April 2012 Archives

Ok, I know this one is super late, but I'm posting anyways.

I had some problems with this movie. My main issue with it has always been that it again plays into patriarchy by giving gay male culture a spotlight and leaving queer women in the cinematic closet more or less. I do believe it's important to give cinematic attention to queer male culture, but not at the expense of leaving other perspectives in the dark. This movie came out when I was in high school and didn't really know anything about indie films, so from my point of view pretty much every queer movie ever made (which isn't a lot) was about queer men. Aside from my past issue with the movie, after watching it, I felt that the two characters were both hyper-masculine, which sort of detracted from the portrayal of queerness because not all men (queer and otherwise) feel the need to fight and spit and brood constantly. On top of this, there's the fact that both men cheat on their wives, and break their hearts. I understand that given the time period of the story the two men really couldn't run off and co-habitate, but still, it plays into that negative assumption that queerness ruins families, and that really bothers me.

I think the most important thing that came about from this class for me was a greater awareness of what goes into queer movies and the things they perpetuate. Usually I'm just so ecstatic when I see a queer movie coming out that I don't even pay attention to the stereotypes and such, but now I feel more critical of what's being created and said by queer cinema. As for a favorite movie, I'm very torn between But I'm a Cheerleader and By Hook or By Crook. I kind of tore apart But I'm a Cheerleader in one of my papers, but I honestly loved this movie, it was adorable and hilarious and I feel like you don't often see lesbians at the core of queer cinema, I feel like gay male culture gets more limelight so to speak, so seeing a budding lesbian relationship was nice. By Hook or By Crook was great because of it's family and romantic dynamics. I really really love that the romantic aspect in this movie was very downplayed while the comradery of the main characters was the central point. The gender neutrality was also a very cool aspect, and it worked very fluidly which I didn't expect. I also like that queerness wasn't the main point of the storyline, but instead friendship and loyalty was more the focal point in my opinion. It's nice to have queerness as a focal point now and then because its definitely an important thing, but at the same time, I feel like sometimes queerness is focused on too much when there are other parts of life that are also important, such as friendship, loyalty, class and race, etc.

I would say that the most important development to me would be the characters and how believable they were while portraying queer images. Rather if they were actually queer or playing queer characters. It was so interesting. Coming from someone that never really payed too much attention to queer cinema before, this class was fascinating! As for favorites, Brokeback Mountain and the Birdcage take the cake. They were so realistic and I went home with a different perspective of queer cinema than I had before watching the two. The excessiveness of the other films didn't do it for me. They weren't bad movies at all, but they were the "queer" that i thought of before knowing that i categorized these types of films (not sure how to explain my thought). But they were the stereotypical queer films. I feel that the next steps are more and more queer films in mainstream cinema. I can see if happening. Queer cinema is making it's mark.

I would say that the most important step that has been made in Queer Cinema is the expansion of accessibility for those who do not directly relate to being gay, lesbian or bisexual. The development of other sub-genres within the genre of Queer Cinema is something that will no doubt bolster the success of queer films in the future. After viewing all the films, I would say that I learned how vast the genre of Queer Cinema really is, previously believing it to be less documented. By comparing some of the other films we viewed this semester to By Hook or By Crook suggests that there is a very clear refusal of the mainstream going on in Queer Cinema, particularly after the rise of New Queer Cinema. While I personally am not as enthralled a the modestly budgeted, art film, I appreciate the breadth of material available to the queer community. My personal favorite film would probably be The Kids Are All Right because of not only its believability, but also because of how endearing I found the characters to be. While the film was met with criticism (as every film should) I think that the realistic portrayal of a family was hauntingly visceral and I even shed a few tears at the ending. I think one of the most interesting things that I observed in class was the understanding I came to have about film as a tool to influence the ideas of others. I realized that as queer films continue to increase in number, acceptance of the queer community into the zeitgeist is not only probable, but certain. Film has a unique way of forcing the viewer to perceive people and experiences in a certain way. I'm excited to see what the future has in store for queer cinema in the upcoming years.

I think that Brokeback for me was my favorite of the films that we watched. There was not only great cinematic concepts, while examining this film I felt that there was so much done that created a multifaceted film beyond a black and white "gay" film. The themes that seemed to accompany many queer films like: tragedy, violence, struggle of acceptance or journey, are felt in this films on some level in films in which I would deem "authentic" queer cinema. Not all of them had to be extremely sad, that's not what I'm saying, but I do feel Brokeback's story-line without needing imagination, or fantasy was able to capture ones journey very effectively with such a beautiful and believable performance, that a lot of people can take away from.

I think that the most important development that I have seen in watching all of the films in the class has taken place in By Hook or By Crook. The thing that was the most groundbreaking was that they hardly mentioned queer identity at all, yet it was present the whole time. Both lead characters are very genderqueer, and maybe the only part I can remember that directly focused on gender identity is when a kid asked Shy "Are you a boy or a girl?" and he responded "both," and a brief scene in the bathroom where Shy and Val mentioned issues with their parents and clothing choices. Other than that, the plot had absolutely nothing to do with their gender identities or sexuality, but instead was largely focused on friendship and mental health. It was really refreshing to see a film where two main characters remain friends, and there is no drama in regards to someone sleeping with the wrong person, or romantic tribulations, that you see in almost ever other film ever, even the other "buddy films." Unfortunately, since this is such an indie film, I doubt there are many people who have seen it, especially non-queer identified people, so it is difficult to say that it is a major win for queer cinema.

Its difficult for me to pick a favorite film, because I liked most all of them. I have always loved The Birdcage, Priscilla, and Brokeback Mountain, but this is the first time I encountered But, I'm a Cheerleader, and I thought it was really great. The things that I like about the 3 former films is that they are all mainstream films that have brought queer existence into the public eye, most especially Brokeback Mountain. I mostly enjoy the Birdcage because I find it hilarious. With But I'm a Cheerleader I was confronted with an observation that I had not really even thought about before, the lack of female queer camp. I thought the movie was totally cute and funny, and it was really great to see a lesbian lead character in a campy film.

I think the next step would probably be to just feature more queer characters in film, (regardless of the plot) and try not to use so many tired, old stereotypes. I realize this seems to be difficult in most films, but I think that we have made a lot of progress over the years.

