"COMING OUT" BY NUMBERS A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Fine Arts of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Jessica L. Hey November 2007 2 This thesis titled "COMING OUT" BY NUMBERS by JESSICA L. HEY has been approved for the School of Film and the College of Fine Arts by Alessandra Raengo visiting Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts Charles A. McWeeny Dean, College of Fine Arts 3 Abstract HEY, JESSICA L., M.A., November 2007, Film "COMING OUT" BY NUMBERS (68 pp.) Director of Thesis: Alessandra Raengo This thesis investigates the independent lesbian films of the 1990s, examining specifically how these films adopt the hegemonic narrative structures of the heterosexist Hollywood tradition. The “coming out” films, while possessing queer content, fail to truly depict an alternative, queer, sexuality apart from the problematic ideological structures inherent to the more dominant cinematic mode. Therefore, my central question is, can these films with their adoption of such normative, narrative structures be considered “authentically” queer? And, if not, what did the prevalence of these films portend concerning the encroaching appropriation of queer culture? Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Alessandra Raengo visiting Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts 4 Table of Contents Page Abstract............................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: The Cinematic Precursors (A Queer Historiography)..................................... 12 Chapter 2: The “Coming Out” Films (An Overview)....................................................... 25 Chapter 3: The Emerging Queer Adolescent.................................................................... 35 Chapter 4: The Emerging Queer Woman ......................................................................... 45 Chapter 5: The Queer Commodity.................................................................................... 58 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63 References......................................................................................................................... 67 5 Introduction “Any film touching on the subject of homosexuality is bound to be controversial – we’ve been denied the right of self-expression and the right to see ourselves on the screen for so long that we expect every gay film that comes along to make up for it all, which is of course impossible. No film can meet such expectations.” (Waugh, p. 45) Keeping in mind the sage and rational words of Canadian film theorist and academic, Thomas Waugh, a question still remains, “Why are so many lesbian films so bad?” And though I recognize this to be an entirely subjective diagnosis, it was this one extremely simple, extremely frustrated, query that arose from my habitual disappointment at the quality (not to mention quantity) of feature-length narrative films released in theatres, at festivals, or on video that addressed, in one manner or another, central lesbian characters and issues. Lesbian characters [on film] have historically existed in a variety of fictional forms. Rarely, however, have these limited personifications been either sympathetic or three-dimensional. And while the filmmaking apparatus has surpassed its 100th birthday, relatively little has changed since its inception. On the one hand there is the American mainstream movie industry which largely ignores and/or degrades (through stereotype and marginality) lesbian identities, on the other is the independent film scene which doesn’t seem to be doing “us” any favors either; creating narrative films that are either dreadfully maudlin, excessively frivolous, technically awful, or oftentimes, all of the above. In short, they tend to be nothing special. Yet despite my frequent dissatisfaction and perhaps rush to [harsh] judgment, I can never seem to resist waiting for the next 6 installment – rife with anticipation. Nevertheless, through my extensive viewing of nearly-all filmic depictions of overt lesbianism, I began to be fascinated by the striking similarity of these films’ content and structure and to investigate why precisely they were as “bad,” or unfulfilling, as they seemed to be. Because to this point, the list of films is (relatively) too long to examine each and every one, I have chosen a particular group of films on which to focus my attention; that is, the independent (i.e. non-studio), female, queer-themed (queer being a specific term to be further explored) films of the 1990s which took as their subject matter the emerging queer adolescent girl, the emerging queer woman and their respective “coming out.” Here is a somewhat annotated list of the films to be included within this temporal and financial qualification: Claire of the Moon (Nicole Conn, 1992), When Night is Falling (Patricia Rozema, 1995), The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love (Maria Maggenti, 1995), Late Bloomers (Julie Dyer, 1996), All Over Me (Alex Sichel, 1997), It’s in the Water (Kelli Herd, 1997), High Art (Lisa Cholodenko, 1999), Better than Chocolate (Ann Wheeler, 1999), and But, I’m a Cheerleader (Jamie Babbit, 2000); though all of these films warrant mention, only a select few will be subject to a more thorough textual analysis. And, finally, within a slightly different context, I will also discuss Donna Deitch’s 1985 film, Desert Hearts and Rose Troche’s 1992 film, Go Fish - in order to make clear the historical context of these ‘coming out’ films’ creation as well as to identify the images as belonging to a definite set of cinematic conventions. I am concerned primarily with the common practice among these ‘coming out’ films to position their subversive content within a traditional (read: heterosexual) 7 narrative structure and to trace the historical and cinematic roots through which they came to be. Therefore, my central question is: Can these independent films with their adoption of hegemonic and hetero-normative narrative structures be considered “authentically” queer? And, subsequent to this, was there some degree of political impetus or social currency to be gained through the use of such a dominant mode? If not, why not? Thusly, what did that portend concerning the encroaching appropriation and commodification of the lesbian subject? Does the theory of queerness even apply? And, where are we today? Yet, before I begin to tackle this intimidating number of questions, I must first make clear the theoretical rationale and methodology from which I am basing my assertions, as well as to specifically define the terminology I will be utilizing throughout this analysis. To begin with, when I use the term “traditional” in regards to film structure, I am intending to reference the all-too familiar Hollywood formula, laden with well- established and obligatory generic “givens,” such as characters (lone rebel meets shy school girl), themes (love conquers all), iconography (white = right), and ideologies which are fundamentally hetero-normative in nature. That is, they assume heterosexuality as the dominant, or sole, sexual-identity position. And, for my purposes, I intend to evoke the vast history of romantic Hollywood narratives which have historically employed a set of formulaic structures or generic characteristics which are instantly, and comfortably recognizable for their audience (such as the antagonism/attraction of opposites, goofy happenstance, serendipity, thwarted desire, star-crossed love, and, of course, happy endings). My argument against such structures is the inevitable creation of an unwanted 8 abject, or monstrous “other” (Butler, pg. 79) that is perpetually left absent from these romantic fantasies (be it racial, sexual, religious, or otherwise) – with which the mainstream is unwilling to deal. In “Queer Visibility in Commodity Culture,” Rosemary Hennessy elaborates upon this point, “Heterosexuality is not an original or pure identity; its coherence is only secured by at once calling attention to and disavowing its “abject, interiorized, and ghostly other, homosexuality.” (p. 46) These hegemonic narratives are not necessarily objectionable on their own, but in overwhelming conjunction to almost every other film ever made (in the United States of America) an impenetrable network of misinformation and destructive mythology is established that leaves an enormous number of individuals outside the Hollywood gates. In addition to “traditional,” I will also periodically utilize the term “alternative” in reference to the films’ which are here under examination. By alternative, I simply mean those sexualities and identities which defy said traditional heterosexual model; those that are not the “normal” subject, but the exception. And, in almost synonymous conjunction, what do I mean by “queer”? On this point, I must align myself with another film scholar, Alexander Doty, who in the Introduction to his text, Making Things Perfectly Queer, makes clear his own particular usage of “queer,” Therefore, when I use the terms “queer” or “queerness” as adjectives or nouns, I do so to suggest a range of non- straight expression in, or in response to mass culture. This range includes specifically, gay,