fairshoulder-blog - Tumblr blog

fairshoulder-blog · 6 years ago

Text

(unfinished) Presentation on NQC, how it began, where it went and what has it done for us today.

How was New Queer cinema defined as a movement?

Presenter: “The queer film phenomenon was introduced a year ago at Toronto's Festival of Festivals, the best spot in North America for tracking new cinematic trends. there, suddenly, was a flock of films that were doing something new, renegotiating subjectivities, annexing whole genres, revising history in their image. all through the winter, spring, summer and now autumn, the message has been loud and clear: queer is hot.” B. Ruby Rich said in the same village voice article where she coined the term “New Queer Cinema” in 1992.

Projector: the phrase New Queer Cinema commented on the strong gay and lesbian presence that appeared in the previous years film festival circuit. The term described a growing movement of films made by queer independent filmmakers. Films that were radical in form, and aggressive in their presentation of sexual identities.

Projector: what was new queer cinema and why was it defined as a movement?

Projector: “New Queer Cinema produced complex work that didn’t simply create new gay heroes as subjects. It dealt with the politics of representation, it ventured into transgressive themes and challenged ideas about victimhood and subjugation” - Todd Haynes

Presenter: In the Empire article; “movie moments that defined cinema: New Queer Cinema”, it is pointed out that “the term ‘New Queer Cinema’ suggests that there was an Old Queer Cinema too. And there was. The groundwork had been laid for bold new voices in gay cinema like Derek Jarman, Todd Haynes and Tom Kalin by Kenneth Anger, Jan Oxenberg, Gus Van Sant and Bill Sherwood.” The movement grew from a strong presence of gay and lesbian films in the underground scene, films that typically shared certain themes, including, the rejection of heteronormativity and the lives of LGBT protagonists living on the fringe of society. The themes of these films often reflected the lives of the LGBT community and the homophobia that affected their lives, particularly due to the AIDs epidemic.

Projector: AIDs, known at the time as the “gay cancer/plague”, is a sexually transmitted disease that spread to America through a group of gay men in southern California. With the already intense homophobia within the US, the country reacted severely to the disease and used it as a way to not only alienate but almost attempt to remove the presence of the gay community. With Reagan's lack of action and at the time no cure or treatment that seemed successful, the country used mass propaganda to encourage fear of homosexuality and homosexual relations. In the article “twenty five years of NQC”, Nathan Smith stated; “New Queer Cinema was characterised by a tenacious refusal to give in to the stigmatisation of gay men, transgender folk and queers”, a stigmatisation that with the power of the media conception of “the gay plague” caused the alienation and abandonment of so many sick and dying members of LGBT community.

Presenter: NQC gave the support and acceptance that many who suffered from AIDs failed to find anywhere else. In the article; “Queer and Present danger”, Rich quoted Derek Jarman, the godfather of the NQC movement, in saying that he was “finally able to connect with an audience thanks to the critical mass of new films and videos that burned a clearing in the bush”

Presenter: LGBT protagonists were presented as outsiders and renegades from the rules of conventional society, and filmmakers resisted promoting “positive” images of queer characters and embraced radical and unconventional gender roles and ways of life, refusing to make their films fit to the “palatable”, censored presentation of sexuality that their films needed to break into the mainstream media.

Projector: “the Mississippi hitman Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, attacked Poison for its (non-existent) “explicit porno scenes of homosexuals involved in anal sex”. He later admitted he never saw the film.” – New Queer Cinema: The Director’s cut written by B. Ruby Rich.

Presenter: Although it is clear that the movement came about due to the mass homophobia and alienation of the queer community, there are considered four reasons as to why the movement came into definition when it did.

Projector: the AIDs epidemic.

Ronald Reagan’s failure to respond.

Cheap rent.

Camcorders.

Presenter: In the article “queer and present danger: after new queer cinema”, Rich commented on how the movement came about due to these reasons and would live its life only due to these reasons. She stated “It was meant to catch the beat of a new kind of film- and video-making that was fresh, edgy, low-budget, inventive, unapologetic, sexy and stylistically daring.”

Presenter: The ADs epidemic shows the new queer cinema truly as the movement of a moment that it was.

Video clip: The ADs epidemic.