I think the most important development to me has been the transgression of queer men in films overall. From the "sissy" image to the more accepted image of the over the top gays of today, times have changed. I feel that the image has changed in that queers are not necessarily portrayed as the villain or the enemy. I have noticed that throughout all the films there has been diversity. There has been a story to be told in all the films I have watched. What I mean is that the director and producer sometimes got it right when trying to provide a glimpse into that particular gay couple or person's life. We need more portraying of queers and queer couple to show that everyone is similar really and normal. My favorite film would have to be The Bird Cage. Reason being is because of its freshness and originality. I feel that the movie has a touching storyline, but it is depicted in a way that doesn't leave a bad taste of discourse in your mouth. I want more films to exhibit the normality of queers and queer couples. I want the world to see more happy queer couples and families. This, I think will lead to a better understanding of the queer community.

As first witnessed in The Celluloid Closet at the beginning of the semester, queer cinema has undergone many transformations over the years. Everything from horror to comedy films has included queer or GLBT characters. Some of these depictions have shed a positive light on the queer community while some have illustrated gay characters as evil beings, or characters worth laughing at and nothing else.

Something interesting I have been thinking about because of this class is how the queer community is divided on certain depictions of queer cinema. To some, films like The Kids are Alright and the Birdcage are positive because they illustrate that families with gay parents are "just like everybody else". On the other hand, some don't approve of the homonormative view of gay characters, and believe movies like Priscilla, Queen of the Desert do a better job of representing queer characters positively without making them be so "normal". There isn't one right answer, but regardless, I think queer cinema should always regard its characters as multifaceted characters rather than one-dimensional stereotypes.

To me, it seems in recent years (2000s), queer cinema has taken a step towards portraying queer themes in a realistic and compassionate way. Many filmmakers treat queer characters as real people with real intricacies rather than stereotypes. This is a step in a positive direction, and for this reason, my favorite film in this class has been By Hook or by Crook. This film doesn't dwell on the sexualities of its characters, and instead tells a moving story about friendship and family. I would like to see more queer films like this that have themes of compassion for others.

The most important development for me, in queer cinema over the years, has been the broadening of the genre to include queer themes and characters in films that showcase something other than a romance or romantic relationship. For me, the most interesting films were Heavenly Creatures, Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and By Hook or By Crook due to the themes of horror or friendship superseding the importance of the queerness (I also really enjoyed the two documentaries, The Celluloid Closet and Paris is Burning because of the break from a romance narrative).

I see the future of queer cinema moving toward this. The two biggest budget and most mainstream films we watched (Brokeback Mountain and The Kids are Alright (and indie film, yes, but starring some big names)) were so intent on showing romantic relationships between queer people. This is fine, I suppose, but very limiting. While it's important to have queer romance legitimized by widely-watched films (I had typed "by the Hollywood machine," but it sounded too cynical), I think it's more important to have queer existence legitimized next.

This means increasing numbers of queer characters (as well as queer actors and directors!) in "mainstream" films, where their identity or orientation are not the focus, but rather, a no-big-deal detail or a facet of an otherwise more complex story. It means that the audience doesn't get stuck on what these characters do when they're naked together, you know? Expression of sexuality is such a narrow way to see queer people--and it's something that queer cinema has managed to get past. Now hopefully the rest of filmmakers can, too.

What stands out for me when tracing a string connecting all the films we have watched and discussed over course are politics of representation. By this I mean the visibility of queer sexuality, gender, queer families and kinships, relationships, and bodies. Questions were raised regarding the purpose: Was it personal? Was it political? Was it authentic? In what ways is queerness deployed in film, by whom and for whom?

My favorite film(s) that we watched over the course were But I'm A Cheerleader (an old favorite), and By Hook or By Crook (which I had not seen until our viewing last Wednesday). I am pleased with the deployment of camp within But I'm a Cheerleader, both for the affect of humor, but also for the spaces and contexts in which more serious conversations can occur. When showing this film to friends, questions would come up about medicalization of LGBTQ folk and approaches of psychological violence through cognitive behavorial therapy and electroshock therapy. "Is this real?," folks would ask.

In By Hook or By Crook, I love how the possibility of queerness as central, rather than on the periphery, allows for the recognition of a queerness that is not read in comparison (or in opposition to) heteronormativity. The depiction is not utopic. This isn't because there is something less desirable about queerness, but because life in general can be incredibly complicated, trying, and messy at times. I believe it presents an aspect of realness.

The most important development in the films we have watched over the semester is probably the realness of the characters and plots. Movies like the Birdcage and To Wong Foo are fueled by stereotyping and hegemonic undertones, while others like Female Trouble pushed the envelope too far. Brokeback Mountain and By Hook or By Crook were by far the most realistic portrayals of queers because the films weren't about being queer. They were stories about the relationships between people-- people who happen to be queer.

The progression of film characters can be described as a fast evolution. As we saw on Wednesday, By Hook or By Crook contained characters with who seemed unencumbered by their sexuality.to contrast this, Devine was murdered in the end of the film becuse of her sexuality. As we saw increases in the quality of the plot and the narritive, we see increases in the quality of character development. However, there were aspects of previous films that ii enjoyed, such as almost any scene in Priscilla Queen of the Desert, excluding the depiction of Aboriginal people. I think the most interesting pbservation that i have made comes from Devine. The redefinition of something that i thought an at least semi-concrete definition, sexual pleasure, was completely changed after that film. Even though i consider myself an open person, opening up to what is considered deviant by anyone of the people in our class, was my biggest step. Bringing what i have learned about general acceptance and equality out into the world is the most exciting bit for me. I have enjoyed this course. Lastly, the next step for a Queer filmmaker is to break into new definitions of sexuality. There is an untapped market, and coming form someone who thought relations between Divine and herself were the weirdest thing ive seen, i bet people would listen to a film that redefined things for them .

What's been the most important development to you?
I agree that the most important development that we have seen take place over time within queer cinema has been the "realness" of the characters. The first films we saw, especially the montage of old queer cinema in Celluloid Closet, portrayed queers are stereotypes of themselves. If any type of queer representation took place in a movie, it was either something to be kept secret or purposefully not talked about in the film, or it was the main point of the story, which also trivializes it.

What has been the most interesting observation you've made?
I had some pretty interesting self observations, which mainly dealt with being very indecisive with how I felt about certain films. The general consensus of The Kids Are Alright was that it was horrible and incredibly heteronormative. While part of me agrees with that, another part thought "Well, at least queer relationships are being portrayed as "normal" (to some extent) and lead actresses are taking on these roles. It's better than nothing, and it's better than what we had before."

What has been your favorite film and why?
My favorite film was probably either Birdcage, for the sheer entertainment element, or Brokeback Mountain because I love Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams. That story is just plain heart breaking no matter how you look at it, and I think it was very well done in terms of acting, filming, etc.

