Starting out reading Briggs et al, I expected an interresting take on the issue - having seen the relationship between Jerome and Vincent as very fraternal, I thought it would be interresting to see how the homosexuality theme fit in.... especially since Vincent has a romantic relationship with a woman. Turns out this article is based on loose logic, and weak argumentation - and is written by people who appear to be slightly obsessed with homosexuality. They talk not about what the film evokes, but what they brought into it.
As for the Jurrasic park bit, I skimmed most of it and didn't find it that interresting... I haven't seen the movie in years, though they were convincing with their bashes on Crighton, but I think they inferred too much out of his Playboy quote.
Vincent, we all know, isn't the stereotypical macho-man, "Vincent as hero, is never figured as particularly masculine in the Schwarzenegger mode, but is slightly build, severely nearsighted, and constantly fearful that his identity will be revealed; he appears.... gay" (Briggs 106). OK, first of all making Vincent look like Arnold "The Terminator" would be ridiculous... as the Terminator is pretty much the definition of a techno-man. Secondly, that he's nearsighted being an implication as to his sexual orientation is absurd. It just highlights that he's not what society would consider the ideal person, and runs with the theme that what can be seen or measured doesn't necessarily prove a person's abilities - almost a parallel of anti-sexist and anti-racist theory. Because someone has a different type of chromosome does NOT determine their worth, though society historically sees it differently. Just like being near-sighted has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.
Moving on, on page 107 they talk about the tubes, "Evoking contemporary anxieties about AIDS". What popped to my mind was kidney problems, or cancer.On page 108 they talk about a sharing of body fluds indicating "rampant homosexual behavior". Or, maybe, a brother saving his borther's life with a blood transfusion? To me, the penis comment was not homosexual - merely highlighting Lamar's observational skills and also joking about the societal notion that having a larger penis makes you more "manly". The fact that the physician has a daughter, and is married, is ignored. The term "excited" can have sexual connotations, but doesn't always. I'm not even going to go into the logistics of having a homosexual relationship with a disabled man. Just because the two men share an unusual (almost brotherly) relationship - which Vincent eventually outrgrows - doesn't mean the movie is condemning homosexuality.
Notice on page 109 how the authors use "clearly" THRICE before making claims that aren't that clear. The effect is to try to make readers ignore the fallacies of the arguments, and succumb to the views of the "experts" - if you didn't see that which was "clear" then you must be blind... so don't even admit to yourself that this wasn't clear all along. The authors use the uhh... "brilliant" "clearly..."-argument a total of 6 times in the article.
On page 110, they appeal again to an objectivity when they say, "The slippage between nature, God, love, and utero births is UNMISTAKABLE AND DELIBERATE" (emphasis added). The intentionalist argument is bogus, because it could easily be subconscious (or non-existent). And, it is mistakable, sorry. I personally "mistook" the themes to mean that no matter whether you conform to society's superficial judgements of you, you can still succeed. On the same page, they say "all black men are the State" - since ALMOST EVERYONE is the state in this hypothetical society, I'm not really impressed with their observation. Maybe they would have preferred if the guy who set up the whole illegal thing were black? He wasn't part of the state, and that most certainly wouldn't proliferate any racist, essentialist views.
Homosexual or not, Jerome only has one friend, or even acquaintance, and is confined to a tiny appartment almost constantly. The fact that he gets jealous about his friend having a relationship probably reflects his own anxieties - not necessarily about losing a sexual partner. I've had many friends complain when their good friends get girlfriends and don't hang out as much. Are they all involved in homosexual relationships? Maybe, I don't know, but I doubt it.
Vincent keeps his desk clean because he doesn't want to leave any DNA evidence for "the Man" (read: government) to find. Then he says that cleanliness is next to godliness. The authors then say that "what makes him an individual, is God-given" (109). Somehow, the authors confuse Vincent's comparing himself to God as an agument of his talents being God-given. If I say "wow, i'm godly at pool" that is saying I dominate those around me at pool, not that God granted me the power of pool-playing. It is more of a denial of God.
The authors are, in my opinon, guilty of mixing an idea that even non-traditional masculinity has inherrent value with an accusation that "unmanly" men are homosexual. When Vincent refuses to test the girl's DNA, he is rejecting the societal claim that such testing is a viable means of judging, seeing, and knowing.
Finally, Vincent's "rejection" of Jerome isn't necessarily a bash on homosexuality in general, it could also be that he would rather spend his time with a talented, driven, happy person than with a suicidal, depressed alcoholic.... If anything, it's a rejection of the family structure, as the authors argue that Jerome is like the wife (which I can see... he does little but give his body to Vincent in exchange for money, never leaves the house, and whines a lot).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment