next to impossible for people of color to travel or engage in certain kinds of business.
For a little while into the Angel episode I thought that this would be it, that this would be an isolated moment in the story. Well, it turned out I was wrong. While giving away the relevant plot details would be rather spoilerish of me, I will say that the episode ended up addressing racism in a rather significant fashion.
Of course, during the time where I found myself assuming that the episode was not going to substantially address racism, I got to thinking. It seems to me that whenever a story/novel/movie/tv show episode, wants to address racism/homophobia/transphobia/biphobia/ableism/sexism** it almost always does so in a Very Big Way. Maybe not a Very Special Episode Way, but usually it will come close. There is almost never a passing reference to a minor example of bigotry or an example of a micro-aggression regularly faced by a minority group, unless it is worked into a narrative that is specifically intended to focus on one of the aforementioned *isms.
This in of itself, is not a bad thing. Obviously given my hobby of reviewing queer films, I think that more films (and other works of fiction) need to do more towards presenting the experiences of the LGBTQ population and other minorities as well.
However, wouldn't it be nice if more writers and other producers of fiction, were willing and able to include references to micro-aggressions as well passing nods to the bigotry faced by minority groups regularly as part of narratives that are not intended to focus primarily on some form of bigotry?
It does become something of an issue, me thinks, for works of fiction to only address "big issues", as it means that there is little focus on the daily lived experiences of most minorities. Focusing on "minor issues in passing" could go a long way towards changing that. Not of course as a substitute for "Big Issue" narratives, but in addition to.
Just some food for thought.
**I list these as those are all of the *isms that I can recall off the top of my head as having been addressed in some significant fashion by a major work of fiction. Obviously there is a small fortune of isms' that aren't being addressed at all or in a significant fashion.
For a little while into the Angel episode I thought that this would be it, that this would be an isolated moment in the story. Well, it turned out I was wrong. While giving away the relevant plot details would be rather spoilerish of me, I will say that the episode ended up addressing racism in a rather significant fashion.
Of course, during the time where I found myself assuming that the episode was not going to substantially address racism, I got to thinking. It seems to me that whenever a story/novel/movie/tv show episode, wants to address racism/homophobia/transphobia/biphobia/ableism/sexism** it almost always does so in a Very Big Way. Maybe not a Very Special Episode Way, but usually it will come close. There is almost never a passing reference to a minor example of bigotry or an example of a micro-aggression regularly faced by a minority group, unless it is worked into a narrative that is specifically intended to focus on one of the aforementioned *isms.
This in of itself, is not a bad thing. Obviously given my hobby of reviewing queer films, I think that more films (and other works of fiction) need to do more towards presenting the experiences of the LGBTQ population and other minorities as well.
However, wouldn't it be nice if more writers and other producers of fiction, were willing and able to include references to micro-aggressions as well passing nods to the bigotry faced by minority groups regularly as part of narratives that are not intended to focus primarily on some form of bigotry?
It does become something of an issue, me thinks, for works of fiction to only address "big issues", as it means that there is little focus on the daily lived experiences of most minorities. Focusing on "minor issues in passing" could go a long way towards changing that. Not of course as a substitute for "Big Issue" narratives, but in addition to.
Just some food for thought.
**I list these as those are all of the *isms that I can recall off the top of my head as having been addressed in some significant fashion by a major work of fiction. Obviously there is a small fortune of isms' that aren't being addressed at all or in a significant fashion.
August 25, 2013
Queer Issue: A Queer Film Critic Responds to the GLAAD "Vitto Russo Test".
My short response: NO!
Slightly expanded response: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! DIE,MOMMIE, RUSSO TEST! DIE!
Okay, I expect someone out there will want some of those pesky little things called "reasons" from me.
