Hello again everyone.
This is going to be the last film review for the semester. (Yay!) I can’t tell you how sick of writing these I am. Don’t get me wrong here, I am enjoying that I am finding something to write for school AND for the blog. However, I am finding myself hating the focus on movies that this class has. I am not a movie person in the slightest. When I do indulge in watching a fictional film, typically it is something silly, girly, and childish. When I am watching something that isn’t fictional, the films tend to be dark, scary, and documentary pieces. Other than that, I don’t really have much of an appetite for film.
So, yeah, I am glad that this is almost over. However, there is going to be one final paper due for the class. I am sure that it is something that I could post here as well. Though, I will have to think about how I am going to manage that. I am sure that if you have been interested in my writings so far that you will be interested in that as well, but it is going to be rather long (like 20-pages long). So, I will think about it.
Anyway, the film that I am working on today is called Jeffrey. The movie features a number of big names from the 1990’s. While I would love to summarize the movie quickly for you here, I am not sure that I can think of anything more to say about it than what is in the reaction below.
Jeffrey (1995) is a gay romantic comedy about a man who gives up sex and ends up stumbling into Mr. Right in the process, but unlike all other romantic comedies, Jeffrey relies on AIDS—a deadly, incurable, sexual transmitted virus—for the majority of its punchlines. In doing so, the film awkwardly attempts to further acceptance for those living with HIV/AIDS. However, because of its frequent departures into the absurd, the film could easily pass as a satirical piece. In this, the film’s point could be to call out the stupidity and arrogance of the blasé treatment of safer sex practices in the post-AIDS crisis era or simply homonegativity itself. However, the ambiguous relationship between this film and the satire contained within leaves the viewer to decide whether it is truly a work of irony or a serious romantic comedy. As with all things, the truth likely lies somewhere in between.
In viewing the film, I was left with a deep sense of confusion over my inability to tell where satire ended and the plot began. Throughout the film, there are many points that are clearly meant to be satirical in nature. Some of these arose from characters, such as those played by Sigourney Weaver and Nathan Lane, which were included almost entirely for comedic effect. Because of this, however, it becomes unclear whether the same ironic reading could be extended to the likes of Sterling (Patrick Stewart), Darius, or even Steve—characters with a much more substantial impact on the plot of the film.
More worryingly, this problem I had in differentiating the satirical from the substantial extended to aspects of the film beyond its characters and plot. This means that, while I feel that many aspects of the film were problematic, I feel as though any raised concern can simply be countered with a defence stating that that aspect was intentionally absurd. Because of this, I wonder whether this film could be marked as the first film to demonstrate so-called “hipster homophobia.”
Hipster homophobia is a concept, similar to hipster racism or hipster sexism, where homophobia or homonegativity is presented in such a way to make it intentionally absurd or subjectively ironic. In this, those perpetuating hipster homophobia are attempting to challenge the societal expectation of homonegative depictions through over the top uses of these very depictions. In this way, the creator of the work is expressing their belief that blatant expressions of genuine homonegativity are no longer taken seriously and that such obvious depictions of such are seen as humorous and/or whimsical.
However, portrayals of this type often backfire on their creator. As Poe’s law would suggest, there is always going to be a subset of the audience of any satirical work that will not understand its satirical nature. As a result, these people will accept the work for its face value and not for the message at its core. In the context of hipster homophobia, this means that some of those in the audience will take the over the top depictions of stereotyped gay men as the way things actually are rather than taking them as the ironic representations that they were meant to be. Because of this, hipster homophobia inadvertently supports the homonegative actions of those who do not understand its irony and allows for (or encourages) the continuation of homonegative actions under the guise of satire or humour.
Of course, this is only one way of interpreting this film. The other obvious way of doing so would be to take the film on its face, as a realistic portrayal of the creator’s feelings about gay men. In this interpretation, the film moves from inadvertently supporting homonegative assumptions to actively bolstering them, taking on a much darker tone as it does so. This is because the film then becomes little more than a collection of harmful stereotypes and irrational ideas, not the least of which involves the active questioning of safer sex practices.
While the main character does eventually warm to the idea of practising safer sex towards the end of the film, the way in which he announces this seems as though he is making an exception for his desired partner. Prior to this, the message of the film about safer sex practices was one showing them as tiresome, dull, and romance-destroying. This presentation of safer sex practices offers support to misconceptions which pervade our society about these practices, and only serves to discourage their employment by the masses. Given the very serious nature of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV, Human papillomavirus (HPV), and antibiotic-resistant gonorrhoea, the discouragement of effective prevention measures is irresponsible, but yet all too common.
Beyond this, however, Jeffrey did no better in its portrayal of the gay man. In fact, the film defined gay men (and perhaps men in general) in such a way as to make giving up sex a laughable, foolhardy endeavour. This was not done through the strength of writing or the power of performance, but instead it was accomplished through relying on tired tropes about men and (gay) men’s sexuality. These stereotypes of the oversexed man and the uncontrollable male sex drive are nothing new to media representations of gay men. In fact, it is for this very reason that gay men have historically been viewed as sexual predators exploiting others for their sexual desires. While this harmful generalization could be seen as applicable to heterosexual men as well, it is often assumed that gay men are far more sexual than even their heterosexual male counterparts. This makes representations of the uncontrollable gay male sex drive all the more salient to the audience and all the more problematic for the gay male community.
In addition, the main auxiliary characters in the story, Sterling and Darius, do nothing to improve this stereotyped view of gay men. With Sterling being a catty interior decorator and Darius being a “chorus boy” in the production of Cats, these characters are the epitome of the feminine gay male archetype. As such, these characters do little to move beyond the regressive notions that conflate homosexuality with gender transgression. Further, those in other marginalized communities do not get much better treatment. After all, the film’s only non-white character (a Black man) is portrayed as a server at a restaurant, and the film’s only transgender character is played by a masculine-looking cis-man in a dress and is depicted eagerly awaiting surgery.
Because of these heavily stereotyped representations that clearly harm the communities on which they are based, I almost hope that the creator of the film was aiming entirely for creating a work of satire. However, as I mentioned above, I am sure that the truth lies somewhere between these two opposing interpretations of the film. The reason that I believe this is because the film seems to have a plot that is far too serious to lend itself to an ironic interpretation. However, it is clear that many aspects of the film are not meant to be taken seriously at all. It is because of this that I feel that the line between satire and seriousness has been blurred. However, with either interpretation (or some complex mixing of the two), something that the film can not escape is the sense of unironic hypocrisy that comes with its attempted advancement of acceptance for those living with HIV/AIDS.
During the contrived courtship between Steve and Jeffrey, Steve mentions that he does not want to be Jeffrey’s red ribbon. In this, Steve expresses that he does not want to be reduced to a decoration highlighting Jeffrey’s acceptance of those with AIDS and implies that such self-centred, surface level engagement with the cause is all too common. Nevertheless, those in the cast and crew of this film do not seem to actually engage with this message. Instead, it feels as though many of the big names who got involved with this film did so as a way of publicly displaying their humanitarian efforts. In this way, the film serves as the red ribbon for its cast and crew, a status Steve expressed his explicit disapproval of.