"It's not in your face, it's in my hand." Or: kicking the can down the road.

[trenchkamen]

There's been a lot of chatter in the internet overhead re: Game of Shadows and the overt fanservice/bromance in conjunction with furious "NO HOMO" spattered throughout the movie. I admit, I did enjoy the fanservice. I squeed like the braindead fangirl I am and just ate it up. But that's all it is, ultimately--subtext. You can take it or leave it. That's all Hollywood seems to tolerate, and they seem very self-righteous about it. Like that's enough progress. Like they're really making a difference.

Except, not really. It's the same old cowardly shit calculated to make a buck by not REALLY offending anybody, other than fringe fundies.

I've been meaning to write a thesis on my feelings regarding the heightened acceptance of fanservice even in Hollywood movies--but it's only okay so long as it's played up in such a way that you can CHOOSE whether or not you have to accept homosexuality. You can laugh it off with your bros as an awkward "NO HOMO" moment, because, seriously, actually making a mainstream hero gay, in a movie that isn't explicitly a homo rag? Would just ruin the whole thing.

This post, which has gotten the link run-around, perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter, and I applaud the author. As does this little ditty on tumblr.

Does this mean I'm angry at this once instance, in which Holmes and Watson did not explicitly come out? No. A deep, platonic friendship is just as valid an interpretation as homosexuality/bisexuality (keeping in mind our modern concepts of sexual orientation did not exist in the 1890s). But I'm fucking sick of seeing this always done halfway, with an out for anybody who wants to keep in denial. Decisions do not take place in a vacuum, and it's hard to condemn one person's artistic decisions without infringing upon their rights as an individual. But we must acknowledge the patterns. And we must acknowledge the platitudes thrown at slashers/gay audiences as half-measures. It's the same argument made against the Racebenders: clearly, YOU are the racist ones for not being color blind. Which can be true in individual instances.

But, the trends are made up of individual instances.

So, what do we do?

If we protest individual instances, we are accused of being heterophobic, slash-obsessed, myopic, and hysterical. But protesting a trend doesn't do much. People maintain their personal biases, and their right to choose how to write stories. But we keep doing it, because we hope new authors, and filmmakers, will be influenced by the movement, and choose to integrate alternate sexualities, racial diversity, etc, into their works of their own volition. So that's how it effects individuals. But corporations (who back and publish most works) focus on large, mass-consumption products, and therefore, on trends. So we're back to trends controlling individuals. There are always excellent niche market publishers and film-producers who will take on unconventional products, but there they remain--niche, and often critically-acclaimed, but ignored by the majority of society. The society that votes, and makes decisions that effect us all.

-----------------------------

Anime LA was pretty rad again this year. I worked prog ops, so I spent a lot of time in a back room, but I got to get out and see things. It's nice not to worry about costumes and meetups and stuff, sometimes. Past month I've been finishing up graduate school applications, writing, reading, etc, not the sort of thing to write The Net about unless something gets really interesting. Still need to watch the new Sherlock and finish Mawaru Penguindrum. Working on Persona 2: Innocent Sin.

Comments

[hiraku536.livejournal.com]

On that note about homosexual relationships in fiction, I feel that when there's a gay character introduced, it's going to be all about their attraction toward individuals of the same sex. That's how mainstream media portray them for the most part.

Well... there is the Teddy and Billy in Young Avengers, who DIDN'T revolve their whole life around their relationship all the time... interestingly someone on tumblr pointed out that while all the heteronormative characters had kissed each other, Teddy and Billy have yet to have a kiss scene after so many issues had been released, even though they're openly gay and together for so long.

There's also Midnighter and Apollo... can't say I have a clear memory of what they're like. I just know they existed. I know they kissed a lot... but I have a feeling they're not as well known as other superheroes.

And then there's also Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer... She has been with Tara and Kennedy, and they've kissed. But... I think media and the general audience are more okay with lesbian couples than gay couples for some reason...

There's not much, and yes, we're still very much in the niche as you said, but that just means we'll have to keep cranking out these messages, either with mails or with our own stories, until not even Hollywood can ignore us anymore. And, that will be the day when we don't have to tag our stories with a big fat "WARNING" sign just because we have gay characters. (It annoys me that even when there's soooo little to no sex scenes going on, webcomics still label themselves with a WARNING sign for having gays)

Interesting note about the new Sherlock series as to how even in the show, Watson's sexuality is actually being questioned by a bunch of the characters.

And, oh! FinishMawaru Penguindrum.... I cried at the last episode. For the whole series, I probably cried a total of 5 times.

[trenchkamen.livejournal.com]

When Hollywood (and the MPAA) also stops giving movies R ratings when you see a guy's orgasm face, and NC-17 ratings for a women's, and when they stop rating movies harsher for homosexual content as opposed to congruent heterosexual content, I'll die of shock.

Then again, don't even get me started on the MPAA.

[hiraku536.livejournal.com]

I don't even know what MPAA is until you said it.

[skuldchan.livejournal.com]

I am not terribly bothered by the portray of Holmes and Watson in Ritchie canon, but I do definitely think that they might contribute to the "NO HOMO" culture, and that is problematic. On the other hand, what they're trying to do is a portrayal of Holmes and Watson as friends, while simultaneously throwing out some subtext to encourage the fangirls. In Ritchie-verse, Watson is married, but it is still clear that he loves having adventures with Holmes, and he'll never get away with that.

I think in Moffat and Gatiss-verse, they do a much better job of meeting the complexities of the relationship between Sherlock and John. A Scandal in Belgravia does absolute wonders for tackling, head on, exactly what John feels for Sherlock. There's a scene where John confronts Irene Adler, and the conversation is so sparse, but there is so much unspoken undercurrent happening in so few words. It's just brilliant. Sure, there is subtext in that show, but ultimately it is very clear that Sherlock and John do love each other, but it is not anything like a "platonic bromance" or a "full on homosexual romance." It's much more complicated than that because of their personalities, because of Sherlock and John being who they are. It's not a stereotypical portray of sexuality in any way, and I don't care what all the Irene-haters say, that episode does a superb job at showcasing how any relationship with Sherlock Holmes is complex and often ambiguous.

Anyways, watch the new Sherlock, it's fucking amazing.

Also, how long are you staying in LA? I can hang out tonight if you want to come over to my place. We can watch Sherlock.

[trenchkamen.livejournal.com]

I do agree with that--the BBC Sherlock is far more subtle and, in many ways, intelligent. Again, it's not the ONE portrayal that bothers me, insofar as Ritchie is concerned. It's this pervasive pattern of having to qualify everything with "NO HOMO", or playing it up purely for laughs. Fanservice is becoming normalized, but I have yet to see an American movie consummate a homosexual relationship without it being specifically a "gay movie". Hollywood executives think that would alienate an audience. Because, after all, anybody can relate to straight people, but only homos can relate to gay/bisexual/whole LGBT spectrum people. Unless, of course, it's two hot women making out, because then straight guys think it's awesome. As long as it's all for their consumption.

Same way anybody can relate to white people, but only minorities can relate to other minorities, and everybody can relate to men, but only women can relate with women, and women really want to watch romantic comedies that end in marriage. Female protagonists are okay as long as they're sexed up for the men. Feminism, or women who don't exist for the male gaze, are too threatening. Men might have to evaluate their privilege, or relate to women without the sex object angle, and that's just lame.