This essay will conduct a genre analysis of the popular film genre romantic comedies (or rom-com for short), specifically looking at the way this genre has chosen to approach the representation of homosexual relationships. This kind of increasing on-screen representation has been widely culturally significant, especially due to the fact that rom-coms are a highly popular genre, appealing to a wide variety of audiences - something that this essay will go into more detail on. The films But I’m a Cheerleader, released in 1999 and Imagine Me and You, released in 2005, will be used as examples of ‘woman meets women’ instead of the traditional ‘boy meets girl’, and as comparisons of how the two time periods approached the idea of presenting an on-screen, explicit homosexual relationship, rather than a subtly implied affair. Other films will also be touched upon briefly throughout this essay.
Romantic comedy films have a long history in which they have evolved and generated several sub-genres within itself.They have been referred to as the cornerstone of Hollywood entertainment (Grindon, 2011). The genre comes with a lot of rite of passage tropes that need to feature within the film, otherwise its status as a romantic comedy is debatable. These tropes include cliches such as the rules of romance, a meet cute/or initial dislike for each other, a misunderstanding, characters with the wrong partners, a make-over or disguise etc. The history of romantic comedies have produced a traceable timeline of romantic comedy cycles, which follows as such - in the 1930’s and the 40’s the “Screwball” romantic comedy; the 50’s had “Sex Comedies”; the 70’s introduced the “Radical Rom-Com”; 80’s and 90’s offered what is called the “Ephronesque turn” into the mainstream consciousness. What Ephronesque refers to is a writer and director of the 80’s and 90’s, Nora Ephron - she reverted women back to characters that had to be pursued and ultimately charmed by the male figures in the film. These films also tended to either bypass sex or at least tried to soften the subject. In the present day, the Ephronesque style rom-com is in competition with rom-coms that try and appeal to the male and teenage target audiences with whom downplaying sex would not succeed. Although the romantic comedy traditionally aligns itself with the female audience members (McDonald, 2013), there has been an increase of male oriented romantic comedies, often referred to as “Homme-Coms”, which replace the female central lead with a male perspective. This has lead to the increase of “gross out” comedies from the late 70’s onwards. These films also produced their own tropes that got recycled within this sub-genre such as gross bodily events like urination, excrement, vomit and ejaculation. Abbott and Jermyn (2011, p. 150) argue that “sex is currently frequently portrayed in rom-coms as an immature pasttime, a phase one goes through which explains its greater prevalence in comedies aimed at teenage markets.” This backs up the idea that sex is more visible in teen targeted rom-coms as the gross out humour is usually derived from sex in some form - whether it is during intercourse or just before the characters engage in sexual activities. It also explains why characters in adult based romantic comedies are rarely seen having sex, as it is holds adolescent connotations - although this stigma is slowly being overcome in the more modern romantic comedies being released e.g Friends With Benefits (2011), Crazy Stupid Love (2011), Love & Other Drugs (2010). Although the sexual acts shown in these films are seen as possibly light hearted and still somewhat childish perception of sex, they are still romantic comedies portraying its characters having sex, despite the fact that they aren’t specifically aimed at teenagers.
