What makes a queer film queer?

Hey folks! My name is Maggie and I'm a queer feminist, sophomore Radio-Television-Film student here at the University of Texas at Austin. I've recently decided to pick up a minor in Women's and Gender Studies, and I want to eventually combine my love for film with social justice to create LGBTQ-centered media that anybody can enjoy (even from the small rural towns in the conservative areas of our country).

As an RTF major, I often think about how film effects the LGBTQ community, and at the same time, how the experiences and people from the LGBTQ community have effected the direction of film throughout history. At some point in my career, I'd like to create films that are educational, beautiful, and representative of communities within the queer community that aren't often represented in mainstream movie theaters.

Personally, as somebody who didn't find a queer community until I moved to Austin for college, I haven't seen a lot of queer films compared to most LGBTQ people in the film world. Before I moved to Austin, my only access to queer films were those featured on HBO (such as Lost & Delirious with the lovely Piper Perabo), and I didn't realize how much of an effect seeing two women in a relationship on my television had on my life. When it came to queer television, I was rewatching episodes of The L World by my senior year (grr, Jenny Schecter). My first year of college, after I felt more free to explore the LGBTQ community and the films that surrounded it, I was extremely excited to find that I Luv Video (a local Austin video store by UT's campus) had an entire section for Gay & Lesbian movies! By the summer after my freshman year of college (and severely late to the game) I had discovered the wonderful world of netflix and other film and television websites. I feel like I can safely say that I've dabbled a lot in the "queer film world", or New Queer Cinema (a term created by B Ruby Rich).

At this point, however, I've had a lot of conversations about what makes queer film "queer". For the longest time, I thought of queer film as any movie that had LGBT characters in it. That's easy to define -- any lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender characters in a movie makes it a gay and lesbian movie (no matter how good of a job they did [lookin' at you, Glee]), right? But if that were the case, younger me thought, then it couldn't possibly be realistic of the LGBT community, because we couldn't possibly fathom who is part of the LGBT community and who wasn't (as in, we can't assume everybody is anything but straight until they have a dramatic coming out scene). Maybe we should have a friendly notice before each movie or television show -- "Do not assume any characters in this film are straight or queer unless otherwise specified". However, a lot of people would disagree with this must-have-queer-character theory.

Maybe, in order to be considered a "queer film", the movie/show we're watching has to not only include LGBT characters, but it also must have a positive and accurate representation of identities, or a political standpoint, or must someway be displaying LGBTQ activism. In other words, it couldn't just be two women kissing. That kissing has to, as one of my professors stated earlier this semester, have the ability to [politically, for this argument's sakes] move mountains. The love between two men or woman must have a political intent. But in order to argue that, we'd have to define what activism is and for a lot of people, that activism for many people includes making movies with LGBTQ characters.

Yet despite the plausibility of the prior theories, I recently heard a very interesting argument about what makes queer cinema "queer". Some critics, particularly those who grew up in the time period of the late 1980's and 90's, when New Queer Cinema was at it's peak, argued the queer cinema did not necessarily have to have representation of LGBTQ folks, or even have LGBTQ conent, but it had to differ from mainstream film in terms of the style of how it was filmed (aesthetics, camera angles, effects, etc.).

When thinking about these arguments in terms of language (which is often what our movement gets caught up on, such as the different between the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival and the more inclusive title, "Polari" [they're changing it back to AGLFF]), we always come back to the word "queer". I personally like this word as an identifier for myself because of the "wiggle room" it gives me on any given day in terms of having to explain my identity to somebody, or even what the label means to me. But it's no surprise that "queer" means so many different things to so many people. A lot of people in the queer community state that there's a big difference between those who are "queer" and those who are "gay and lesbian", because the mainstream LGbt movement are focusing on white, middle class, (mostly cisgender) gay and lesbian people. Some people still use "queer" as an adjective to describe something that's "abnormal" or "different", such as the aforementioned experimental filmmakers. Some people use it to further divide the community (which is certainly okay if that's what it means to them), as well as an umbrella terms that includes all of the LGBTQQAAPI+++ folks.

My question is -- I know there have been thousands of queer films from the past century that have been screened at queer film festivals, competed competitions, and made by graduate film students, etc., that are wonderful, beautiful, and that represent so many of the different identities in the LGBTQ community. Unfortunately, despite the number of queer films there have been, there's no perfect system that archives all of these queer films that makes it easily accessible to everybody in the movement. If we were to have a popularized and accessible queer film and television database that streams queer film and tv from the internet, how would the modern day LGBTQ movement be different in terms of acceptance and social justice? Would young queer kids like me have felt less alone? Would mainstream society be more accepting of our community and more informed on identities beyond "gay and lesbian"?

We've come a long way since Ellen Degeneres first came out in her sitcom "Ellen". I grew up seeing queer characters on Degrassi, Disney shows, Life Time movies, Modern Family, Parenthood, Grey's Anatomy, etc., and I'm lucky to have grown up in a time where there's more conversation surrounding our community sparked from television shows and movies. I'm excited to see how queer film changes  in my life time, and how I can help change it.

