This article was a little more difficult to understand than I anticipated. I felt like the whole beginning portion until she dives into each of her points was incredibly vague and full of non-sense rhetoric. Just saying.
However, I did appreciate her points. First I agree with her argument that in the 90s, queerness was used as a marketing and profit ploy. I've always felt a little weird about the show Queer Eye because it seems like it exploits an intrinsic part of someone (sexuality) as "different", useful, and therefore entertaining.
Q: Why do you think this kind of "theft of queerness" is deemed acceptable and entertaining?
I am still pretty confused when Aaron writes, "New Queer Cinema." I get that it was something that she had written before, but I don't really understand what it was about or what it means when she continually references it.
Q: What does this mean? What's so new about it and how should I think about NQC in comparison to other cinema?
I really liked Aaron's breakdown of the show Six Feet Under. I've never watched it, so I'm excited that we get to tomorrow! It is really cool to me that this show is able to feature queerness without it being its main focus, or even a focus at all. It's as if the gaze of this show has no sexuality. Everyone is just who they are, and the gay characters' sexuality is not the focus of their character like we see in so many other shows (Glee, Queer Eye, etc.)
Lastly, I was also a bit confused on her discussion of the shift to home viewing. I understand what she's saying, but I missed her overall point on how this affects queer TV.
Q: Can anyone help summarize this last portion for me?
Can't wait to screen the show tomorrow!