What do you want the next step in queer filmmaking to be?
I also liked By Hook or by Crook, simply because it included queer characters but the plot literally had NOTHING to do with their sexuality. I think that while films like The Kids Are Alright and Brokeback Mountain will always be around so that straight audiences can relate to queer culture, more queer films need to be made that are for queer audiences but don't revolve around the gender/sexuality/sexual orientation of the main characters.

For me, By Hook or By Crook is one if the top movies I've seen in this class just because the main characters didn't seem to be based upon stereotypes. Their sexuality didn't interfere with the plot of the film and the plot wasn't based on their sexualities. Although I think the movie itself was underdeveloped in some ways, such as their petty crime schemes and each of their romantic interests I still thought the movie got a good point across. I've found that the movies I've liked best that we've watched were the ones that were not too excessive or based on stereotypes. I think my favorite film was Brokeback Mountain, but I wish the ending would have been a bit different and more of a happily ever after type ending. Just because we haven't seen too many of those types in our class. I think the next step in queer filmmaking should simply be a higher quality and quantity of them. I'd like to go to a movie theater and have the option to see at least two or three queer films instead of one or none like it is today. I think the more prominent queer films are, the quicker society will be to accept them as apart of everyday life.

At the beginning of the semester we dealt with very shallow portrayals of queers in cinema. In the Celluloid Closet we saw how queers have been depicted as sissies, lunatics, crazed killers or people who's weak and disgusting behavior is punishable by death. This characters' queerness have also not always been referred to blatantly since queerness had no place in the social sphere. It has both pleased and saddened me to see the ways that acceptability of queerness has evolved and how this has been reflected in cinema. But I agree with others in that negative portrayals of queers have been in all of the films we've seen. While the depiction of queers is not what it used to be it is by no means flawless.
At the beginning of the semester we defined many words that we would be using within the context of the class. We said that queer was "the description or identity given to people or behavior that is anything different from the heteronormative ideology; can be a sexual identity, set of politics, lifestyle choice, etc". But within the movies we've seen queer has been portrayed in pretty much the same manner. This queerness has been displayed as homosexuality with maybe the exception of Female Trouble.
My favorite movie was Birdcagebecause of its humor. And while I was off-put by Female Trouble it was quite different from the rest of the films we've watched in that it approached queerness in a much different light. My least favorite movie was The Kids are Alrightbecause it white-washed the queer experience in addition to heteronormativity, stereotypes and catering to male fantasy.
In addition I want the next step in queer cinema to lack heteronormativity. While I understand that we live within this society and it affects all of us it would be nice to escape it while watching a film. Isn't that what movies are supposed to do? Allow for fantasy? I don't think any queers' fantasy is to have their story "straightened" or heteronormatized.

I think the most important development has been the depiction of queer characters from the queer characters perspective. It was cool getting to see how the queer characters went from being the evil vampires who were the subjects of heteronormative society, and who always ended up dying to real people with real and valid feelings. The most interesting observation I've made is that even though the way viewers see queer films has changed those characters are still dying and are still "bad". Jack Twist was murdered, Shy from by Hook or by Crook was still a thief, and even the wife in "The Kids are Alright" was still a cheater. The sad thing is that with the whole dying part, that's probably the only reason these stories made it to the big screen is because there is tragedy. I would LOVE to see a queer comedy film. Some of my favorite queer films are those cheesy gay movies that over exaggerate what it means to be queer. "But I'm a Cheerleader" is one of those films and my favorite one that we got to watch because even though it still had it's fair share of problems, for once it didn't end up with anyone dying, and the two girls got to be together.

For me, perhaps one of the most profound evolutions of the queer films we have watched throughout class has been the "realness" or relatable factor. Especially with the evolution into New Queer Cinema, I found myself being able to identify everyday problems and concerns the characters shared with myself. Its hard to identify with the camp type films we watched because of their excess, not to say some don't, but I just don't relate as easily to Female Trouble as I did to By Hook or By Crook. My favorite movie we watched was probable But I'm a Cheerleader, simply because that over the top humor is totally for me. It was a movie that kept me entertained the longest out of all we watched. What I would like to see in the future of queer cinema is an evolution into the "mainstream" Hollywood movie culture. Not just another Brokeback Mountain, but a movie that has queer and well-developed characters whose sexuality isn't the focus of the entire movie. Again I just want a realistic and relatable queer character for everyone to see and connect with.

I find it so amazing how the characters throughout queer cinema seems to have developed and really come into their own. The further back you go, the more you see the same character from movie to movie. If there were a queer character in the film, it was either the "Fairy," gay man, or the "Butch," lesbian, and that was it. Now we have movies like By Hook or By Crook with characters who have no defined gender or sexuality and it's great to be able to see that people are finally able to see that there's more out there then the binaries that we've been accustomed to. I feel like that's definitely the most interesting development I've seen as we've been going through queer cinema. Queer cinema is also a great way to actually track queer history because although not everything you see in movies are real, they're a great way to track social hierarchies and stereotypes. I feel like we've been able to see how a lot of people view queer individuals through history and I find it to be extremely interesting. I feel like we're already taking that next step with By Hook or By Crook with the whole separate queer universe. I feel as though it's a utopian ideal that hopefully society will be like sometime where all queer individuals will be able to just be themselves and no one seems to care or think there's anything wrong with that.

Now this is gonna be a bit of a shocker, but my favorite film from the semester was actually Female Trouble because it seems to have caused the biggest fuss in class. It really did a great job of bringing the idea of excess and fatness to such a ridiculous and awful level that they clearly got their point across. It's so obvious what they're getting at without actually saying it. I feel that it really did bring something that none of the other films really could. I mean it was awful, but definitely a necessary evil.

The most outstanding trend in the films that we've watched is that they've become more and more progressive over time. In the beginning, we watched The Celluloid closet, which really set the stage in terms of what to expect from common media, and what we were set up to expect was unflattering at best. From there we viewed The Birdcage and The Kids Are All Right (and later, Heavenly Creatures), both of which served to further reinforce negative stereotypes of queer individuals/communities. Following these, we critiqued Female Trouble, which the majority of the class found to be an uncomfortable situation, but which I found particularly brilliant and insightful. We then moved toward films like But I'm a Cheerleader and Brokeback Mountain, which more than anything, were political statements and worked toward tearing down the insulting stereotypes, either through camp or through a painfully honest recollection of a lonely man. By Hook or By Crook took this one step farther by putting the characters' queerness in the background; it was always there, but it was never the whole story. It is refreshing to see a queer film that is not simply about being queer. A common (and justified) critique of queer cinema is that there is never really much of a plot. It's just a movie about being queer, which serves to further alienate queers from the straight masses.
My favorite film, cinematically, is But I'm a Cheerleader. In terms of thinking critically, though, my favorite film was Female Trouble simply because of the powerful statement that was visible if one simply read between the lines.
In the future, queer filmmaking will move more toward portraying different as normal. Meaning, unique queer individuals will be shown as the norm, no matter much they deviate from societal expectations. I think it will be unpopular at first because so few people are ready for this sort of a concept, but overall it has potential.

