embodiment of queerness through film
Queerness is a mode of resistance, the word itself resisting a simple definition. It is more than an identity, but also something which challenges dominant social norms around gender, kinship, intimacy and temporality. Queerness resists the concept of binaries, be it male and female, homosexual and heterosexual, and instead embraces its fluidity. It does not conform to social norms and instead moves against normalised social structures which uphold patriarchal and heteronormative standards. Cinema can go further than simply displaying queerness on screen; it can also embody queerness through constructing complex narratives and cinematography to emulate lived queer experiences. To embody queerness means to express it through experiences and emotions, creating a sense of affect among the audience to enable those who share these emotions to identify with a film. For many, cinema can be a creative outlet of sharing unspoken lived experience, in hopes of finding an audience who can relate and engage in underrepresented topics through film. This essay will examine how, across genres, cinema is able to create a deliberate embodied sense of queerness as a form of resistance against heteronormative, tokenistic representations of queerness in mainstream film. Through the use of three cinematic examples, But I’m a Cheerleader (1999), Paris is Burning (1990) and Moonlight (2016), I will explore how these employ their own unique techniques to construct queerness to demonstrate its significance in rejecting social norms. By creating a strong argument, queer cinema can be used as a political tool to reimagine queerness as something powerful and useful in dismantling dominant social structures such as the patriarchy.
Cinema embodies queerness not only through narratives and storytelling but through its use of visual aesthetics. These visual aspects of film can subvert normative structures of queerness and gender. This is done through using elements of colour, set design and costumes as a way to reveal how societal ideals of queer identities themselves are constructed. Jamie Babbit’s But I’m a Cheerleader (1999) serves as a striking example of this, depicting how the satirical use of camp aesthetics and exaggerated colouring can be used as tool to reveal and critique the normalised gender roles enforced in everyday life. The visual landscape generated meticulously in the set design boldly highlights a gender binary. Through depicting this in a satirical manner, the film reveals itself as a critique of the absurdity of gender binaries. The division created between the male and female characters, who are segregated into blue and pink zones, visually reinforces binary ways of thinking about gender roles and presentation. The characters are forced to enact roles dedicated to their gender, for example wood chopping for boys and cleaning for the girls. These performative actions take place in a dollhouse-like set, emulating the artificiality of heteronormativity. This emphasises the idea that assigning roles to a gender does not define a character’s identity itself, but instead is an insincere performance of what is expected by the characters based on their gender. Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990) describes the construct of gender as a ‘repeated stylisation of the body’ (Butler, 1990:45), something that is not innate but created through repetition. Babbit’s use of imagery in But I’m a Cheerleader supports this theory and does so through making a mockery of gender constructs. In the film, the absurd performances of gender are far from concealed but takes on a humorously obnoxious and theatrical depiction to create a sense of irony. Camp aesthetics are used in cinematography as a politicised and ironic imagination of gender which sees ‘everything in quotation marks’ (Sontag, 1964:280). This definition of camp is reflected in the film, where socially constructed gender roles are not taken seriously by both the audience and the characters themselves, instead they exist as overexaggerated behaviours and imagery to expose heteronormativity and gender as a performance, revealing its arbitrary and enforced boundaries on society. Despite being used as a comedic instrument for the story’s narrative, the film’s use of camp imagery becomes a form of resistance as a way to challenge systems which aim to enforce characteristics onto queer identities. In contrast, Moonlight (2016), directed by Barry Jenkins, uses visual imagery to embody queerness as something more subtle and intimate. While Babbit represents queerness as something external and bold, Jenkins reflects queerness inwards through using light and colouring to explore the interiority of queerness, specifically through the experience of a black man. Throughout the movie, the cinematography utilises deep purples and blues to create a sense of emotional vulnerability. The use of these colours symbolises the intimacy, sadness and intensity of queer existence. The recurring image of water throughout, depicted in scenes such as Chiron’s baptism and his conversation with Kevin, is used as a metaphor for the fluidity of queerness. Furthermore, the reflections in mirrored surfaces depict queerness as something experienced individually and internally. The tender and intimate themes created through Moonlight’s imagery is significant in challenging mainstream representations of Black hypermasculinity in cinema. Instead of depicting masculinity as something bold and aggressive, the use of colours further reinforces how softness and silence is central to Chiron’s queer identity, rather than through his dialogue. Moonlight contrasts But I’m a Cheerleader’s outward embodiment of queerness, through creating a space where queerness can be something unspoken and tender. However, both films demonstrate how cinema can embody queerness in radically different ways through aesthetic while also serving as a form of resistance. In Babbit’s film, this is done through satire and excess, whereas Jenkins uses softness to resist normative gender structures enforced on the identities of Black men. Queerness itself is not only a topic in the film’s narrative, but also something that is embodied cinematically.