First, here is what GLAAD has put forth as the Vitto Russo Test:
Nothing could be a bigger insult to Vitto Russo's legacy then to have his name attached to such a simplistic set of standards. You know what films meet this standard? Some of the most homophobic and transphobic crap ever to grace the silver screen like Silence of the Lambs. After all, Buffalo Bill is explicitely trans, important to the plot, and is not solely defined by the fact that he cross dresses. What doesn't meet the criteria? A small fortune of films that I consider to be some of the most pro-queer films around. ParaNorman's Mitch, is not all that important to the plot and his sexuality, while important thematically, is set up as a punchline. Does that mean that his is no longer significant for being the first explicitly out gay character in a mainstream film aimed at children?
For those who do not know who Vitto Russo is,you should be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourselves... I mean, you should know that he is the earliest and most prominent queer film critic who wrote The Celluloid Closet. For those who are both ignorant and lazy, you can easily correct your ignorance by watching the documentary, The Celluloid Closet which was based on his work.
In his book, Russo analyzed hundreds of depictions of LGBTQ characters throughout the history of cinema. The breadth and depth of his work is extraordinary, and while I do not always agree with his conclusions, the significance of his contributions to the field of queer film criticism is undeniable.
In short, the major problem with the Vitto Russo Test that GLAAD is proposing is that it is way too simplistic to bear the name Vitto Russo. Not to mention that it is too culturally and historically ignorant to be allowed to live.
Yes, I do want more LGBTQ characters in films obviously. And yes, I would like them to be more explicit as opposed to subtextually queer. And yes, it would be nice for them to matter in some fashion.
But there is an entire breadth of films that fall outside GLAAD's criteria that I find interesting and noteworthy. Does the fact that Little Horse serve no function to the plot of Little Big Man mean that the film fails, even though the character is used to highlight the films' anti-war themes? What of the The Great Gatsby where there is not a single explicit LGBTQ character, but reading the narrator as being romantically and sexually attracted to Mr. Gatsby adds layers of depth to both the characters motivation and thematic content? Are they failures of cinema because they don't meet every point on GLAAD's litmus test?
When I review queer films, I do have a set of criteria, yes, that I think about in regards to the film. If I were to write it down, it might go a little as follows:
1) Are the characters explicit or are there any that can be read as subtextually LGBTQ?
2) What is the cultural setting in which this film is being made? Who is the film being made for? (Straight, General, LGBTQ or some segment therein?) How do the queer characters fit into it all?
3) What are these characters importance to the plot or thematic elements?
4) Are the LGBTQ characters intended to positive or otherwise sympathetic? Are they complex and well developed or do they simply rely on caricatures and stereotypes?
With the exception of #4, none of these are really pass/fail. Nor are they they only ones that I ask, these are just the most common. Another example would be if the characters die or kill themselves, what is the reason for doing so and how does it serve the story?
It is also important to emphasize that Vitto Russo understood that it is not worth analyzing singular films without considering the importance of historical trends. There is arguably not a whole lot wrong with a single film that portrays a transgender person as a serial killer. There is enormous harm done to the trans* community though when there is enough films with transgender serial killers that they become their own sub-genre. There is nothing wrong with a film having a gay or lesbian character committing suicide or otherwise getting killed off. There is a whole lot wrong when death becomes the predominant fate of gay and lesbian character. There is nothing wrong with presenting a bisexual character who cheats or is other-wise non-monogamous. It becomes very wrong though, when every bisexual character tries to have sex with every other character in a given story.
Ultimately, there are a lot of things we need more of regarding queer cinema and GLAAD's proposal does not address them. Hollywood should not forget that people of color are also LGBTQ. That there are disabled queers. That there have been and continue to be people dealing with HIV and AIDS. That people from every background, class, gender, and profession can also be gender and sexual minorities. That historical figures should not be straitened out to fit what is a political narrative that erases the contributions of LGBTQ individuals to society.
In short, the Vitto Russo Test is too small, too narrow, and too straight to be queer. No matter what our parents say, we should never stop being vampire slayers or mutants. Where is the acknowledgment in this test for intersex monarchs or the asexual cannibals who ate Raoul? Where are those who were born in flames or poverty? Should we not want to see them on screen as well? Ultimately, we are too big, too diverse to have any room in our birdcage for for this test.