Presenter: Not only does the film clearly state the presence of the AIDs epidemic and Reagan’s failure to respond, but it unapologetically points out the entire country’s unnecessary media-induced panic and fear of the gay community, which was, in order to mask the homophobic underlining of this fear, blamed on the AIDs epidemic. NQC began in the underground film scene, so it is no surprise that the Ads epidemic can be clearly viewed as the perfect example, being a film made with a low quality camera, with little information to be found online about this film, it justly was an underground independent NQC film.

Projector: is it still new queer cinema if it hits the mainstream media?

Presenter: the film ‘Paris is burning’ is arguably the first NQC film to achieve a mainstream status, but can it also be argued to be the first NQC film that does not fit into the movement.

Presenter: directed by Jeanie Livingston, Paris is burning received funding of 500,000 USD from the National endowment for the arts. Earning over 3,700,000 USD in gross, Paris is burning was one of, if not the highest earning NQC film. The film attempted to capture the realities of New York’s drag balls and houses, and of the non-white people who occupied this space.

Projector: Was Paris is burning film “made for and by the straight community”?

Presenter: Paris is burning has evoked discussion on whether or not it can truly be classed as a NQC film since its release in 1991. Critics (including feminist scholar Bell Hooks, in the ) have questioned whether Livingston (as a white, middle class, lesbian) was enabling cultural appropriation. This film, unlike previous NQC films, seemed concerned with the heterosexual community’s opinion, it lacked the brutal and harsh realities of the lives of the queer community at the time, but rather chose to present the more glamorous and enjoyable aspects of the LGBT community.

Projector: The negative impact that Paris is burning had on the LGBT community only adds to the argument.

Presenter: a 1993 New York Times article entitled “Paris has burned” reported that several of the performers, feeling that they’d missed out on the wealth generated by the film, wished to sue for a share of its profits. One, Paris DuPree, sought $40m in compensation for unauthorised use of her ballroom. Even in recent years performers have come forward admitting they gave no authorisation for themselves to be featured in the film, and received no payment for their service.

Presenter: However, in a recent (2015) article entitled “Burning down the house”, Livingston's was quoted saying that she felt a sense of frustration for the criticism considering the film was produced at a time where she was “up against an entire establishment of people who didn't want you as a woman making films and didn't want to see queer images”.

Projector: so why is it one of the most successful and well known films within the movement?

Presenter: the sad truth is that the heterosexual community, at the time, had utter control of the mainstream media, despite not fully fitting to the ideas of NQC, paris is burning did fit to the mainstream media’s idea of what could be presented as the LGBT community.

Projector: Paris is burning started a transition which led to the evolution of NQC. But many still argue that paris is burning does not fit into the movement, with its mainstream success. However, with the survival of AIDs into the second decade and the proliferation of small-format video the NQC movement in no way slowed its growth. By the late 90s the sheer volume of queer films had began to dilute the quality. NQC had become so successful it had dispersed itself, it lacked the concentrated creative focus and community responsiveness, and simply became another niche market for hollywood to capitalise on, and the evolution that came from such a powerful movement seemed to have no connection its origin.

Presenter: Mysterious skin, directed by Gregg Araki, shows connection to the NQC style, however is clearly a different movement, the modern queer cinema. Mysterious skin shows the evolution of NQC from its 80/90s movement to the more mainstream 2000s version of the movement, however even the time the film was created removes it from the original NQC movement. More similar to the movement than other modern queer cinema, the obvious avoidance to present the queer community in a solely positive light and the queer characters separation from ‘normal’ society within the film shows that Araki clearly was inspired by the NQC movement. Araki has produced queer films from the late 80s well into the early 2000s, so it is no surprise that mysterious skin, released in 2004, would still hold a sense of the NQC movement, despite the time frame for this movement (and the events that took place in this time frame) causing the movement to be one that would only last a ‘moment’.

Projector: in the article “burning down the house”, it was written that the recent murders of 6 transgender women of colour ( im the space of two weeks, in brooklyn), along with the still unsolved murder of Venus Xtravaganza, was simply a reminder of the high rates of violence faced by the trans community and the lack of appropriate response form law enforcement.

Presenter: However it must be taken into account that our modern world, though improved in many ways, still alienates and demonizes the LGBT community, and especially with the rising media coverage of transgender people and characters. There is no reason not to argue that our world still holds enough reasons for this new wave of NQC to be just as powerful as the last.

0 notes

fairshoulder-blog · 6 years ago

Text

A very old film essay

written about two years ago, I plan to re-write this at some point.

