#and to pretend that bi women are so different from us is. to be frank. stupid | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

smallnico · 4 years

Note

Are you a Gold Star lesbian? (Just in case you don't know what it means, a Gold Star lesbian is a lesbian that has never had the sex with a guy and would never have any intentions of ever doing so)

EDIT: i’ve been told this anon is a bot, and a lot of people have received this same message. who would program a bot to do this and why is a mystery to me. assuming no harm is done in doing so, i’m going to keep my response up instead of deleting it because i spent a good amount of time writing it, and i think it’s informative, which is why i wrote it in the first place.

~~~

i’m going to do you a favour here and assume you didn’t mean any harm by asking me this, that you just didn’t know better or didn’t think it through. i’ve said some pretty weird things to people on impulse, so i know how it feels when people react aggressively when you weren’t trying to insult them or freak them out or anything. normally, i would just block you for something like this and delete the ask, but given the number of asks i’ve been getting these days after a long drought of interaction, maybe it’s a good idea to re-establish some boundaries, not to mention explain to someone who might not know better why i have so many objections to the concept of a ‘gold star lesbian’.

first off, even when i’m hosting a frank discussion about sexuality on this blog, i never want to be asked about my sex life. some people are comfortable talking about theirs on tumblr -- i am not one such person. people are welcome to enjoy this blog and ask the occasional question, probe me for opinions, but my personal life is not open for spectators. there’s a meaningful difference between asking me about my sexual orientation and my experiences as a queer person, and asking me who i’ve had sex with. one is an opportunity for education, and the other is inappropriate and invasive. i’m already really dodgy about answering questions about my personal life, about friends and location and whatever, so already that ought to be a good warning to never ask me about my sex life. it is none of anyone’s goddamn business. this is a recipe for an instant block, and to restate, the only reason i’m not blocking this anon is because it’s a learning opportunity, and i’m feeling generous today.

the other reason i’m answering this question is because it’s an opportunity to save you, anon, from the trap of believing in ‘gold star lesbians’. i already know what the term means, and i’ve long since formed a firm opinion about its uselessness.

1) a lesbian is not a better or worse lesbian for having/not having sex with men. there are a wide range of lesbian experiences that have room for a sexual history/future with men, and nobody -- absolutely nobody -- has the right to claim superiority over these people based on their comparatively “”pure”” sexual history. some lesbians formerly identified as straight, bi, pan, etc., and some may identify with those labels in the future. some older lesbians went their entire lives thinking they were straight, being married to men and having children before discovering who they are, does that make them less of a lesbian? does that make their current identity less qualified? i’ve been questioning my sexual orientation since i was thirteen years old, and not that it matters, but i don’t even identify as a lesbian anymore. am i tainted somehow? 2) let’s not pretend it’s not about purity, and let’s not pretend that purity means fucking anything when it comes to the spectrum of human experience. nothing is pure, nothing human will ever be pure, and anyone who claims their whatever the hell makes them pure is inflating their own pride at the cost of others they’ve arbitrarily declared are dirty. 3) men are not dirty. sex with men is not dirty. people who have sex with men are not dirty. you don’t get an award for not having sex with men, and the idea that ‘not having sex with men’ is a reward in and of itself is deeply unfair to both men and the people who find men attractive. there are a lot of excellent reasons people choose to have sex with men. the choice to have sex with men is not something i’m willing or even inclined to slander, even if the person making that choice is a lesbian, and even if they’re making that choice for pleasure. 4) sometimes, it’s not a choice. let’s not pretend rape in all its inglorious forms doesn’t count as sexual history, and hopefully we can all agree that, even if you’re 100% certain someone has never been raped, asking them to recount their sexual history to see if they qualify for some kind of honour is, at best, a rude and senseless violation of their privacy. 5) let’s also not pretend the concept of a ‘gold star lesbian’ isn’t borderline transphobic. i’ve seen a lot of people define ‘gold star lesbian’ as “a lesbian who has never touched a penis”, which naturally frames trans and some intersex women as dirty, while also discounting their womanhood. even if the term isn’t meant in a transphobic way, it has altogether too much flexibility as a concept for use by transphobic lesbians and terfs and not enough value in and of itself to bother reclaiming. 6) the label seeks to frame a specific lesbian experience as superior to any other experience, and does so at the expense of other queer people, and for what? is there a point to policing people’s identities and sexual experiences beyond “proving” one person is “”more queer”” than another? it’s ludicrous. it invalidates their experiences to make a select few people feel like they’re inherently better than everyone else, and i’m against that dynamic on principle. 7) if anyone thinks i’m reading too much into this, two things. one, it’s one of the only things my degree qualifies me to do, and two, just look at how the phrase ‘gold star lesbian’ is worded. you get a gold star. it’s a reward, an accomplishment, a sticker on your nametag, something which separates your from and prizes you above others because you did something good. in this case, ‘others’ is functionally everyone else in the queer community, and ‘something good’ is abstaining from sex with men. we’ve already been over why sex with men should never be seen as an inherently bad thing, and we as queer people should know better than to exclude each other for failing to conform to an arbitrarily ‘standard’ experience of sexuality.

