I don't think that the actors' or directors' sexuality matters when determining the "queerness quota" of a film. I feel that a film by heterosexuals can be just as queer if not more queer then one made by a queer person. I think the question is how valid is the portrayal of the queer person in the film. We could bring the same question in when we're dealing with race or gender. Let's say a white man makes a movie about African American women, and troubles they seek in America. Would the fact that the director's white and male make the movie any less "racial" or "feminist"? I don't think so as long as the director is knowledgeable on his/her topic. That's what makes a good movie, not the fact that the director/actors match up with the main characters or issues, but the fact that they are knowledgeable and accurate on what they're portraying. Look at "Glee." Darren Criss is a straight actor playing a gay student, and he has such a huge queer following.
Having straight actors/directors definitely doesn't pull from a movie's "queerness," but at the same time, having queer people involved is definitely going to pull in a larger queer audience. I don't think it necessarily even have to do with the fact that the movie is going to be more "queer," but I feel it has to do with general support for queer visibility. I'm sure lots of queers weren't too excited by Female Trouble, but it was directed by an out director, and that's huge. I feel like it's a need to support one another in order to keep queer visibility as common as possible. I think that today, when a queer movie comes out, it's instantly labeled as "queer," and that's a label that seems to be necessary to describe it. When asked about the movie The Kids Are Alright, the first thing that most people say is it's about a lesbian couple. Even though, in my opinion, the movie is more about the relationship between the kids and their sperm donor then the fact that the parents are lesbians, it's still the first thing that comes to most people's minds.
Heavenly Creatures
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/180476
At first I was unsure if I agreed with you but then when you said "I think the question is how valid is the portrayal of the queer person in the film." I agree with that, because most queer films are portrayed in stereotypes, and while they have such a negative stigma associated with them - a lot of the stereotypes can be or are most often true. If it's a serious film and it is portrayed by only negative stereotypes than it is invalid. You're right, it's the validity that counts.
I like your statement about the" validity of the queer person in the film" as well. I think its so true that we are often given the stereotypical queer type in cinema. I remember thinking so many times that this character was bullshit or fake because it was a person that I couldnt identify or relate to in my own life experience. Its like seeing yourself represented by someone who has this pre-conceived notion of who you are and what your about.
I agree with this 100%. Why would the orientation of the director or of the actors make a difference as long as the film, the representation, and the message invoke intrigue? In the case of the director, (s)he is behind the scenes. Judgement of the film based on personal analysis of the director seems wrong and counter productive. In the case of the actors, they're actors! Their entire job is accurately representing and becoming something that they aren't in real life.
I find your point on queer audiences supporting queer directors intriguing. I personally would not support a film because of the presence of a queer director. While I value Waters' strength in being out and proud, I moreso value his hard work, his creativity, and his dedication. Attributing the popularity of his film to his queerness takes away a lot of the value of said support.