This entry is going to focus more on how queerness especially in cinema is praised but at times fetishized for its openness in sexuality. Specifically in being sex positive, or encouraging “promiscuous” lifestyles, etc. The reading in Queer World Cinema, comes to mind where it talks about queer cinema around the world. How it works, why it works, and who is watching. One part that particularly stood out to me was the section in which they comment on queer sex in film. The author writes,
“On the one hand, representation of same-sex or other dissident sex acts is for many spectators a defining pleasure of queer cinema” (Queer World Cinema, 11).
This speaks to how queer cinema is often labeled as unconventional, it pushes boundaries not known for typical films following straight stories. This is both empowering, but also leaves room for fetishization of queer people- especially lesbians. This is something that happens so often with lesbian relationships, where their relationships may be heavily sexualized. On the one hand, it’s nice to talk about sex- see sex, normalize it as part of life, as much as queer cinema does. However, it sucks that a lot of times viewers will watch these films for personal sexual purposes, or they’ll miss the point entirely. Instead of feeling the liberation of sex on screen, they may see it as something dirty or private, something to be a hidden “kink”, etc., using an oppressive gaze towards queer folks. This is another reason queer films are put in “other” sections, because of the explicit content- pushing them further into unconventional categories. Like having to see a film at an art festival, special theaters, etc. Keeping queer stories from the mainstream.
What I liked about the film Law of Desire, was the way sex was normalized. The characters, were all having sex, it was normal- you get to see parts of it. The main character Pablo was always having sex, he was free in his sexuality, so much that it was never a big deal. The film definitely followed this theme of homosexuality was known, but not really talked about. In fact, Pablo was an artist, an actor so he was already unconventional, which is part of the reason people left him alone; as his sexuality was expected to be unconventional as well. I liked that the film starts off with this idea for the rest of the film, that sex sells and it can be liberating.
On a personal note, I enjoyed this film. I liked Pablo, the way he was sexual but still a person who struggled, who thrived. He was endearing to those who were close to him, and he loved deeply when he wanted to. It was interesting to watch a film that involved so much sex, and yet it felt natural, it wasn’t some big thing that had one super dramatic life changing scene. Instead, it was just normal throughout the film- you hookup, you move on, etc. Just so happens, Pablo found himself hooking up with a homicidal maniac.
I have attached a screen-cap of the opening scene, which is explicit but liberating and I think sings true to what I’ve discussed. A mutually gratifying moment.