Hay y'all, this is an incredibly important and powerful event. Attend if you have the time and energy and spread this around please!

Queer (In)Justices with Joey Mogul

Sunday, April 22, 2012
4:00pm
Social Sciences Building, room 1114, U of M Campus.

*At this event, Joey Mogul, co-author of Queer (In)justice: The
Criminalization of LGBT People in the United States, will discuss CeCe's
case and contextualize it in a national landscape of social and
institutional violence against transgender women of color.
*
Joey L. Mogul is a partner at the People's Law Office in Chicago,
Director of the Civil Rights Clinic at DePaul University College of Law,
and an activist, challenging the death penalty, torture by law
enforcement officials, gentrification, and supermax conditions. Mogul's
practice focuses on representing individuals who have suffered from
police and other governmental misconduct in civil rights cases and
defending individuals in criminal and capital cases. Mogul has worked to
seek justice for Chicago Police torture survivors for the last fourteen
years.

For info about CeCe's case and ways to support her, visit:
supportcece.wordpress.com

Check out (and post!) the event flyer:
http://supportcece.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/joey-mogul-event.pdf

Despite the well documented and numerous arguments against it's nature as a Queer Film, Brokeback Mountain is certainly not beyond analysis as a film that does in fact reflect the values and the struggles of the queer community. With regards to Mancuso's reading of the film, Brokeback Mountain embodies characteristics that grant it reprieve from harsh criticism of not actually being a "queer" film.

Mancuso points out that the lighting and mise-en-scène of the film can contribute to both the interpretive value of the film as well as reinforce non-verbal and symbolic elements within the film. The film provides lots of material that can be read between the lines, which causes the viewer into a sort of forced perspective. For example, the scene in which the two embrace shirtless simultaneously leaves a lot and nothing at all to the imagination as the viewer is forced into the perspective of the herd owner. The lighting is bright and youthful, indicating a sort of blissful innocence as the two men explore their sexuality (more or less) beyond the judgmental eyes of the outside world. With this in mind, a clear connection to the hidden and sometimes surreptitious "down-low" lifestyle that gay men have faced in antiquity.

Furthermore, the strength of the mountain as a dual metaphor for both masculine sexual freedom and sexual oppression adds to the overall "queerness" of the film. In a way, the mountain almost becomes a third character in the film, imbued with all the pent up emotion and passion entwined within the two men. The mountain is perhaps the most authentically queer aspect of the film, its symbolism able to transcend interpretive credibility.

The ideas of community and the avoidance of solely positive images of queer folk were very powerful in Brokeback Mountain. I always think after watching that film that "people are just people, they shouldn't make you nervous...people are just people like you" (Regina Spektor.) The honesty in Brokeback Mountain is so moving, especially after the films we've watched with very larger than life personalities. As the couples in the film have conflicts, they are all so common that anyone can identify with the connections, be them queer or non.

I think the goal of feminizing camp was a complete success. I found it extremely cute to have the pepto-bismol colored house, outfits, etc. Beyond that, I sensed themes of Charm School with regards to the curriculum for the young girls in the film. It was nice that every scene of what the girls' classes were like, the comparison was undeniable between the boys' classes too. The outrageous tasks assigned to the young women were hilarious, but at the same time a bit somber, due to the reality of expectations on so many folks to really conform to the gender roles of old.

Recognizing the critiques of representations of "queerness" (scare quotes here as Ennis Delmar and Jack Swift explicitly state they do not identify as queer) as inauthentic, heteronormative, and more explicitly depicting the violence of homophobia (both internal and external to an individual) rather than a "universal love story", Brokeback Mountain has numerous possibilities for a queer reading.

My reading of Mancuso's points is that they largely address politics of viewing; the ways in which the viewer is not so simply an active subject who is gazing open passing cinematic representations of queerness. In the process of viewing, a degree of projection can occur. As Mancuso points out, lighting, the angle and view from which the camera is positioned impact what one can truly know about the characters physical engagement in sexuality. Lacking an explicit (viewable) depiction of non-heteronormative sexuality demands heteronormative folks to project their own knowledges and understandings onto the screen. The process itself becomes seamless in certain contexts, erasing distinctions between what is viewed and what is assumed. This is to say that the cinematic representation, through the engagement with underlying assumptions of viewers, exerts a degree of agency through the very process of which one seeks to glean meaning and thus interpret the relationship (physically and emotionally) between the two lead characters.

Additional aspects that could be read through a queer lens are the ways in which the film destabilizes tropes of the cowboy as inherently individualistic and heteromasculine. While Delmar and Swift deny queerness and undeniably embody a form of masculinity, their desire for each other (which is placed under surveillance) creates a rift between heterosexuality and masculinity (which I have read as mutually constitutive in tropes of the cowboy). The relationships between cowboys on the frontier as colonizing forces over nature also is destabilized within the film, my reading of this is referring to their relationship with weather changes on the mountain, their submission to nature, and their deployment of interdependency

I think that there are many instances to apply a non-queer, heteronormative lens, there of course are many possibilities you could point to. However, through Macuso's lens, there are several points that are given as a queer film. I would argue the queering theme of split endings. The idea that one may not be able to be together in the end, seems to be a common thread in several of our queer films in class. The death of Jack in the film goes along with this notion. The entire journey of them not being able to be open and together because of society or the places in which they live, I would argue contributes to this ending that love does not conquer all, in which we have seen in such films like Heavenly Creatures.

I feel like the movie was a success in terms of queer cinema. The characters and their relationships were very interesting. I enjoyed that the film was not predictable. I had no knowledge of what to expect. I agree with Mancusco about the image of Brokeback mountain. The movie designed a image of how brokeback associates to queer. people will always remember brokeback being this "queer" place. I've heard people even make reference to this in a jokingly way. This alone shows how much of an impression this movie has left on people. All of the scens that jack and ennis went back to the mountain they shared their love. It was as if this sacred place made their love complete. It also seemed like Jack was more under the herteronormative influence. The scene where they shared thier last time at the mountain and he expressed his agony for being apart. This exposed his feminine side. He didn't care if anyone knew, he just wanted to be with Jack. While Jack seemed like he wanted to ignore it as long as he could.

