This film focusing heavily on an underground lifestyle of drug use and debauchery when also trying to provide representation of an under-represented and easily misunderstood group enforces negative stereotypes through establishing a distancing effect in the majority of the audience.
The protagonist of the film being subject to unimaginable trauma and serving as a cipher in an Oedipus story exacerbates this distance and creates troubling parallels between trauma and gender non-conformity. This functions as a poor choice when considering any potential audience for this movie:
1) Audiences unfamiliar with this sort of trauma now can relegate their thoughts on this sort of gender orientation as being due to trauma which they cannot relate to and contributes to the protagonist manifesting as an unfamiliar "other", which is something the film should be moving away from if it is meant to provide an empathetic window into a group outside mainstream society.
2) Audiences that have experienced any sort of similar trauma in the past will be propagated negative thought complexes of futility through the film's commitment to its nihilistic perspective.
The "on-the-street" interviews, which are a fantastic idea in concept as they provide a direct view into real gender non-conforming individuals, are incredibly non-probing and insubstantial. This could act as an essential document of positive representation if it was given sufficient attention and letting the subjects express their feelings about their sexual choices, mainstream society's view of them, and what they feel positive representation would be. Instead we are left with "why are you gay"-tier sketches that, in a skeptical audience, could easily read as the central subjects being vacuous rather than the filmmakers.
The film's constant self-references are another contribution to distance and read as the film being insecure in its own content. There is value in postmodern works questioning the machinations of media and communication. However, for these techniques to be utilized so heavily in a film that should ideally establish an understanding towards a marginalized group, these effects work counter to these goals. In particular the sequences focusing on the arthouse filmmakers and associates, involving drug use and sexual debauchery, can be read either as an aggrandization of this behavior as a way towards liberation (which I view as a very destructive perspective) or a critique. As a critique it fails due to failing to provide a nuanced perspective on the central failings of the group or suggest any potentials for improvement (compare the methods utilized in Godard's La Chinoise as an example in which this critique could work positively). Surprisingly, the most substantial perspective offered in the film is provided in an incredibly short sequence involving a violent revolutionary, which provides a very convincing, although admittedly basic, justification for violent political acts when justified by logical context. However, this aspect of the film is given minimal focus, and it is a shame the same thoughtfulness could not be afforded the film's main focus.
I do not want to create the impression that every instance of positive representation needs to explicitly subvert stereotypes or pander to accepted norms of mainstream behavior, as I think the only base criteria for positive representation is encouraging a fundamental empathy. However, I think my central problem with this film is that, through the distancing effects outlined in this review, it becomes more akin to a freak show than an opportunity for understanding. A freak show is not an example of positive representation as it upholds peoples preconceptions that these marginalized groups exist outside of relatability. There was an opportunity for a landmark of queer cinema in this film, but it failed due to insecurity in its own subject matter.
The protagonist of the film being subject to unimaginable trauma and serving as a cipher in an Oedipus story exacerbates this distance and creates troubling parallels between trauma and gender non-conformity. This functions as a poor choice when considering any potential audience for this movie:
1) Audiences unfamiliar with this sort of trauma now can relegate their thoughts on this sort of gender orientation as being due to trauma which they cannot relate to and contributes to the protagonist manifesting as an unfamiliar "other", which is something the film should be moving away from if it is meant to provide an empathetic window into a group outside mainstream society.
2) Audiences that have experienced any sort of similar trauma in the past will be propagated negative thought complexes of futility through the film's commitment to its nihilistic perspective.
The "on-the-street" interviews, which are a fantastic idea in concept as they provide a direct view into real gender non-conforming individuals, are incredibly non-probing and insubstantial. This could act as an essential document of positive representation if it was given sufficient attention and letting the subjects express their feelings about their sexual choices, mainstream society's view of them, and what they feel positive representation would be. Instead we are left with "why are you gay"-tier sketches that, in a skeptical audience, could easily read as the central subjects being vacuous rather than the filmmakers.
The film's constant self-references are another contribution to distance and read as the film being insecure in its own content. There is value in postmodern works questioning the machinations of media and communication. However, for these techniques to be utilized so heavily in a film that should ideally establish an understanding towards a marginalized group, these effects work counter to these goals. In particular the sequences focusing on the arthouse filmmakers and associates, involving drug use and sexual debauchery, can be read either as an aggrandization of this behavior as a way towards liberation (which I view as a very destructive perspective) or a critique. As a critique it fails due to failing to provide a nuanced perspective on the central failings of the group or suggest any potentials for improvement (compare the methods utilized in Godard's La Chinoise as an example in which this critique could work positively). Surprisingly, the most substantial perspective offered in the film is provided in an incredibly short sequence involving a violent revolutionary, which provides a very convincing, although admittedly basic, justification for violent political acts when justified by logical context. However, this aspect of the film is given minimal focus, and it is a shame the same thoughtfulness could not be afforded the film's main focus.
I do not want to create the impression that every instance of positive representation needs to explicitly subvert stereotypes or pander to accepted norms of mainstream behavior, as I think the only base criteria for positive representation is encouraging a fundamental empathy. However, I think my central problem with this film is that, through the distancing effects outlined in this review, it becomes more akin to a freak show than an opportunity for understanding. A freak show is not an example of positive representation as it upholds peoples preconceptions that these marginalized groups exist outside of relatability. There was an opportunity for a landmark of queer cinema in this film, but it failed due to insecurity in its own subject matter.