Whilst this timeline of heterosexual romantic comedy sub-genres was growing and evolving, another strand of rom-com was emerging parallel to the previously discussed cycles. Although homosexuality has featured in cinema since films were born, it was almost never explicit. Given the time these films were being produced, homosexuality was one of three things - something for audiences to poke fun at, for audiences have feelings of benevolence of, or something for audiences to be scared of. Gay male characters have appeared in films in the 30’s and 40’s as the feminine sidekicks to the leading character but this quickly evolved into portraying these types of characters as unstable, emotional wrecks and were often suicidal from the 50’s through to the 70’s (Davies 2010). Culturally, this kind of representation of homosexuality left a lasting impression on the public - it showed heterosexual, and homosexual people, how to feel about homosexuality as it portrayed these incredibly tortured characters struggling to accept themselves.This kind of negative perception of homosexuality within the film industry has meant that attempts to put these kind of relationships on screen have produced varying outcomes. Films have tried to place these relationships within the romantic comedy genre, but given the negative associations that LGBT themes have carried in films, it has meant that the outcomes have often been detrimental to the Gay Rights Movement. For example, in Kissing Jessica Stein (2001) and The Kids Are All Right (2010), both films are are shown to have lesbian leading characters. In Kissing Jessica Stein, the main character is exploring her sexuality with another woman while in The Kids Are All Right, the two women are married and have a family together. So whilst one film depicts a woman taking control of her sexual agency and the other a committed lesbian relationship, at the end of both films the female protagonist ends up with a man. This ending, although disappointing in Kissing Jessica Stein, is somewhat damaging in The Kids Are All Right, as it suggests that a man was able to turn a woman back to heterosexuality through sexual satisfaction. Although not within the rom-com bracket, the bleak ending of Ang Lee’s 2005 film Brokeback Mountain, with the death of one of the main characters (implied to have been beaten to death due to his sexuality), certainly struck a chord in the queer community, as it seems like these films are suggesting that homosexual relationships are destined to fail (McDonald, 2013) or to end in tragedy. This kind of treatment of characters within the LGBT community has also been demonstrated within television series as well, with many lesbian characters ending up with a male character, dying, or becoming pregnant. This has been slowly rectified in recent years though, with a record high of 4.4% (GLAAD 2013) of series regular characters on television being within the LGBT community.
However, this essay now intends to explore two films released during different time periods which successfully attempted to follow the formula dictated for a romantic comedy with a homosexual romance. But I’m a Cheerleader, directed by Jamie Babbit and released in 1999 is a satirical romantic comedy. It is the lesbian equivalent of a teen rom-com and uses gender signifiers (blue for boys, pink for girls; trousers for boys, dresses for girls; sports for boys, housework for girls etc), that we as an audience have already been taught by society, and uses them in such a hyperbolic way that it becomes humourous. The film demonstrates that standard gender roles are something that people are taught (Motschenbacher 2010) - throughout the film, the audience follows Megan (portrayed by Natasha Lyonne) as she is conditioned to conform to the heteronormative standards of society and to categorise (Driver 2007) her sexuality and identify what caused it, rather than accepting that that was how she was born, as well as following her as she is taught how to fulfil the stereotypical roles of a woman - how to care for children and do housework. The colours in the film are also highly saturated in order to communicate to the audience that this is an exaggerated environment that these events are taking place within. The film treats homosexuality as a perversion so aggressively that the audience is forced to align themselves with the film's main character, Megan (portrayed by Natasha Lyonne) because, generally, the audience is able to recognise that homosexuality is not the disgusting result of a sexual deviant. The film uses the uses the audience's intelligence as the audience, again generally speaking, knows that homosexuality is not something that can be fixed through therapy (an aim that the film's main antagonist, Mary Brown, is trying to perpetuate) and so is able to allow the audience to find humour in the absurd actions of the characters that create obstacles for Megan to overcome. The obvious fake-ness of the film adds to the ludacris theme of righting homosexuality - even the flowers that Mary Brown is gardening are shown to be fake when she pulls one out the ground. The film follows the previously discussed format of teen rom-com, in the sense that the way sexual activities are treated are quite immature. For example when Graham (the Megans eventual lesbian love interest) is introduced, she explains that no inappropriate behaviour means “no fucking”. It is the first instance of swearing in the film and it is very abrupt - it is also very immature way to describe no sexual intercourse. Masturbation is also frequently brought up in the film when a girl is shown to be pleasuring herself with an electric shocker. Megan then also participates in this practise. But I’m a Cheerleader also uses the frequently seen tropes found in rom-coms; the two love interests initially dislike each other/a misunderstanding/Megan displays an embarrassing public gesture to win over Graham at the end of the film etc. Following romantic comedy norm, the two characters end up together against the odds and have a happy ending.