Words and Rights Matter

I don’t know if you’ve heard the news but two Texas representatives took the first steps in recognizing same-sex couples. Yes, you heard that right, two representatives from Texas.

In February 11 Democratic Senator Chuy Hinojosa from McAllen proposed a bill that would grant same-sex couples civil unions. But on Valentines Day, Democratic State Rep. Lon Burnam from Fort Worth gave LGBTQ Texans a better Valentine’s Day message; full marriage equality to same-sex couples. Both have received harsh criticism from opponents of same-sex marriage but Senator Hinojosa has received that criticism from both sides of the aisles, with members of the LGBTQ communities claiming, “civil unions are not the best avenues for achieving equality.” read more

I also agree with these claims.

And although I am sure that Senator Chuy has good intentions I know that his intentions cannot make up for our unequal representation. Furthermore, this also got me thinking about partisan and policy rhetoric. The other day I became really interested in Rich Tafel, founder of the Log Cabin Republicans and Public Square. So I googled him and came across this video http://bigthink.com/users/richardtafel. Tafel argues that Democrats need to learn how to talk Republican. He goes on to say that Democrats frame policies or issues in a way that threatens the status quo as opposed to the Republicans who use more result-orientated rhetoric. In my opinion what he meant was that Republican rhetoric appeals to people’s wallets. Tafel said that when we speak about “rights” or “getting rights” we make the status quo, conservative individuals, feel that we are taking something away from them. Tafel used the push to “universal healthcare” from Obama. He said that instead of President Obama saying it’s a right for everyone to have access to healthcare, he should have framed it saying, “folks we do have universal healthcare in America, it’s called the emergency room.” Tafel went on to say that it would be more cost-effective to invest in preventable health issues than to have our tax dollars pay for the emergency room. I agree.

But this rhetoric is problematic.

Rich Tafel is telling me that I, a queer Latina, low-income, woman need to watch my words to satisfy the “status quo”? And who is this “status quo” anyway? Privileged white wealthy men? Rich Tafel is telling me that demanding rights is not the best way to do it because it might make the status quo feel like we’re taking something away from them? Really? Why shouldn’t discourse aim to make people realize that the rights that oppressed groups demand are rights that the “status quo” already have? Why should oppressed groups comprise their principals to satisfy the money in someone else’s pocket? And while Gay Rights Activist groups like to frame it in similar ways such as, “Three words that will save the economy: Gay Bridal Registry,” I would like to offer my own thoughts:

Equality representation for my partner and I is not for sale. My life and health are not for sale. My welfare is not for sale.  Why must we try to put a dollar sign in front of every issue what is wrong with just doing the RIGHT thing? Civil unions might mean the ability to file joint tax returns but it does not mean the RIGHT to marry; it does not mean marriage equality.

How equal is marriage equality?

While more states celebrate marriage equality there are about 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships living the U.S. who, no matter where they live, can’t really take part in that celebration.

Yes, we have made a significant change. Yes, we finally have a president who unapologetically recognizes gays and lesbians. But for all those screaming “Victory!” in their state because marriage equality is now a thing, I ask, what does equality mean to you?

I feel as we have forgotten the Defense Against Marriage Act. DOMA signed by President Clinton in 1996 defines marriage between a man and a women and does not require a state to recognize same-sex marriages. Despite the fact that the law is not being defended by our current administration, DOMA is still enforced. Which means, I can go get married in Maryland but the federal court will not recognize my marriage. Sounds unnecessary?  

Not for the 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex relationships to whom getting married still means running a risk of getting separated rather than a life-long togetherness. Unlike, straight couples where a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident can file for their spouse’s green card, same-sex couples don’t have that option. In fact, if attempted, the undocumented spouse may face deportation.  That doesn’t seem very equal to me.

Fortunately, President Obama is already on it trying to grant same-sex couples equal immigration rights. However, there is of course opposition with ridiculous reasons as to why they are opposed. David Nakamura and Zachary A. Goldfarb from the Washington Post report on some of those oppositions in their article titled “In immigration debate, same-sex marriage comes to the fore”. Republicans fear that this will kill any chances of a “comprehensible immigration reform”.Some evangelical churches and religious organization continue to fight against anything dealing with same-sex marriage by claiming that it will indefinitely ruin the traditional family. Many now claim that President Obama has to choose between Latinos and gays.

But is this really about either group?

No, this issue shouldn’t be put in the middle of the table as if now the undocumented straight individuals had to fight the undocumented gays and lesbians for a right that has been long overdue to both parties. This is simply about providing the exact same opportunity that straight couples already had to same-sex couples. Does this mean that if same-sex couples have equal immigration rights Obama will not push a full immigration reform? No, why should extending equal rights have anything to do with writing an immigration reform? Does this mean that if a legally married spouse wants to petition for a green card for their spouse the traditional family values will fall apart? NO! 

The fact that this issue even has to be discussed clearly shows how broken the notion of marriage equality really is.