In the reading Critically Queer, Judith Butler writes about the power of discourse, and the ability for power to act as discourse in spheres of performativity. Butler states that “the power of discourse to produce that which it names is thus essentially linked with the question of performativity. The performative is thus one domain in which power acts as discourse.” (Butler, 19) Butler also argues that gender is performative as it is the effect of a regulatory regime of gender differences that exists in society, a system where genders are separated and arranged into hierarchies under constant control. Social restrictions, threats of punishment and other societal constraints function in a “ritualized repetition of norms” (22) that composes a landscape of gender construction and gender destabilization. The ideology being expressed here is intrinsically bonded to the queer themes in French screenwriter-director Celine Sciamma’s second directorial feature from 2011 titled Tomboy. Sciamma’s film inspects themes of of gender construction and the boundaries that force individuals into destructive gender and sexuality binaries. I found it interesting when Butler argued that there is no one subject who is manifesting this repetition of these norms in society. The repetition of such heteronormative systems of gender and sex regulation arguably disrupts, destabilizes, and potentially ruins the identity of the human subject. “To the extent that this repetition creates an effect of gender uniformity, a stable effect of masculinity or femininity, it produces and destabilizes the notion of the subject as well, for the subject only comes into intelligibility through the matrix of gender.” (Butler, 22)

The notion that gender binaries are constructed through language in systems of society is reinforced in Tomboy multiple times. Sciamma emphasizes the impact of language and communication (verbal and non-verbal) in systems and hierarchies of sex and gender in scenes like the first time Mikael plays soccer with the rest of the boys in the neighborhood. You can see the scene here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEkPuY-TN3Y  The hesitation, observation, and ultimate bursting positivity and acceptance Mikael feels while playing with the other boys is depicted with a focus on the emotions and desires he is experiencing. Sciamma uses the body language of her characters in this scene to depict most of their motivations, this allows her spectators to relate and empathize with the character in more meaningful ways and makes the films themes of gender fluidity resonate even deeper. The two contrasting examples of the neighborhood children’s reaction to the difference between male and female are on display in this scene – as they exclude Lisa from the game. The seemingly innocent interactions between the youth in this scene show the spectator how gender performativity is influenced and shaped by language and other cultural pressures, even at young ages and in social spaces without adults present.

Another example of Sciamma’s directorial choices that elicit a special empathy in spectators includes the scenes where he looks at himself in the mirror in the bathroom or his room. I could feel Mikael’s anxiety, fear, confusion and his exploration of his identity – and the camera’s close proximity to Mikael in a multitude of shots in the film aided this effect. Tomboy would not be as effective of a film if the camera was kept at a distance from Mikael throughout. Tomboy’s cinematographer, Crystel Fournier, gives the spectator many beautiful shots where Mikael’s face and gestures are emphasized, allowing them to really appreciate the silences and ponder what thoughts may be flying through his mind. Tomboy is a fine cinematic example of a young, queer protagonist navigating and developing his human identity. The film beautifully raises pressing questions about gender fluidity, gender performativity, and sexuality existing within a system of heteronormative restrictions. In an interview with Sciamma about her direction of Tomboy, she acknowledged the film’s timeless and relatable quality – something she achieved with the absence of technology like cell phones or time-tellers like calendars. She seems to be suggesting to the audience that this story can happen anywhere at any time. I really enjoyed her explanation of these decisions as a desire to create a type of cinematic universe of her own, one that engrosses the spectator in the world of a specific film, and provokes a strong sense of identification with the characters within it.