![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThis week I've been reading The Forever War by Joe Haldeman, and Saturday afternoon I went to see "The Kids are Alright" with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cowgrrl. And as is usual for the way my brain works, I saw patterns in what are ostensibly far disparate artifacts of our culture.
The Forever War is an anti-war science fiction novel written by a Vietnam veteran, and is a commentary on that war, the military-industrial complex, and the American empire's reliance on perpetual war as an economic engine. The name refers to the effects of relativity on those who travel in space: while the protagonist experiences about 5-10 years of subjective time, his time as a soldier in the war against the Taurans lasts over 1100 years. Haldeman uses the change over time in attitudes towards homosexuality as one of the primary illustrations of culture shock experienced by the protagonist. And while Haldeman is somewhat more accepting of it than his protagonist, and makes some interesting comments on heterosexual culture seeing homosexuality as a "problem" that needs to be cured (and he got some flack for writing in a generally accepting way about homosexuality during the mid-seventies) I got a sense from the way certain things resolve in the novel that Haldeman may unconsciously feel that same-sex relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.
"The Kids are Alright" starts with a relatively happy family headed by a lesbian couple who had two children, one each, using sperm acquired from a sperm bank. When one of the children turns 18, she contacts the bank, who puts the children in contact with their biological father. He's a likable hippie who's mellowness extends to a certain laxity of ambition -- and over the course of the movie he comes to miss what he didn't even know he wanted: a family. I don't think writer/director Lisa Cholodenko consciously chose to make a straight man the most interesting character, but that's the way it feels on reflection today. What does seem to have been a conscious choice is the differing portrayal of sex on-screen: heterosexual sex is shown in a very clear and graphic way, while lesbian and gay sex is always hidden: under blankets or hidden from sight in a truck bed, etc. I'm inclined to believe this disparity is the fault of the MPAA, who have a demonstrated history of giving an X (excuse me, NC-17) rating for gay/lesbian sexual content the hetero equivalent of which has only merited an R. Even so, it creates a disparity in what was otherwise a movie we liked very much.
The strand that connects these things is the pattern of "tolerance" in our culture which on one hand rejects discrimination and hate, but which on the other hand does not allow us to portray gay/lesbian love as quite equal to straight love.
ETA: spoilers in comments.
cowgrrl. And as is usual for the way my brain works, I saw patterns in what are ostensibly far disparate artifacts of our culture.The Forever War is an anti-war science fiction novel written by a Vietnam veteran, and is a commentary on that war, the military-industrial complex, and the American empire's reliance on perpetual war as an economic engine. The name refers to the effects of relativity on those who travel in space: while the protagonist experiences about 5-10 years of subjective time, his time as a soldier in the war against the Taurans lasts over 1100 years. Haldeman uses the change over time in attitudes towards homosexuality as one of the primary illustrations of culture shock experienced by the protagonist. And while Haldeman is somewhat more accepting of it than his protagonist, and makes some interesting comments on heterosexual culture seeing homosexuality as a "problem" that needs to be cured (and he got some flack for writing in a generally accepting way about homosexuality during the mid-seventies) I got a sense from the way certain things resolve in the novel that Haldeman may unconsciously feel that same-sex relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.
"The Kids are Alright" starts with a relatively happy family headed by a lesbian couple who had two children, one each, using sperm acquired from a sperm bank. When one of the children turns 18, she contacts the bank, who puts the children in contact with their biological father. He's a likable hippie who's mellowness extends to a certain laxity of ambition -- and over the course of the movie he comes to miss what he didn't even know he wanted: a family. I don't think writer/director Lisa Cholodenko consciously chose to make a straight man the most interesting character, but that's the way it feels on reflection today. What does seem to have been a conscious choice is the differing portrayal of sex on-screen: heterosexual sex is shown in a very clear and graphic way, while lesbian and gay sex is always hidden: under blankets or hidden from sight in a truck bed, etc. I'm inclined to believe this disparity is the fault of the MPAA, who have a demonstrated history of giving an X (excuse me, NC-17) rating for gay/lesbian sexual content the hetero equivalent of which has only merited an R. Even so, it creates a disparity in what was otherwise a movie we liked very much.
The strand that connects these things is the pattern of "tolerance" in our culture which on one hand rejects discrimination and hate, but which on the other hand does not allow us to portray gay/lesbian love as quite equal to straight love.
ETA: spoilers in comments.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 05:15 pm (UTC)