One of the things Manusco talks about is the gaze of both the main characters and the audience as well. I think that this is a prominent queer aspect to the movie that continues throughout its entirety.

Because they can only act on their feelings when they are in private, much of the interaction between Jack and Ennis relies on thier eye contact, or lack thereof. From their first encounter, things are a bit awkward. Ennis barely looks at Jack when they're waiting for the boss to show up at the trailer. It gave me the impression that they already knew something was going to happen, and Ennis was just trying to prolong the inevitable. Meanwhile, Jack is taking sneak peaks at Ennis through his car mirror.

There are also scenes, like when one is naked and taking a bath, and you can tell of the internal struggle of the other to look or not to look. And if he does look, what does that mean? And if he doesn't look, is it because he's forcing himself not to?

The audience is also put in this position at the same time. A viewer might be forced to confront his or her own homophobic thoughts and then ask, "Do I enjoy watching this movie? Is this scene making me uncomfortable? Why or why not?" And we are also put in to the movie as viewers through the eyes of the boss and through the eyes of Alma. They give a negative view of the relationship, but for different reasons. Alma isn't so much disgusted by the queerness of their relationship, but just by the fact that she is being cheated on by someone she clearly loves. The boss, on the other hand, is rather homophobic.

Mancuso's piece was very interesting. I enjoyed his ability to scope out the future in a way and predict what the film will come to mean to future generations.
For me, the most affecting scene of the entire movie is Ennis and Jack's first reunion after their summer on Brokeback, about four years after that I believe. Jack drives up to Ennis' house and they passionately kiss and of course Ennis' wife sees them. What a shock for her! I couldn't imagine what must have been going through her head at the time. What struck me about this moment, and what I think makes it queer (and this theme could also be applied to the movie as a whole in my opinion) is the forbidden, unacceptable love that the two men share. In a heteronormative world, gay men couldn't express their love openly, while straight people would likely have no issues doing so. Part of being queer is kind of being on the outside, being different from the typical heteronormative society, and in a way their bond is perfectly representative of this. Their relationship definitely fits that criteria, and I think Mancuso has the same point when he says 'Brokeback has instantly become translated in the popular argot as... denoting an impossible or unrequited love relation...' When he said this, Mancuso was referring speicifically to males using the term brokeback as more of a joke, but I think it illustrates a good point: that all audiences could recognize the relationship Ennis and Jack had was a different one from the norm, even if they weren't realizing it was queer. It was different because of how hush-hush the characters had to keep their feelings; because of how much danger and hurt could go along with loving each other. In some ways it was like any other relationship can be: one person was more involved, one person could be withdrawn, and a wide range of emotions followed the characters throughout. But it is queer because of how untraditional and boundary-pushing their coupling was, and because of how much trouble the two men had to go through while still loving each other.

I think this movie was definitely queer, and very successfully so. One of the things that Mancuso states as a source of queerness was the destabilization of the compulsory heterosexual story. Both of these men identify as straight, have traditional signs of being straight (having a wife or a child), and don't often fall subject to the "longing gaze" that is so often used in heterosexual love stories. Especially through the last statement, the audience is often caused to homo-eroticize everything that occurs between Ennis and Jack after the first night they sleep together. Are they flirting and horsing around, or are they actually fighting. Is Ennis going to check out Jack while he's changing, or is he going to ignore it completely because it's no big deal? This shaky ground between gay and straight, I feel, is the queerest aspect of the film.

When reading Mancuso's article I liked seeing the distinctions between this queer movie and heteronormative movies. One of the reasons why I think I liked this film so much is because it's so different from what I was used to seeing. Thus, making it hard to predict. I never thought that one would have died, especially Jack. This is without a doubt the best queer film I've seen in this class. It wasn't based on stereotypes, excessiveness or cruel jokes to get the point across - instead it was serious and portrayed a realistic homosexual relationship for that time period. One of the main distinctions between Brokeback mountain and heteronormative movies is how the relationship is played out. It seems to me that in most heteronormative movies where the main character is somewhat of an outcast than she/he will be ostracized throughout the film and then eventually pulled back in and accepted by their friends and family. In this film, we can see clearly at the end after Jack dies that his main relationships have ended roughly. When Ennis is on the phone with Hathaway you can tell that Jack's relationship with her has been severed. When Ennis goes to visit Jack's parents you can tell that their relationship is incredibly strained as well. Also, if you can recall Ennis's last visit with his wife, it ended up pretty bad. The only relationship that was salvaged was Ennis and his eldest daughter. I like that I wasn't able to predict the outcome of this film, to me that brings across a bigger message.

On page 95 of the course packet Manusco talks about the ways in which scenes are set up. They show the subjects of the spectator in such a way that one has to imagine what may be implied, or imagine what is not being shown. I remember one scene in particular when Jack and Ennis are drinking whisky and Jack ends up knocking something over and is crawling on his hands and knee's so his butt is facing Ennis and the camera zooms out so we see Ennis facing towards Jack. The camera does not focus on Jack's rear end but I for one imagined Ennis to be checking out Jack's butt. The spectator is forced into imagining what is not being seen physically, and since one is not forced into viewing a perhaps "gay" scene, it is queered because the spectator makes up the scene in their own mind. The sexual fluidity and freedom that each spectator is allowed to imagine is endless.

Though Brokeback Mountain has one issue that could be considered heteronormative, I would definitely argue that it is a queer film. Jack wants Ennis to run away with him and live a monogamous life on their own ranch. This could be seen as heteronormative to some people, but I would argue that it is not. Its not as if Jack desires to have kids with Ennis, he seems content to leave behind the one that he has, which seems very queer to me. He doesn't want a white picket fence and all of the other things that come with being in a nuclear family, he just wants to be with the one he loves. I think it is possible to be monogamous and queer... Also, in most heteronormative films, there is a happy ending; the prince saves the princess, the two main characters in a rom com have a fight and then get back together, etc. The guy always gets the girl. In this case, the guy most certainly does not get the guy, and one of them ends up dead. Not your typical movie.

I think that having to hide their sexuality and relationship is very queer as well, as that is certainly something that most heterosexual people would not have to do. I think this film reflects the time and place accurately. Even now, I think many rural towns are extremely homophobic, in fact I'm from one, and know many kids who did not come out until after they moved from the area. So, I completely understand why Ennis was afraid of the consequences of having a public, gay relationship. Jack also is not completely monogamous. In addition to his marriage with his wife, he sleeps with men other than Ennis, which is generally not acceptable in a mainstream, monogamous relationship.