i’m sure there’s more, but i’ve already spent enough time on this response. anon, if you’re reading this, it’s okay if you didn’t know better, and i hope i could teach you something today. i do get the feeling you asked this question in earnest, so as long as it doesn’t happen again (in which case, again, you will be blocked), no sour grapes. but to you and everyone else following this blog, this is an example of an inappropriate question -- for reasons on top of how many objections i have to the ‘gold star lesbian’ label. we have fun here on smallnico.tumblr.com, but i’m a real human being out there in the world, and this blog is my platform and spectacle, not me. there’s a reason i’m on tumblr and not twitter or instagram.

#loquor #anon #the askbox #'begone cryptoterf' is my favourite reply to this post

35 notes · View notes

tediousoscars · 5 years

Text

2018

Predict-o-meter: This year: 8/12; Total: 99/119 (83%)

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, and friends beyond the binary: It is time once again to set aside our daily woes and discuss all things Oscar.

This year’s class of 8 Best Picture nominees is extremely solid. There are no real clunkers, but, in my mind there are 4 soaringly great films, 3 solidly good films, and one … problematic film that is both great and not so great. We’ll get to that.

But keep in mind that even though I am using my traditional Contenders/Pretenders bifurcation there are no films below that I would recommend you avoid. They are all very good.

- THE CONTENDERS -

Black Panther. The beauty of this film is that it works so well on so many different levels. If you are simply looking for a blockbuster spectacle to munch popcorn to, you will not be disappointed; it totally works on that level. And even though it is the 18th(!) installment in Marvel Studios’ Cinematic Universe of inter-related films, “Black Panther” may be enjoyed on its own in isolation; if you have never seen another Marvel movie (Really? What is WRONG with you?) you won’t feel at all lost. And that is all well and good; I love a good blockbuster as much as the next guy. But that won’t get you Oscar Nominations. For that, we need to dig a little deeper. On the next level down, it’s just a really good movie. Great characters who are well-developed and three-dimensional, a compelling story told with humor and drama in equal measures, gorgeous cinematography and costumes that bring an imagined world to life, and an all-star cast of talented actors who are clearly giving it their all. The heart and soul of “Black Panther” is the fictional land of Wakanda: a central African nation hit with a meteor in the distant past that provided ancient Wakandans with access to vibranium, a near-magical metal that allowed them to develop advanced technology well before the rest of the world. Technology that they used to hide themselves away while developing ever more advanced weapons and transportation, including the technology that turns their tribal King into the titular super-powered protector. And herein lies the central conflict of the film: A Wakandan spy on assignment in Oakland in the 90s becomes disillusioned by the disparity between the safety and comfort that Wakandans enjoy and the degradation and oppression faced by members of the African Diaspora across the globe. When he is taken out by Wakandan authorities he leaves behind a young son who grows up hell-bent on avenging his father, but also determined to complete his father’s mission of using Wakandan technology to uplift all those of African descent. This isn't the standard “Good vs. Evil” we’ve come to expect from superhero movies. It’s a more nuanced “Isolation vs. Engagement” discussion of the best way to allocate scarce resources for the greater good. At its greatest depth “Black Panther” is a thoughtful exploration of themes of racism and oppression, violence and statecraft, retribution and forgiveness that stands up to critical analysis. In interviews with the cast and crew it is obvious that they were very cognizant of the fact that with Wakanda they were essentially creating from whole cloth an African mythology that could play a role comparable to that of Camelot in the Anglo-Saxon imagination. They took this responsibility very seriously and were determined that everything associated with “Black Panther” be of the highest quality. They succeeded spectacularly. No matter how deeply you choose to look at this film you will not be disappointed. It succeeds on every level.