Moreover, cinema can embody queerness through reimagining kinship through a more contemporary lens. Cinema can challenge traditional perceptions of family as something nuclear, biological and deterministic. Instead, queer kinship shifts focus to non-biological relationships and the concept of chosen family as support systems built through shared experiences, passion and goals rather than blood. Jennie Livingston’s Paris is Burning (1990) documents the lives of predominantly Black and Latinx queer individuals, many of whom having been rejected by their biological families because of their identities. Instead, they have formed their own ‘houses’, a support network in which queer elders act as guardians of their non-biological queer youth. These houses are not only enriched with emotional support and acceptance, but also encourage queer expression through expressive performance rituals. Weston’s Families We Choose (1991) questions preconceived ideas of what family means, and how through an alternative queer lens, family can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Kath Weston rejects the traditional notion that legality and biology are necessary within anthropological concepts of kinship, instead emphasising how kinship is a construct which is fluid; it is something that can be chosen and changed over time. Rather than following a modern framework of nuclear families and rituals such as marriage, birth and divorce, queer kinship exists in the here and now. It puts survival at the centre of itself, emphasising the importance of mutual care in times of urgency. Paris is Burning depicts the social exclusion, discrimination and poverty experienced by queer communities in New York City in the 1980s, where the need for community in kinship is so crucial that it must be formed swiftly. Furthermore, the concept of chosen family is further emphasised in Moonlight (2016), which embodies queer kinship through exploring intimacy and care from non-biological parental figures. For individuals who have been historically marginalised by society, especially queer people of colour, having a chosen family who is able to connect with on a great level can have life-changing effects. Chiron’s connection to Juan and Teresa, a drug dealer and his girlfriend, emulates that of a traditional parental role of care and guidance which contrasts his biological mother’s abusive and violent behaviour. Juan takes on the role of a father, providing space for Chiron to acknowledge his sexuality and teaching his chosen son to swim in the ocean. This is symbolic of Chiron’s journey to accepting and learning to survive in his queer identity, which is represented by the ocean. The ocean is representative of the lack of stability and linearity in lived queer experiences, however learning to float on top of this is a tactic of survival in a world built against queerness. Queer kinship does not necessarily have to be sexual and intimate, but instead can be a symbol of solidarity, mutual respect and empathy. It can exist across generations and gender identities, with all members of a chosen family possessing the same goals of acceptance, survival and respect. By centring these contemporary ideas of what kinship means, queer cinema is able to visually subvert normative organisations of family, based on lineage and status, into something fluid, radical and inclusive.
Cinema can challenge dominant social structures which govern everyday life through manipulating the pace of a movie. By shifting a focus to its temporality, cinema can embody queerness through revealing the fragmented and non-linear existence of time in lived queer experiences. Elizabeth Freeman’s concept of ‘chrononormativity’ (2010), describes the normative use of time in in regulating bodies and societal behaviour where life is experienced in linear stages: working during the week and resting on weekends, marriage before having children and retiring at a specific age. However, ‘chrononormativity’ is inherently heteronormative. Thus, it excludes many queer individuals from the linear patterns of ‘chrononormativity’ which does not account for the unique pace of life surrounding queerness. Moonlight (2016) presents queerness as something fragmented and fluid in time. It does so by dividing the film into three time scales: Chiron’s childhood, adolescence and adulthood. This manipulation of time embodies queerness through presenting it as something experienced in oscillating stages, shaped by repression, longing and acceptance. Chron’s queer identity is not something fixed at birth, but something which evolves according to his environment and interactions with others. Film can depict queerness’ refusal to adhere to expected life paths, instead creating its own non-linear concept of time based on self-reflection and acceptance. In Cruising Utopia (2009), Muñoz presents the concept of queer futurity which encapsulates queerness as an ultimate goal which is not yet quite reachable, critiquing heteronormative social tendencies to focus on the present. Due to this, queer communities tend to create their own bubbles within their communities to create a pause on heteronormative timing, away from the outside world of discrimination and suffering. This is done so by creating spaces of acceptance and encouraging creativity. In Paris is Burning (1990) ballroom culture is used as a utopian space which suspends queerness in its own time scale, embodying the sense of hope and community in queer groups through using affect. By creating a supportive space, queerness can be performed through extravagant dances and fashion which contrasts the harsh reality for these queer individuals. The use of pauses, for example a suspended space in ballroom culture in Paris is Burning and Moonlight’s use of silence, create space for self-reflection for both the characters and audience. Film can use time as a technique to embody queerness as something which is not experiences in a typical linear manner but takes on something more fractured and divergent. This is a form of queer resistance, calling for an audience to rethink ‘chrononormativity’ as something embedded in heteronormativity. Thus, it presents queerness as something which rejects dominant social scripts which largely marginalise its communities, and instead reclaims its own pattern of life.