Where But I’m a Cheerleader catered to a younger generation of teens, Imagine Me and You, written and directed by Ol Parker and released in 2005, follows the pattern of romantic comedies aimed at adults. The sex is treated fairly mildly - the most physically close the characters get is kissing, although there is some crude language surrounding the subject, but it is structured in such a way that it is an adults humour rather than that of a teenager. Imagine Me and You is probably the most readily available mainstream romantic comedy featuring a queer love story as the central focus. Part of this may be due to the films cast - the actors appearing in this film are recognised as more household names, such as Piper Perabo, Lena Headey, Matthew Goode and especially Anthony Stewart Head. These easily distinguishable faces in the film were able to reach a wider audience, such as those outwith the LGBT community and didn’t have quite the same knowledge or investment in queer cinema. The 2005 film also follows a recognisable romantic comedy pattern, such as the main character being with the wrong person. But instead of wrong person, in this situation the main character is with the wrong gender as Rachel (Piper Perabo) discovers when she falls in love with the florist at her wedding, Luce (Lena Headey), which also happens to be the characters’ ‘meet cute’, another requirement for rom-coms. In a Q and A with popular queer website AfterEllen, Parker disclosed that he had originally intended to write a heterosexual love story, but after realising that people found that the way the story developed very predictable and changing it thusly, he discovered he was actually writing a lesbian rom-com (AfterEllen 2005). What Imagine Me and You handles well is the fact that none of the characters are demonised for their actions - Heck (Matthew Goode) is still a sympathetic character without the audience rooting for the straight romance to win out in the end. The audience want things between Rachel and Luce to work out whilst simultaneously wanting Heck to have a happy ending - which he does. All the characters receive a happy ending, as is the staple of rom-coms.
In conclusion, given the treatment that LGBT characters have received within the film industry, attempts to portray these types of relationships on screen has varied. Due to the negative connotations of homosexuality early on in film history, this had bled through into filmmakers endeavours to display these relationships in a light-hearted way, often opting for conservative endings. However there are examples of successful romantic comedies featuring a homosexual relationship, as this essay has discussed. But I’m A Cheerleader and Imagine Me and You are examples of romantic comedies aimed at teenagers and at adult audiences, with the differentiating element that these films happen to focus on a homosexual love story.
References
Abbot, S and Jermyn, D., eds. 2008. Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema. London: I.B Tauris.
Davies, S., 2010. Out at the Movies: A History of Gay Cinema. Harpenden: Kamera Books.
Driver, S., 2007. Queer Girls and Popular Culture: Reading, Resisting and Creating Media. New York: Peter Lang.
Dyer, R., 1990. Now You See It: Studies on Lesbian and Gay Film. London: Routledge.
GLAAD., 2013. Where We Are On T.V. [online]. Page 3., [Viewed 3 April 2014]. Available from: http://www.glaad.org/files/2013WWATV.pdf
Griffiths, R., ed. 2008. Queer Cinema in Europe. UK: Intellect Books.
Grindon, L., 2011. The Hollywood Romantic Comedy: Conventions, History and Controversies. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kitchell, B., 2005. Review of “Imagine Me and You”. [online]. [Viewed 5 April 2014]. Available from: http://www.afterellen.com/review-of-imagine-me-and-you/09/2005/
Maddison, S., 2000. Fags, Hags and Queer Sisters: Gender Dissent and Heterosocial Bonds in Gay Culture. London: MacMillan Press LTD
McDonald, T. J., 2013. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Columbia University Press.
Motschenbacher, H., 2010. Language, Gender and Sexual Identity: Poststructuralist Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Needham, G., 2010. Brokeback Mountain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd
Stuart, J., 2008. Performing Queer Female Identity on Screen: A Critical Analysis of Five Recent Films. USA: McFarland and Co.
Wallace, L., 2009. Lesbianism, Cinema, Space: The Sexual Life of Apartments. UK: Routledge
No comments:
Post a Comment