Bohemian Rhapsody. This story of iconic stadium anthem band Queen and their mercurial frontman, Freddy Mercury, was told with the full cooperation of the surviving band members, and one of their conditions was that it not have an R rating. This has led to some consternation and gnashing of teeth over Mercury’s legendary excesses being watered down. But I thought that the device they used was effective: Rather than show the actual debauchery the film focuses on the morning-after detritus. Mercury staggers blinking through a maze of prone bodies and over-turned furniture, empty glasses and bottles scattered hither and yon, cocaine residue coating every horizontal surface. But the film isn’t primarily about Mercury’s rock star life; it’s about the band and how they worked together and became a worldwide sensation despite significant headwinds - watching the label guys turn up their noses at the eponymous song (soon to become one of the most beloved rock songs of all time) is choice. Everything here is well done. The story unfolds naturally, the performances are all solid, and the insight into the inner workings of the band are illuminating. Yes, they have the unavoidable family squabbles, but for the most part it isn’t about ego, it’s about the music. They fight for their own individual interpretations and priorities, but they all share a common vision of what Queen should be, and that is the organizing principle for their conflicts, at least during the band’s formative period. It’s all entertaining and engaging and good, maybe even very good, but it’s just not great. Until, at the very end, a choice is made by the filmmakers that turns on the after-burners and vaults the film into the stratosphere. After an ill-fated attempt at a solo album, a chastened Mercury beseeches the band to get back together for Live Aid, the bi-continental music festival for African famine relief that was the biggest music event of its era. A typical movie would handle this either with a quick montage of the various songs played in the set, or perhaps, one single entire song. But for this film they recreated Queen’s 20-minute Live Aid set in its entirety; note for note, move for move. And they imbue the performance with the knowledge - not known to the general public at the time - that Freddy Mercury had been diagnosed with AIDS (at a time when this was a death sentence). It is breathtaking. Rami Malek is favored to win Best Actor for his turn as Mercury, and this climatic, thrilling set is a big part of the reason why.

The Favourite. This is not your typical costume period piece about palace intrigue. We are used to tropes in which strong, formidable women connive behind the scenes to manipulate the men in power to do what they want. But this is the court of Queen Anne of England (Olivia Colman), so a woman is already in charge. Or she would be if failing health and mental instabilities didn’t prevent her from being effective. Enter Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (Rachel Weisz), childhood friend and sometime lover to the Queen, Sarah rules the roost on behalf of the Queen and does her best to steer the ship of state in the direction that she, and her stalwart Duke of a husband, sees as best. And it is all going swimmingly until Sarah’s cousin Abigail (Emma Stone) arrives impoverished and disgraced by some disastrous antics of her father's. Sarah graciously takes Abigail under her wing out of familial loyalty, but is soon out-maneuvered and her young cousin takes her place at the Queen’s side and in her bed. This is all entertaining enough, but there is a fascinating subtext. Though Sarah does love the Queen, it is her over-arching love of Britain that drives her to seek and wield power. By contrast, Abigail has been rich and she has been poor and she has decided that being rich is better. So all of her machinations are aimed solely at personal gain. The interplay between these three characters - Anne, Sarah, and Abigail - is so intricate and expertly portrayed that all three of the female leads have been nominated for their roles. And it’s not just a question of great acting; the film is visually interesting as well. Typical depictions of royal courts in film are brightly lit to highlight the garish colors of the clothes and tapestries that abound. Here, though, the film is shot using mostly natural light. The relatively muted tones and deep shadows serve to augment the feeling of stealth and intrigue that often accompanies a simple passage through a hallway. Great performances, compelling art direction, and a (nominated) screenplay that crackles with snark, “The Favourite” is an enjoyable romp that manages to provoke a few thoughts along the way.