Lastly, queerness can be embodied in cinema through the lens of intersectionality, something which is central to understanding the complex diversity of lived queer experiences, specifically for marginalised groups. Crenshaw’s theory on intersectionality (1989) highlights how social markers such as class, gender and race can interact with each other in order to reproduce its own unique experiences and marginalisations coexisting with queer identities. Cinema therefore can explore queer experiences not as individual and isolated experiences, but as an experience deeply rooted in cultural context and social orders. In the three films I have previously discussed, all of these depictions of queer experiences are shaped by the character’s external identities, which can either be beneficial or detrimental to the quality of their livelihoods. Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight subverts common representations of queerness as something associated with femininity and whiteness into something experienced by underrepresented groups. Chiron’s character as a black male growing up in poverty touches on themes of Black masculinity and experiences as a child raised in a working class and abusive household, where silence is used as a mechanism for survival in his adolescence. Chiron contrasts typical depictions of Black men in cinema as something aggressive and loud, by embodying the softness and silence of queer lived experiences. The movie supports the idea that Chiron’s sexuality is intimately linked with his race and childhood experiences, yet through the progression of life circumstances it allows him to acknowledge this part of himself more freely. In Aberrations In Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique, Ferguson is critical of the erasure of intersectionality in race and sexuality, suggesting this is something closely intertwined and detrimental to the treatment of an individual. By supporting the complexities of Chiron’s experiences, it allows the audience to further acknowledge how stereotyping in mainstream film have led to misconceptions surrounding race and masculinity. Similarly, in Paris is Burning (1990), queer Black and Latinx communities are formed due to the shared experience of homophobic, transphobic and racist abuse they experience in day to day life. This discrimination has led to social exclusion of these groups within New York City, highlighting the significance of chosen families which are key to their survival. Author bell hooks (1992) further emphasises how intersectionality is key in reclaiming queerness as a symbol of power and asserting presence in spaces which typically erase their experiences. On the other hand, bell hooks critiques the film by claiming that the lens through which the subject of intersectionality in queer communities is portrayed is through a white and privileged lens. By portraying these communities’ vulnerabilities in a way which disconnects the film crew to the subject, it creates a sense of voyeurism in the viewing experience and objectifies real livelihoods. This film not only celebrates the intersectionality of race and queerness through joy and social performance, but also calls for the reviewing of how we define a family. Families do not always have to be of the same race, gender or upbringing but can also bring together a diverse group of individuals who all share the same desires and hopes for their future. The satire comedy But I’m a Cheerleader puts less emphasis on the importance of intersectionality in queerness, however the movie subtly reveals the significance of religion and white-suburban culture in the lived experiences of a queer teenage girl. Megan’s parents subject their daughter to conversion therapy due to their Christian beliefs, signifying how, within American sub-urban culture, slight deviations from the WASP normativity are seen as something that need to be punished. Thus, the significance of religion across all queer livelihoods is incredibly prevalent in how they are valued within society. In this, Megan’s character symbolises this disorientation from the social pace and orientation of life, with the film using characterisation as a critique of American conservatism. All of these movies embody intersectionality within queerness within their own ways, however through signifying the importance of mutual support within chosen families, cinema can become a powerful medium in reimagining how new possibilities of belonging can be shown on screen.
To conclude, cinema obtains the power to not only project what queerness looks like onto the big screen, but also embody queerness visually, narratively and politically. The three films discussed in this essay all embody queerness as something that is multifaceted, yet inherently political. Through the use of cinema, films can be used as a method of critiquing normalised societal structures such as heteronormativity, racial stereotyping and patriarchy to a wide audience. This is done through using distinct cinematic techniques, such as bold visuals, characterisation and non-linear time frames throughout the film which emulate the fluidity of queerness. Cinema encourages the audience to reimagine queerness as not only an identity but as something which disrupts the structure and temporality of Western lifestyles. Drawing from popular queer theory, this essay has analysed how cinema utilises certain techniques to construct a message of utopian queer futurity and survival in a world where the odds are against these groups. Embodying queerness creates affect, where cinema allows an audience to imagine a transformative world where queerness is something to be celebrated and enjoyed rather than something to be feared.
Bibliography
Babbit, J. (Director). (1999). But I’m a Cheerleader [Film]. Starz Entertainment.
Butler, Judith (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415900425 . .
Freeman, E. (2010). Time binds: Queer temporalities, queer histories. Duke University Press.
hooks, bell. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992.
Jenkins, B. (Director). (2016). Moonlight [Film]. A24.
Livingston, J. (Director). (1990). Paris is Burning [Film]. Miramax.
Sontag, S. (1964). Notes on “Camp”. In Against interpretation and other essays . Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Weston, Kath. (1991). Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press
two magpies 