I think this is a really important film which brings awareness to the general public about homophobic violence. In this case, I do not have a problem with the fact that the two main characters were played by well known audiences, because it attracted all types of people. I also think it was very brave for Heath Ledger and Jack Gyllenhaal to play queer characters, at the risk of many jokes and parodies down the line. Although this film was set a while ago, we still face many issues of homophobia, and this film does a great job of bringing that to light.

In reading Mancuso's "Brokeback Mountain and the History of the Future of the Normal" I was delighted to see the ways in which this scholar found Brokeback Mountain to be a queer movie that was proving its queerness by moving past heteronormativity. This can be seen in the following. "Heterosexuality's failure to reproduce its own compulsory story, in this Brokeback cinematic mirror, simply confirms that heterosexuality fails to reproduce its own story all over the common social map" (92). In addition "homophobia is alive and well, but its own inherent perversity has now been exposed as a cinematic fact, in no small part because of the phenomenal success of Brokeback Mountain (94). By making these points the author is priding this movie on it's success in revealing a piece of truth within cinema that reflects in the larger society. In the movie I think the author's point is seen simply when Ennis decides not to be with Jack. It would have been far more heteronormative for love to conquer all and for the two of them to live happily ever after. Instead the fear and social stigma of the relationship wins and Ennis isn't willing to put his and Jack's happiness before the possible repercussions of their public relationship. In heteronormative, mainstream films we may times do not see endings where the lovers choose not to be together. Most of the time the lovers run-away together or stay together despite the odds, but they defy their limitations in some way. Perhaps more importantly is the reason Jack and Ennis can't be together. Other than in queer relationships how often do we see in films that the lovers can't be together because of fear or the result of a hate crime? This series of events then fails to fall within heteronormativity. In fact it speaks to the ways in which hate-crimes are a result of "heterosexuality [failing] to reproduce its own compulsory story".

I feel that in a lot of ways this movie was very positive for the queer community. It brought light to the issue of queer violence a lot more than other films have done in the past. It shows just how brutal people can be. When you look at the scene where Ennis is brought with his brother to see what was done to the one known homosexual of the town, you hear this brutal story of the death of this poor man, and his only crime was living with the man he loved. Then there's the scene where you hear of Jack's death, and how a tire exploded while he was filling it with air on the side of the road. That story is complete nonsense, and when they show him getting beaten, it's obvious what really happened. I feel that this is so important to show because we hear about the bullying and abuse that many people go through, but rarely see how far it can really go.

There's also the idea of hiding your true self in order to protect yourself, and your family. That's another very important theme that makes this movie extremely queer. These men obviously were in love, and Jack seemed to accept it and wanted to live together, but Ennis was far from acceptance. This movie is a journey of self discovery and acceptance, and unfortunately for Ennis it seems it comes too late. It seemed as though Jack already accepted he was gay and there was no way around it, but he was in love with Ennis, and if they weren't going to have a relationship, he figured there was no point in outing himself to the world.

I feel that these are two very important issues, and the fact that the movie isn't just showing a happy-go-lucky gay family where everything is perfect and they're falling into this heteronormative white picket fence model makes this movie extremely queer. So what if they're trying to mask their sexuality. That's what so many homosexuals go through. Many even go to further extremes to rid themselves of their heterosexuality and I feel like that's something it could definitely benefit from because it would bring another queer element to it that also is left out of these cookie cutter "GLBT" movies.

While a lot of the film did focus strongly on heteronormativity, bits and pieces were quite transgressive. In general, Ennis was far less heteronormative than Jack was. Jack had this intense fantasy of living together on a ranch and fulfilling his "happily ever after" as defined by patriarchal society. In fact, he was so desperate for this sort of monogamous, dedicated life that he went so far as to fulfill it with another man since it became clear that Ennis would not participate. Ennis seemed to deny heteronormativity throughout, even in regards to his heterosexual marriage to Alma. The scene I found most moving in terms of denial of heteronormativity was the sex scene between Alma and Ennis. They begin in a very loving and intimate fashion and then Ennis flips Alma onto her stomach and penetrates her from behind. While this is a small point, I think it is important to note because it seems to so accurately parallel his complete and total rejection of all things "normal" or "expected." This scene truly serves to queer the perception of Ennis' sexuality, even within the confines of a straight relationship

I do think that the director Janie Babbit did participate in the 'feminisation of camp'. But I feel that that particular feminisation only applied to the gay male characters in the film. Again, keeping with mainstream portrayals of lesbians, they were more turned into sex objects than anything else, and the 'male gaze' was quite reserved for them, and mocked the gay men on the screen. I feel it continues to re-inforce the binary. The only gender-queer individual in the film was trivialised and that completely de-tracted from the possibility of having gender variance. I also don't think it re-claimed camp for queer women directors. It still mainly focused on the gay male characters and fetishized all the lesbian characters. Overall, I felt that it was not an empowering film.

I think Jamie Babbit succeeded in trying to make the film "But, I'm a cheerleader" a feminized version of camp. Although I definitely do agree that creating gender binaries in any way is negative, I don't think there is any harm in feminizing something. If anything, having only male examples of camp reinforces gender stereotypes, because that is the only example that is shown. While I was watching the film, in fact, I felt so happy that a campy movie like this had a lesbian as the leading character. It is rare for any movie to have a prominent female character as the lead, let alone a lesbian. I think it is unfortunate that this is probably a movie that is popular only in the queer community, because it really is a cute film. Babbit did a fantastic job of parodying a topic that is very serious, and making it hilarious. Far from reinforcing the gender binary, Babbit poked fun at it by making everything in camp blazing blue and pink for the boys and girls, respectively, and making the girls do housework, while the boys worked on cars and chopped wood. It was obvious to anyone who was watching the film that these ridiculous tactics do not work. Another thing I liked was how the queer characters in the film were not all portrayed stereotypically with femme men and butch women; there was a wide variety of gender expression on both sides of the spectrum.

I feel that "But I'm a Cheerleader" does a great job of feminizing the setting of the Camp Film. As mentioned, much of the camp genre has been located within the male gay community. However, this film uses those same pillars of the genre to provide a more feminine perspective. The story is itself a feminine as the audience follows the female lead through her journey as a lesbian at True Directions. The romance that develops between Megan and Graham allows for the classic, forbidden camp shinanigans to be presented in the soft, romantic light of a lesbian love affair. The camera angles, soft lighting and swell of music during these scenes leads to a more feminized tone to this film. While I do not have a strong opinion on the reclamation of camp films for queer women directors, I feel that reclamation of any kind can be nothing but positive for the influence on the genre. All interpretations and new representations add to the incredible, multi-faceted world of film critique. I would like to see more queer women explore the genre and continue the "reclamation" process.