So whether we be pariahs or watermelon women who live on Gun Hill Road or Brokeback Mountain, we should reject every every angry inch (or 20 centimeters) of the Vitto Russo Test.
Slightly expanded response: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! DIE,
Okay, I expect someone out there will want some of those pesky little things called "reasons" from me.
First, here is what GLAAD has put forth as the Vitto Russo Test:
The Vito Russo Test criteria:
1) The film contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT).
2) That character must not be solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity (i.e. the character is made up of the same sort of unique character traits commonly used to differentiate straight characters from one another).
3) The LGBT character must be tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect. Meaning they are not there to simply provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline; the character should matter.
Nothing could be a bigger insult to Vitto Russo's legacy then to have his name attached to such a simplistic set of standards. You know what films meet this standard? Some of the most homophobic and transphobic crap ever to grace the silver screen like Silence of the Lambs. After all, Buffalo Bill is explicitely trans, important to the plot, and is not solely defined by the fact that he cross dresses. What doesn't meet the criteria? A small fortune of films that I consider to be some of the most pro-queer films around. ParaNorman's Mitch, is not all that important to the plot and his sexuality, while important thematically, is set up as a punchline. Does that mean that his is no longer significant for being the first explicitly out gay character in a mainstream film aimed at children?
For those who do not know who Vitto Russo is,
In his book, Russo analyzed hundreds of depictions of LGBTQ characters throughout the history of cinema. The breadth and depth of his work is extraordinary, and while I do not always agree with his conclusions, the significance of his contributions to the field of queer film criticism is undeniable.
In short, the major problem with the Vitto Russo Test that GLAAD is proposing is that it is way too simplistic to bear the name Vitto Russo. Not to mention that it is too culturally and historically ignorant to be allowed to live.
Yes, I do want more LGBTQ characters in films obviously. And yes, I would like them to be more explicit as opposed to subtextually queer. And yes, it would be nice for them to matter in some fashion.
But there is an entire breadth of films that fall outside GLAAD's criteria that I find interesting and noteworthy. Does the fact that Little Horse serve no function to the plot of Little Big Man mean that the film fails, even though the character is used to highlight the films' anti-war themes? What of the The Great Gatsby where there is not a single explicit LGBTQ character, but reading the narrator as being romantically and sexually attracted to Mr. Gatsby adds layers of depth to both the characters motivation and thematic content? Are they failures of cinema because they don't meet every point on GLAAD's litmus test?
When I review queer films, I do have a set of criteria, yes, that I think about in regards to the film. If I were to write it down, it might go a little as follows:
1) Are the characters explicit or are there any that can be read as subtextually LGBTQ?
2) What is the cultural setting in which this film is being made? Who is the film being made for? (Straight, General, LGBTQ or some segment therein?) How do the queer characters fit into it all?
3) What are these characters importance to the plot or thematic elements?
4) Are the LGBTQ characters intended to positive or otherwise sympathetic? Are they complex and well developed or do they simply rely on caricatures and stereotypes?
With the exception of #4, none of these are really pass/fail. Nor are they they only ones that I ask, these are just the most common. Another example would be if the characters die or kill themselves, what is the reason for doing so and how does it serve the story?
It is also important to emphasize that Vitto Russo understood that it is not worth analyzing singular films without considering the importance of historical trends. There is arguably not a whole lot wrong with a single film that portrays a transgender person as a serial killer. There is enormous harm done to the trans* community though when there is enough films with transgender serial killers that they become their own sub-genre. There is nothing wrong with a film having a gay or lesbian character committing suicide or otherwise getting killed off. There is a whole lot wrong when death becomes the predominant fate of gay and lesbian character. There is nothing wrong with presenting a bisexual character who cheats or is other-wise non-monogamous. It becomes very wrong though, when every bisexual character tries to have sex with every other character in a given story.
Ultimately, there are a lot of things we need more of regarding queer cinema and GLAAD's proposal does not address them. Hollywood should not forget that people of color are also LGBTQ. That there are disabled queers. That there have been and continue to be people dealing with HIV and AIDS. That people from every background, class, gender, and profession can also be gender and sexual minorities. That historical figures should not be straitened out to fit what is a political narrative that erases the contributions of LGBTQ individuals to society.
