I'm not sure if it's fair to assume that sex is completely absent from Nic and Jules' relationship. The film as least shows the women attempting a sexual encounter. It is not just lesbian couples that experience a lack of sex as the relationship progresses, and I don't think that is what the movie was trying to say. It's common for many people to lose interest and motivation regarding sex as they age, and I think this may have been the writers way of trying to make Nic and Jules relatable to an adult audience--regardless of their orientation. Jack Halberstam makes the assumption that all people prefer to live single lives with excess amounts of sex and little human companionship. While it's true that Hollywood has attempted to de-sexualize gay characters to make them less threatening to close-minded audiences, The Kids Are Alright does not portray Jules or Nic to be asexual. They're simply struggling to keep things together after twenty years of attachment, which in many relationships leads to dwindling amounts of sex.
In the Birdcage, however, Armand and Albert are portrayed to be nearly asexual. They seem to be best friends who love each other, but their sexuality is of little to no importance.
It is unfortunate that Juliane Moore's character found herself to be bisexual, because this shows audiences that perhaps this is the case of all lesbians. But without Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore's affair, there would be no film. This was the primary conflict in the movie, and it's one of the only things that kept the movie from being a cheesy, heartwarming, family-friendly tale. The affair gave the film a depth it would no have reached without it. There were many annoying stereotypes surrounding Nic and Jules, such as their sensible Subaru station wagon and their "touchy feely" parenting techniques. Overall The Kids Are Alright tip-toed on the line of offensive gay stereotypes, and there are certainly improvements that could have been made.
Borderline Offensive
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/179244
I feel that yes, the movie did reinforce some negative stereotypes, but it also did some busting of myths, such as the fact that all lesbians are overly masculine, butch women. This movie depicts a lesbian couple, both of whom still produce some sort of femininity. And it also shows that the couple is just like heterosexual couples showing that the relationship takes work to keep things fresh.
I agree they really make Armond and Albert out to be completely asexual beings, which isn't to much surprise given the time, audience, and context of the film. I also agree with the fact that no affair would have meant no film. It definitely gave it a clear story. Sure there were some stereotypes, but I feel it did better then mot films.
I agree that sex must not be totally absent; perhaps the film just chose not to show it. And obviously Jules and Nic have had a passionate relationship in the past and the events of the film occur fairly quickly, so we are just seeing a small part of their history. Halberstam strikes me as the type of guy who would be very frustrating to have a discussion with - like any attempts at coherent, sensical conversation would be met with loud, broad generalizations that were desperately made to prove his point. Of course couples might lose sex drive over time and devote their time and interests to something else; for him to say this is proof that lesbian relationships/couples won't work or that it is an indictment of gay life is just silly. He can't seem to make up his mind: first he agrees that the film is showing how a lesbian couple can be like a straight one in bad ways, and suggests this is bad for gay people... then the next minute he seems to be claiming that gay parenting won't work because it isn't enough like straight people. Very frustrating and I thought he did a poor job of getting his point across in general.
I agree that the affair played a huge part in making the movie, but I think it had more to do with the son. The movie pretty much said in order to raise a son, a father is needed. Think back, the daughter did not care as much to find the father as the boy did. I think the movie painted the lesbian relationship as "failed" and the male figure (Mark) was painted as the "savior".
I so agree about this. I feel that in order to make the movie 'ok', they make the lesbian couple rather asexual, and then 'save' one of them by having her have sex with a man who swoops in and saves the day. I do think that they portrayed the relationship as failed and rather sad.
I really enjoyed you post! It gave a positive if not neutral approach to normalcy of declining sexual encounters as we age in relationships. The film definitely was definitely able to relate to a wide range of audiences through this, as well as the chaos that ensues any extramarital affair. I also think that the message with the father proved rather offensive though.
I really enjoyed you post! It gave a positive if not neutral approach to normalcy of declining sexual encounters as we age in relationships. The film definitely was definitely able to relate to a wide range of audiences through this, as well as the chaos that ensues any extramarital affair. I also think that the message with the father proved rather offensive though.
I really enjoyed you post! It gave a positive if not neutral approach to normalcy of declining sexual encounters as we age in relationships. The film definitely was definitely able to relate to a wide range of audiences through this, as well as the chaos that ensues any extramarital affair. I also think that the message with the father proved rather offensive though.
I really enjoyed you post! It gave a positive if not neutral approach to normalcy of declining sexual encounters as we age in relationships. The film definitely was definitely able to relate to a wide range of audiences through this, as well as the chaos that ensues any extramarital affair. I also think that the message with the father proved rather offensive though.