To respond to the question posed for this week's blog post, I believe it is important to analyze, and to problematize, Moe Meyer's understanding of "camp". In their essay "Reclaiming the Discourse of Camp," Meyer argues for a queer reclamation, with purposes of establishing ownership over and authority to "camp" as a form of politics and resistance that is inherently queer. While I agree with Meyer to an extent as (and Jessica has stated this within the course) that "camp" has roots in gay male culture. However, recognizing where "camp" originated from, thereby giving credit, is drastically different then arguing that "camp" is specific to "queer" experience--perhaps even to the extent that one could state, as I believe Meyer may, that "camp" is "queer".
Queer is a broad term that I believe skirts a line between a social movement that seeks to make larger institutional change, and a community that practices a politics of exclusion and therefore remains both esoteric and marginal. Queer, when used broadly, does in fact privilege certain bodies, gender expressions and identities over others, and for this reason can often reduce, and in extreme cases, erase individual experiences with gender, sexuality, race, class, ability etc.
My reading of Jamie Babbit's statement that But I'm a Cheerleader is a "feminization of camp" is that this is simultaneously a form of feminist camp offering critiques of essentialized, mutually exclusive, and heterosexist understandings of gender, but also offers a "camping" (or perhaps a "queering") of femininity. If we are to read Moe Meyer's understanding of camp as specific to queerness, we would have to acknowledge that queer, within this context, is very specifically referring to the understandings of gender and sexuality that cisgender gay men hold. I disagree with this quite strongly for numerous reasons, most importantly because cisgender gay men have understandings of gender and sexuality that are directly informed by their own positioning as gay men in a heterosexist world that largely values the beliefs of white, politically and economically powerful heterosexual men.
Additionally, I do not believe that Babbit's "feminization of camp" reinforces the gender binary. Rather, I believe that it draws attention to the impossibility of reading queerness, femininity, and masculinity as singular expressions or identities, but as infinite. Heteronormative understandings of gender reject numerous means of "doing" and "being" a gendered subject.

I absolutely think that But I'm a Cheerleader participates in the feminization of camp. I think the movie aptly centers around a female lead character, and really "campifies" the female characters. The movie humorously portrays Megan ogling the sexiness of her co-cheerleaders, and otherwise portrays lesbian stereotypes in a mocking, satirical way.

Although females take the lead, there is also aspects of male camp film. I particularly think of the over-the-top lustfullness between the gardener and the "straight" buff camp counselor. There's also lots of poking fun at the "sissy" stereotype of gay males.

Although this film doesn't ENTIRELY feminize camp, it does to such an extent that aims to level the gender inclusion of camp movies.

The feminization of camp used by Jamie Babbit I think only applies to the queer men in the film. Though there are female characters in this film, it seems like they are fetishized. The lead love story between 2 lesbians is a fantastic place to start redefining camp, but this film didn't really break heteronormative roles. This film did not do a great job convincing me that it was breaking through the barriers of the male gaze, because of the disproportionate amount of lesbian female sexual contact and a lack of gay male sexual contact. In terms of showing the point of view of someone who was being sent to camp, the film did a marvelous job. I thought the camera angles during the intervention and throughout evauations of progress done at camp were progressive in showing something I hadn't yet seen. The most disappointing part of this film was the use of male-objectification, the cheerleaders, through the lens of a female. The use of a female narrative, as we have learned, comes with the loss of her feminine traits. This and the hypersexuality given to the women in the film, leaves me thinking that there wasn't a ton of factors in this film that broke the gender binary.

Jamie Babbit wanted to feminize camp in this film. I would say that she was more than successful. Her excess didn't take away from the film at all. She didn't use too much or too little. I liked how she didn't cast all females or make the men extremely masculine and was still able to produce a feminine aspect of camp. I thought the movie was awesome and she worked the story line to get the job done.

By saying "the feminization of camp," I think Jamie Babbit wasn't necessarily trying to play into a gender binary, or state that camp could only be as it was traditionally--male--or how she did it--female. Rather, I think Babbit was acknowledging those male roots and then explaining how she subverted them. It leaves camp open for a number of different -izations. Directors have used camp to make fun of entire genres (i.e., the "Scary Movie" franchise as a campy sendup of the "Scream" films), to make fun of a time period or popular show of that time period (as you mentioned in class, "The Brady Bunch Movie") or they have used camp in woefully unintentional ways ("Showgirls").

It is great that queer filmmakers outside just gay men want to use camp as a cinematic device. I think it's an incredibly useful language for even straight viewers. Watching the intervention scene, straight viewers laugh and know right away that it's ridiculous. They may not parse why it's ridiculous, but faced with a similar situation of people in their lives taking umbrage with another's orientation, they will hopefully remember the way the film made them feel and object to the real-life judgement. BOOM--ally. Basically, I don't think what Babbit said enforced a gender binary, and I don't think she intended to just say that camp is either for gay men or for those who want to "feminize" it. Camp is a great device for all types of film. It's inclusive like that.

If camp is all about using excess to expose the absurd than I would agree with Jamie Babbit's "feminization of camp". Yes I think that the film plays along certain gender binary but to me it just felt that the director used excess in the film to expose and critique that binary. The film was so camp along gender binary lines, the pink/blue rooms for boys/girls and the cleaning homes/fixing cars to help turn the campers "straight". It was just so in your face absurd that it really showed the weakness in that binary and poked fun at it. So yes I think the author succeeded in her feminization of camp, in the movie but I'm a Cheerleader.

I would definitely agree with Jamie Babbit that she succeeded in the feminization of camp. The film had a certain character or quality that I've never really seen before, and I'm guessing this was the feminization she was talking about. Before this class I wasn't too clear on what exactly camp was, so it was a little hard to know what to look for during the movie in regards to female camp, but I think I saw it eventually. The film certainly has many moments of great representations of female and male queer sexuality, but sometimes takes it into stereotypes I felt.

