By Marta Tahja-Syrett
On Nov. 16, the Capitol Theater hosted a panel on LGBTQ+ representation in film as part of its 35th annual film festival. Panelists discussed the importance of sharing queer stories, as well as the stereotypical depictions LGBTQ+ characters frequently face within the cinematic world. They illustrated their experiences as queer filmmakers and artists alongside the self-actualization those experiences brought forward.
Six panelists, sitting together at a purple-clothed table, collectively noted that representation helps us to see without experience, providing people with the opportunity to learn more about each other — to learn more about LGBTQ+ people. Queer representation can also be validating because it serves as a mirror, reflecting an image of one’s reality back to oneself; an image that is so often inaccessible for queer people. Panelists Ricky German and Stacy Peck both observed how the global society of today aids in queer representation. Websites such as YouTube have become primary sources where queer people have the ability to document their individual experiences and share their stories. Peck went on to say that modern technology has also made audience engagement attainable even when monetary resources are limited. She said that videos filmed on her phone were able to reach as large of an audience as videos produced with higher funding, if not larger.
An issue that can arise with representation, though, is exploitation. Panelists discussed how queer identity is often showcased in film for the purpose of intriguing those who are curious about it. These “how to tolerate queer people”-esque films are not made for queer people at all. In fact, many of the filmmakers pointed out that such movies, in addition to modern television shows, seem to be intended for family members of someone who recently came out; a polished feel-good depiction of familial acceptance. Peck commented that Netflix originals were the epitome of this pseudo-genre. Queer characters are also seen as a disposable component of film, as filmmakers can decide whether or not to include them. Panelists suggested that straight people should see films that depict queer everyday life, instead of ones made for their appeal.
In regard to the depiction of LGBTQ+ characters in film, Mary Anne Carter brought up the fact that straight and queer love stories are portrayed in completely different ways. She said that a straight love story depicts reaching a happily ever after, whereas a queer love story embodies a “choose your own adventure” theme. In the same vein, Carter also made a connection to Peck’s observation regarding contemporary and mainstream queer films. She said that even though there has been progress in queer representation, there is still a long way to go before reaching the finish line.
Notably, the panel observed that many queer people identify with villainous characters in film (think of Cruella de Vil or Ursula). Perhaps this is because members of the LGBTQ+ community frequently feel villainized themselves. In turn, the evil antagonist archetype aligns with their experiences and even becomes something beautiful and appealing. As Carter put it, “Why not enjoy it?” She continued by saying that this sentiment comes from a place that understands that queer people are not inherently bad — as sometimes depicted.
Eliaichi Kimaro (who identifies as a queer, multiracial, first-generation American film director) spoke about one of her experiences as a filmmaker. She was producing a film in Tanzania, which she hoped would encapsulate the story of her father’s heritage. She had planned on someday showing this film to her children as a means of instilling a legacy. Yet, after the film was reviewed, Kimaro was told that her work contained no heart. It needed to delve into something deeper. At that time, Kimaro realized her film was lacking her own multifaceted identity. As a marginalized woman, she needed to take up space, something that she is often denied in our society. Even though the film does not directly delve into the fact that she is a queer woman, Kimaro says that she stills labels it as a queer film because it was made through the lens through which she views the world.
When Jonah Barrett asked fellow panelists what their thoughts were regarding straight actors being cast for queer roles, German answered by saying that although it doesn’t always turn out terribly, there must always be strong reasoning behind the decision to do so. German believes that if the decision is made solely out of convenience, it definitely should not have been made.
Nearing the end of the discussion, an overarching idea came forth — as we tell our diverse stories, we give to the world a more inclusive perspective on life. Danny Tayara says that as someone who was socialized female, they have been taught to avoid taking up space. Despite this, they persist in making sure to include themselves in their work. They are able to write themself into the film’s story, making it possible to see themself, for the first time, displayed on the screen.
Artists are not the only ones who can support queer representation in film. This is something that all movie-watchers can do. Carter instructed audience members to “support marginalized people directly” and to support people from the bottom up. Film curators who are limited in financial resources need to tell their story as well, and in turn, films with lower funding are oftentimes more meaningful than those produced with greater monetary resources. People working under lower-budget circumstances are involved in the process of creation differently; invested in heartfelt sincerity. Look past the high-production, the flashy, and find your way towards films with diverse lenses.