Micro-analysis

Trainspotting - 1996

Directed by Danny Boyle

Spuds interview scene

I will be analysing how performance and mise-en-scene are used to establish the themes of drug abuse and the effects of drugs both on the intoxicated and those surrounding the intoxicated. The effects of drugs are shown both through Ewan Bremner's performance as well as the proxemics of the characters. The set and costume are used in this scene to show context (social standing and level of qualification) and also work alongside the proxemics to present the idea of isolation.

Ewan Bremner’s performance as spud, whilst intoxicated with the drug speed, uses the idea of speed of movement and speech to show the effects of drugs. The high speed, exaggerated hand movements combined with the fast pace speech creates the idea of lack of control and intensified artificial, drug induced, energy. The high speed performance works alongside the quick-cut editing to create the idea that spud has an uncontrolled state of mind. Combining with the irrelevance of the speech, and creating the idea of separation between spuds mind, due to the influence of drugs, and his surroundings. Bremner’s use of fast paced speech, alongside the quick-cut editing creates the idea of being overstimulated, due to the large amount of action that is shown on screen, despite the fact that the cuts simply change from a point of view shot, to a slightly more zoomed in point of view shot. Many of the cuts appear mid line, this also helps to create the idea of being overstimulated as it causes the audiences to have to focus on the speech and the visuals of the scene separately.

The proxemics of the characters is used to present the effects of drugs on the intoxicated and those surrounding the intoxicated, as the spacing is used, alongside the set, to create physical barriers and distance between the characters. As well as the shots creating the idea of isolation, as their are very few shots in which spud and the other characters are both visible. The barrier created between the characters, is shown physically through the large table, behind which the interviewers are sat. coinciding with the positioning of the characters, as the interviewers are all found within close proxemics of each other, whereas spud is found at a much farther distance, and in majority of the shots appears alone on screen. Within the opening shot of the scene, spud is shown isolated in a large room. This physical isolation presents the separation between drug addicts and the “real world”. The physical barrier created by the set, is suggested to represent an emotional barrier, or isolation, and coincides with the performance, to create the idea that spud is unaware of the situation and how to behave, as little of what spud says appears to be relative or socially acceptable (e.g admitting to lying on his CV about his education) creating the idea that he is separate or isolated from the context of the scene.

The costumes within this scene are used to show social standing, and portray how unsuitable spud is for the job. The interviewers are all shown in clean, neat black suits with dress shoes, with the exception of one, whose costume, a tracksuit with trainers, is used to show the context of the scene, that being a job interview for the leisure industry. However spuds costume, a scruffy brown blazer with jeans and dirty boots, portrayed his character as unprepared and unsuitable for the job. The difference is costume also implies a different in both social and class standing, as the interviewers appear as clearly richer and more well respected than Spud, due to the condition of their wardrobe compared to Spuds.

The room in which is the interview takes place in, appears rather gloomy, with a pale, dull yellow on the walls, and a dark blue carpet. With the blue carpet and the painting of a beach on the wall, the room has a slightly underwater, claustrophobic edge. This sense of claustrophobia is intensified by the lack of windows, and the only exits being two small doors at two corners of the room. With the door being placed in the corner of the room, the “escape route” appears smaller and gives the audience a sense of being trapped. The colours being rather dull or dark, creates a sense of the suffocating scrutiny spud is facing, as he digs himself deeper into his lies, and is essentially “drowning” as the scene continues and as he fails to impress the interviewers. Another important, but more subtle feature of the room being the “No smoking” sign placed on the wall behind spud. The sign creates irony, as the audience is aware, even before the scene begins that spud is under the influence of drugs. This sign could even be perceived as a warning to spud, a possible foreshadowing for tragic events later in the film that are brought on due to drugs and addiction.

The low camera angle, causes spud to appear central within the shot, placing spud alone in the centre of the screen presents how spud has been put on the spot by the interviewers, and allows us to view his behaviour and reactions much more clearly due to the starkness of the room, this ensures that the audience is solely concentrated on spud, but shows also how open and vulnerable is characters is.

Boyle establishes the scene with a high angle shot, from behind spud with the interviewers in the background, this causes a sense of foreboding around the interviewers, and shows how vulnerable spud is in comparison, creating the sense of how monitored and judged he is being during this scene. The idea that spud is being heavily monitored and judged suggests that the interviewers have an awareness that he is on drugs. This works alongside the proxemics as it suggests that the interviewers feel a need to stay distanced from spud. Showing how drugs create a separation from those who are intoxicated and those surrounding the intoxicated.

0 notes