I'm not sure how marginalized movies about camp directed by females can be, per the discussion prompt, but I can imagine that like most things in Hollywood it is a male-heavy group, and Babbit's film is probably one of the few of its kind. For the most part, however, I think her work does a lot to bridge that gap and popularize movies about female camp. Babbit does a good job of making a funny film with likeable characters, so her film should only bring about positive things. However, I can understand the point that it might bring about a gender binary. It's avoided though, mostly because although her film is silly at times, I think Babbit did well at making grounded characters whose emotions we can clearly feel. The audience connects to it and so it's not just a male/female thing. Another reason I think the film is successful is because it mixes male and female camp.

I don't think that But I'm a Cheerleader necessarily feminized camp. While the storyline revolved around two women, many of the ideals of camp represented were still quite masculine.
Feel free to let me know if I'm not reading camp 100% accurately, but I saw aspects of camp throughout the film that return to mimicry and mockery of stereotypes of the gay man. There was the stereotypical "ex-gay" who was closeted and comes off as homophobic but is still quite clearly gay. There were the distinct "gay" personalities of the male members of the camp whereas the female personalities were downplayed as much as possible. There is the representation of the night club, "Cock Sucker," clearly mimicking the appeal to gay men. There is the representation of "homo recruiters," who, of course, are male characters. Overall, I saw much more masculine representations of camp in this film than feminized. I do not blame this on the director, however. There are simply far more stereotypes to mock in the context of male sexuality as female sexuality is still so hidden from the mass public due to its less threatening nature.

After reflecting on this statement, I don't think Babbit was effective in reclaiming camp for queer women. I think camp is overtly associated with gay men and it would have been more effective if she would have create an all women cast. I thought some of the female characters were campy, but whenever the camera would cut to a male, the viewer would forget all about the female camp.

If the film were to portray an all female cast or masculine men, I think the women would have had more of a chance to reclaim camp.

I felt that the gender binary was reinforced by the simple representation of campy gay men in the film

After reading Babbit's quotes expanded upon, posted by jacksavvy_ccs (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/giust002/queercinema/2012/03/feminization-of-camp.html), I think Babbit took a kind of backwards way of explaining her intentions behind the use of camp in But I'm a Cheerleader.

Babbit claimed that she wanted to 'feminize' gay male-dominated camp by adding real emotion and romance to the film. I find it interesting that she is trying to do something revolutionary in the world of cinema, let alone queer cinema, with such a conservative attitude. Emotion and romance is not exclusive to a single gender. On a side note, the balance of 'real' moments and campy moments caused the movie to be very enjoyable and relatable, more so than John Water's Female Trouble (not being too excessive in the use of excess), so kudos to Babbit for that.

However, my personal take on the "feminization of camp" quote was the mockery of traditional gender roles. Though this is done in other camp films, like Female Trouble, I felt the feminization came into play in the mockery and excess of domesticity, a traditionally feminine characteristic. Ignoring Babbit's real intention behind reclaiming camp for queer women, I think that the irony that lies in making an over-the-top performance of simplicity and domesticity was fantastically clever.

Director Jamie Babbit said she was feminizing camp in this film, I felt that she was successful in this in some ways. Being that predominantly the gay male community usually is associated with camps, placing a girl lead character helps to eliminate the marginalization placed on queer women by mainstream. However, because of the comedic nature and the other main male characters having such strong parts, the feminizing camp for queer women sort of goes unnoticed. I think that overall the film did a better job at showcasing how the males got caught doing rebellious acts and getting kicked out and how the lead played the as the one upholding the camps wishes initially. I just don't really see the link.

I think that it is important to represent femininity in camp despite any reinforcing of gender binaries. If this did not happen then the camp genre may be left solely representing the gay male community and just further marginalizing queer women. I find that a lot of feminist organizations and queer organizations that are open to all genders focus on the marginalization of women and trans identified folks. Seeing as Hollywood follows mainstream society and is mostly dominated by males, it is important to have any visibility of queer women that we can get in my opinion.

When director Jamie Babbit said she was feminizing camp in this film - I didn't really get that impression after seeing it. If the film had only women in it who were trying to become straight and feminized, then I think it would have been more feminine. Since there were also males in the film who were trying to become more masculine, the aspect of femininity was denoted. But I'm a Cheerleader didn't do anything to improve the gender binary either, if anything it put gender into two boxes - masculine and feminine. Intertwined with that was boxes for sexuality as well. One was either homosexual or heterosexual. At the camp the only acceptable roles were to be a feminine, heterosexual woman or a masculine heterosexual man. It reinforced the gender binary by not going into detail on the one non binary identified character. (not sure on the name of that character, it was one of the characters in the female group)

I feel like camp is primarily dominated by the gay male culture, and it's very possibly being reclaimed and becoming feminized in this film. Although I never really saw camp as something specifically designated to gay men, and has been used by women and heterosexuals as well, I feel like it just seems to be more common for gay male performances. There is no question about the fact that this movie is clearly campy, and absolutely ridiculous making it the amazing comedy that it is.

I think that the fact that we seem to need to "reclaim" camp for females reinforces the gender binary. Because we decide that this genre of film seems to "belong" to gay males, it seems that everyone else has to "reclaim" it for themselves. Now it's women, next heterosexuals will need to reclaim it. Then is it going to be trans* people? Unfortunately not everything is so available for everyone, and there is still inequality for many groups, because we should all accept that everyone should be equal, and no one needs to "reclaim" anything because no ideas should inherently belong to a group of people. These ideas, humor, values should be universal and anyone should be able to claim it for themselves and not have to feel as though they're taking something from another culture or group. Since we see this genre as male dominated, and women need to "reclaim" it, where does it leave everyone else who doesn't identify as man or woman?

The movie itself also doesn't do anything to help remove the gender binary. It's all about masculinity and femininity, men and women. There is also a sexuality binary that is threaded throughout the movie. People are either heterosexual or homosexual, and that's it. There is absolutely no hint of trans* people, or people of other sexualities.

When it comes to camp and movies there are definitely a lot more movies that are directed towards the gay male community than the lesbian community. This can include such movies as even Female Trouble or other movies that use male drag queens to create a sense of campiness within a film. Then Jamie Babbit comes along with a film such as But I'm a Cheerleader which I believe kind of revolutionizes the traditional definition of what Camp was considered to be in films. Instead of using main characters that are gay and making them campy, Babbit creates a main character in a campy film that is actual a female and at the same time a lesbian. Her statement of participating in the "feminization of camp" pertains to this film because the main character of Megan is portrayed as a lesbian who is trying to be cured but in a funny and campy type of way whereas there are a lot of other films who do the opposite and use gay men as the lead instead. This film, I believe, helps queer women directors because it was well received and helps change audiences viewpoints of a queer woman director's work. I believe this movie helped audiences accept the work of these women and the style of queer campiness much more.