In short, the Vitto Russo Test is too small, too narrow, and too straight to be queer. No matter what our parents say, we should never stop being vampire slayers or mutants. Where is the acknowledgment in this test for intersex monarchs or the asexual cannibals who ate Raoul? Where are those who were born in flames or poverty? Should we not want to see them on screen as well? Ultimately, we are too big, too diverse to have any room in our birdcage for for this test.
So whether we be pariahs or watermelon women who live on Gun Hill Road or Brokeback Mountain, we should reject every every angry inch (or 20 centimeters) of the Vitto Russo Test.
August 13, 2013
Update: Apple has removed "bisexual" from objectionable list.
I have received word from the makers of the Quist app that Apple has removed "bisexual" from it's list of terms that are flagged.
August 12, 2013
According to Apple, bisexual is a dirty word
So, I open up facebook today, and what do I see but a post from Quist about this.
There's now a petition on Change.org
Apple please remove bisexual as an unacceptable word for use in app descriptions.
There's now a petition on Change.org
Apple please remove bisexual as an unacceptable word for use in app descriptions.
July 30, 2013
This is just to say...
...that I have volunteered as a contributing researcher to the new LGBTQ history app Quist and just sent off my first batch of entrees to the person in charge.
July 8, 2013
Queer Review: Little Big Man (1970)
Little Big Man
Director: Arthur Penn
Writer: Calder Willingham. Based on the novel by Thomas Berger.
Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Faye Dunaway, Chief Dan George, Martin Balsam, Richard Mulligan, Jeff Corey, Aimée Eccles, Kelly Jean Peters, Robert Little Star, Cal Bellini, Ruben Moreno, Steve Shemayne, William Hickey
Overview
The story of Jack Crabb (Dustin Hoffman) the lone white survivor of Custor's Last Stand, Little Big Man is notable for its' inclusion of a Native American Two Spirit character.
Synopsis
When their parents are killed by members of the Pawnee Tribe, Jack Crabb and his sister, Carolina, are discovered by members of the Cheyenne tribe. While Carolina almost immediately runs off, Jack remains with the Cheyenne for many years, eventually returning to white civilization. Thereafter, he vascilates between his Cheyenne identity and white heritage, going back and forth between living with both groups. After surviving Custor's last stand, he is eventually interviewed at age 121, where he recounts the story of his life to an awed reporter (William Hickey).
The Queering
Released in 1970, Little Big Man does little to hide the fact that it is an anti-war film and can be seen as specifically criticizing the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam civil war. Scenes of U.S. cavalry, lead by General George Custor, massacring Native Americans, are reminiscent of similar incidents that occered during the Vietnam War. A young female Cheyenne in a key scene is obviously intended to appear Asian.
More importantly, from a queer standpoint, is the character Little Horse, a Two Spirit. Jack describes the Two Spirit gender as being revered by Cheyenne. When Little Horse refuses to join in the Cheyenne attacks on the U.S. army. According to Jack, this was okay with the Cheyenne, who never forced anybody to fight who did not in fact wish to do so. It is easy to see in this, a clear cut attempt by the filmmakers to criticize the use of the draft by the U.S. to recruit soldiers for Vietnam.
Overall, Little Big Man covers a wide variety of material, from depicting the massacres of Native Americans to the inclusion of more comedic elements. We are not spared the gruesome details of these slaughters, while other scenes, such as Jack Crowe interacting with Buffalo Bill, are played strictly for laughs. These elements should seem to be at odds with each other, but somehow they feel right in the story that covers almost the entire span of an individual's life.
Little Big Man was quite ahead of it's time considering the fact that the Native American characters are played by actual Native Americans. Furthermore, the sensitivity that is displayed towards Little Horse is astounding, given that this was only a year after the homophobic crapfest called Midnight Cowboy won the Oscar for Best Picture. Compare it as well to the recent Lone Ranger movie, which features Johnny Depp (a white man) in a Native American role, on top of featuring a cross dressing baddie.
