Effing Bread Crumbs
Jul. 26th, 2011 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaSo, like, I know I'm the party-pooper when it comes to the fun of Fandom.
I know I'm Waldorf to someone else's Statler (or vice versa), but I am irked.
It irks me when things like this are received with a *squee* and nary a side eye.
As per the link, there was a panel at SDCC on X-Men and the subject of LGBT themes came up. Zack Stentz, who was involved in writing X-Men: First Class is quoted:
That's nice.
Really it is.
About as nice as being told Professor Dumbledore was gay, two years (if IIRC) after he died.
The fandom went wild, as did I at the time, until I thought about the implications of outing him post-mortem.
And this, oh, the tragic love story of two men who have never ever in the canon shown any kind of evidence beyond subtext that we need to look for, that they loved each other in a way that went deeper than friendship, or even brotherhood.
That quote, right there, that feels like pandering. It feels like fan service. It feels like, there was a big loaf of bread somewhere when it came to who got the benefit of being represented in an honest way in a genre movie.
I don't want to have to have the "Word of God" confirm subtext they put in there so that they could be implicit, rather than explicit, about character development and desire. I don't want a panel at SDCC to tell me that the margins of the text are slightly wider than they were before.
I don't want to be happy about the fact that a movie filled with plausible deniability is a vindication of queer readings in a film, chock full of code and subtext that exists to make the aforementioned deniability hold strong.
The most we can say is "thank god no one is running for the hills due to queer implication" and no it doesn't really matter what the sexuality of the creators are - what matters is what is conveyed and while what is conveyed in the movie is brilliant, this is not a movie that has queer people in it. It is a movie that has queer themes and implications running through it.
Nuance is fun, ambiguity is one of my favourite things. But not at the cost of real, actual, honest to god, LGBT representation.
When am I getting my Batwoman movie?! Oh, never? Thought so. Is Northstar ever going to be something other than a gay Canadian Speedster? No, oh well.
Apollo? Mignighter? Maybe on HBO or Showtime? Yeah, maybe.
Crossposts: http://eumelia.livejournal.com/547114.html
I know I'm Waldorf to someone else's Statler (or vice versa), but I am irked.
It irks me when things like this are received with a *squee* and nary a side eye.
As per the link, there was a panel at SDCC on X-Men and the subject of LGBT themes came up. Zack Stentz, who was involved in writing X-Men: First Class is quoted:
[...]
Stentz basically confirmed Erik/Charles (he called First Class, “the tragic romance of Charles and Erik”) and went on to describe how if certain events/personal ideologies/chosen paths hadn’t forced them apart, Erik and Charles would most certainly be together. According to him, it’s one of those “they’re meant for each other, but fate refuses to let them stay together” situations.
That's nice.
Really it is.
About as nice as being told Professor Dumbledore was gay, two years (if IIRC) after he died.
The fandom went wild, as did I at the time, until I thought about the implications of outing him post-mortem.
And this, oh, the tragic love story of two men who have never ever in the canon shown any kind of evidence beyond subtext that we need to look for, that they loved each other in a way that went deeper than friendship, or even brotherhood.
That quote, right there, that feels like pandering. It feels like fan service. It feels like, there was a big loaf of bread somewhere when it came to who got the benefit of being represented in an honest way in a genre movie.
I don't want to have to have the "Word of God" confirm subtext they put in there so that they could be implicit, rather than explicit, about character development and desire. I don't want a panel at SDCC to tell me that the margins of the text are slightly wider than they were before.
I don't want to be happy about the fact that a movie filled with plausible deniability is a vindication of queer readings in a film, chock full of code and subtext that exists to make the aforementioned deniability hold strong.
The most we can say is "thank god no one is running for the hills due to queer implication" and no it doesn't really matter what the sexuality of the creators are - what matters is what is conveyed and while what is conveyed in the movie is brilliant, this is not a movie that has queer people in it. It is a movie that has queer themes and implications running through it.
Nuance is fun, ambiguity is one of my favourite things. But not at the cost of real, actual, honest to god, LGBT representation.
When am I getting my Batwoman movie?! Oh, never? Thought so. Is Northstar ever going to be something other than a gay Canadian Speedster? No, oh well.
Apollo? Mignighter? Maybe on HBO or Showtime? Yeah, maybe.
Crossposts: http://eumelia.livejournal.com/547114.html
