On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:43:58 -0500 Jenni Olson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Over the years the definition of what can fall under the rubric of gay and > lesbian cinema has been broadened in many ways. If one approaches this > particular film from a lesbian perspective (and, for the sake of argument, > let's consider something like Dorothy Arzner's film Craig's Wife in the same > boat) we can see a certain critique of normative heterosexuality -- Gorris > and Arzner's women will be married but only on their terms -- which has a > very unique resonance for gay and lesbian audiences. The key point here, I think, is "if one approaches this film from a lesbian perspective." Certainly I didn't; something which is not surprising given that (i) I am not homosexual, and (ii) I saw the film in a mainstream cinema in Holland, where "Twister" and "Primal Fear" were on in the other two screens. The reason "Antonia" was being shown there was because it was a product of that country's indigenous film industry and, what's more, it got an Oscar; not because of it had the label of "gay and lesbian cinema" attached to it by a certain group of critics. At that time, I was completely unaware that Marleen Gorris' work has been shown widely at Gay and Lesbian film festivals. > In the case of Arzner, we know that she was a lesbian working in a Hollywood > system and at a period in time when she would not have made an "explicit" > lesbian film. But we can bring this information to our viewing experience > and see ways that her sexuality must surely have had an influence on her > work. Granted, but surely there is a probability that by examining and critiquing her work primarily in the context of "gay and lesbian cinema", we run the risk of overlooking other, equally important influences on her films. Surely Arzner's sexuality had an influence on her work, but was it the only one, and, more importantly, was it always the most dominant one? I know of a military historian who has argued that "Christopher Strong" can be read as critiquing the reluctance of the American aviation industry toward research and innovation, prefering to leave it to the individual "star" aviator[ix] who risks his/her life, rather than jeopardise their own financial stability. In constructing such an argument, surely the director's sexuality is not really an important factor. > Personally, watching Antonia's Line and being familiar with Gorris' previous > work, I felt keenly aware very early on in the film that the lesbian > character was a lesbian character (we don't explicitly learn this until much > later in the film). Although the lesbian character is not the central figure > of the film (her mother is), she is certainly the second most significant > role. I didn't pick this up, possibly as a result of my failure to master the Dutch language, more probably due to my own shortcomings. > In short, different viewers bring different insights and expectations to a > given film. In my eyes Antonia's Line (and Craig's Wife) are lesbian films. > And I understand perfectly that they are not lesbian films for everyone. > > And, of course, as with any identity-based qualifiers, a given film has > numerous "identities." It is a Dutch film, a woman's film, a family film, > etc. Absolutely. To try and move on from simply acknowledging the existence of numerous identities, the thorny question seems to me to be one of priorities: in a given context, what is the most significant focus of a given film/film-maker and why? For example, if someone were to ask me what my thoughts were on Sagan's "Madchen in Uniform", my brief reply would be that it is a lesbian film. In response to the same question apropos "Antonia", I would say that it was yet another of those pan-European co-productions we've been seeing recently, paid for by various government film instutions and TV companies. Best Wishes ---------------------- Leo Enticknap Bill Douglas Centre for the History of Cinema and Popular Culture *** look at our website on http://www.ex.ac.uk/bill.douglas/ *** University of Exeter, UK ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]