In The Celluloid Closet, the claim was made that Cabaret presented the world with the first positive portrayal of queer characters. After seeing Little Big Man, I feel the need to point out that Penn's film contains not only a much more clearly identified LGBTQ individual, it takes a much more positive view of Little Horse's identity, than Cabaret ever did with any of it's LGBTQ characters. Not only that, but where Cabaret buried it's characters identities under a series of obfuscating charades, Little Big Man is crystal clear from the outset regarding the nature of Little Horses' identity.
Recommendation
There is nothing little about my enthusiasm for this film, it is certainly worth going to extraordinarily big efforts to see.
Rating
***1/2
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Arthur Penn
Writer: Calder Willingham. Based on the novel by Thomas Berger.
Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Faye Dunaway, Chief Dan George, Martin Balsam, Richard Mulligan, Jeff Corey, Aimée Eccles, Kelly Jean Peters, Robert Little Star, Cal Bellini, Ruben Moreno, Steve Shemayne, William Hickey
Overview
The story of Jack Crabb (Dustin Hoffman) the lone white survivor of Custor's Last Stand, Little Big Man is notable for its' inclusion of a Native American Two Spirit character.
Synopsis
When their parents are killed by members of the Pawnee Tribe, Jack Crabb and his sister, Carolina, are discovered by members of the Cheyenne tribe. While Carolina almost immediately runs off, Jack remains with the Cheyenne for many years, eventually returning to white civilization. Thereafter, he vascilates between his Cheyenne identity and white heritage, going back and forth between living with both groups. After surviving Custor's last stand, he is eventually interviewed at age 121, where he recounts the story of his life to an awed reporter (William Hickey).
The Queering
Released in 1970, Little Big Man does little to hide the fact that it is an anti-war film and can be seen as specifically criticizing the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam civil war. Scenes of U.S. cavalry, lead by General George Custor, massacring Native Americans, are reminiscent of similar incidents that occered during the Vietnam War. A young female Cheyenne in a key scene is obviously intended to appear Asian.
More importantly, from a queer standpoint, is the character Little Horse, a Two Spirit. Jack describes the Two Spirit gender as being revered by Cheyenne. When Little Horse refuses to join in the Cheyenne attacks on the U.S. army. According to Jack, this was okay with the Cheyenne, who never forced anybody to fight who did not in fact wish to do so. It is easy to see in this, a clear cut attempt by the filmmakers to criticize the use of the draft by the U.S. to recruit soldiers for Vietnam.
Overall, Little Big Man covers a wide variety of material, from depicting the massacres of Native Americans to the inclusion of more comedic elements. We are not spared the gruesome details of these slaughters, while other scenes, such as Jack Crowe interacting with Buffalo Bill, are played strictly for laughs. These elements should seem to be at odds with each other, but somehow they feel right in the story that covers almost the entire span of an individual's life.
Little Big Man was quite ahead of it's time considering the fact that the Native American characters are played by actual Native Americans. Furthermore, the sensitivity that is displayed towards Little Horse is astounding, given that this was only a year after the homophobic crapfest called Midnight Cowboy won the Oscar for Best Picture. Compare it as well to the recent Lone Ranger movie, which features Johnny Depp (a white man) in a Native American role, on top of featuring a cross dressing baddie.
In The Celluloid Closet, the claim was made that Cabaret presented the world with the first positive portrayal of queer characters. After seeing Little Big Man, I feel the need to point out that Penn's film contains not only a much more clearly identified LGBTQ individual, it takes a much more positive view of Little Horse's identity, than Cabaret ever did with any of it's LGBTQ characters. Not only that, but where Cabaret buried it's characters identities under a series of obfuscating charades, Little Big Man is crystal clear from the outset regarding the nature of Little Horses' identity.
Recommendation
There is nothing little about my enthusiasm for this film, it is certainly worth going to extraordinarily big efforts to see.
Rating
***1/2
Trailer
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)