Green Book. At it’s core “Green Book” is a road movie with a well-trodden premiss: Two characters with nothing in common and a healthy disdain for one another are forced by circumstances to drive across the country, mayhem ensues, and they become fast friends. We’ve seen it a hundred times, but I’m not sure we’ve ever seen it done this well. Dr. Don Shirley was fastidious, refined, educated (the “Dr.” comes from multiple Ph.D.s), erudite, and a virtuoso pianist with unique style and flair. Frank Anthony Vallelonga Sr., better known as Tony Lip, was a guido street-brawler from the Bronx with a strong moral code that didn’t always align perfectly with a strict interpretation of the law. He wasn't in the Mob, but he was certainly Mob-adjacent, and could have been made at the drop of a fedora if he’d chosen to. And they were real people. In the film Tony is hired to be driver/fixer to Dr. Shirley on a 2-month concert tour. And right there you have the makings of a perfectly serviceable buddy road trip movie. But wait, there’s more. Dr. Shirley happens to be Black. And gay. And the tour is through the Deep South. And it’s 1962. This is fraught territory, and there is great potential for the film to slip into awful stereotype or maudlin sentimentality. But the screenplay - written in part by Tony’s son Nick - navigates this minefield with deft courage. Tony evolves from a casual, thoughtless racism to a deep respect for Dr. Shirley, both as a man and as an artist. For his part, Dr. Shirley moves from disdain for Tony’s uncouth nature to grudging respect for his tenacity, loyalty, and unique ability to see through a problem to a solution. And eventually respect turns to affection, which is all very predictable, but as with any good road picture it’s about the journey, not the destination. And this journey is laid out in a thoroughly entertaining, natural, and believable fashion (Nick swears that every event depicted in the film actually happened). This is movie-making at its finest.

- THE MISFIT -

Roma. The problem with this film is that from a technical perspective it is a mind-blowing masterpiece, but from a narrative perspective it’s a little slow and sparse, if I’m feeling generous, and downright boring if I’m not. Director Alfonso Cuarón is a shoo-in to win Best Director for his brilliant technical work here. Shot in large-format digital black and white the film looks crisp and clean throughout. But what is more astonishing is the rich, vibrant world that Cuarón uses as a backdrop for his story, which would otherwise be small and fairly claustrophobic. Brass bands randomly march down side strides, people are shot from cannons, and lavish weddings take place in the background of what would otherwise be simple scenes with a few lines of dialog. This takes a 30-second scene of dialog - for which 6 takes could probably be done in an hour - and turns it potentially into a 3-day budget-busting ordeal because of the logistics of getting 150 people in place and properly lit. And he does this over and over again. It must have directors, cinematographers, and producers dropping their jaws, but none of this effort and virtuosity drives the plot forward one millimeter. The largely autobiographical narrative (one of the young boys presumably represents Cuarón as a child) centers around Cleo, an indigenous domestic working and living in the home of a well-off doctor in the Roma neighborhood of Mexico City circa 1970. There is drama as Cleo deals with an unexpected pregnancy and the doctor abandons the family in favor of a young mistress, but the action plays out languidly through a series of “slice of life” vignettes. You learn a lot about the daily routine within the household - putting children to sleep, cleaning up dog poop - but precious little about the inner lives of the characters portrayed. Each year movies are nominated for Best Picture that are not nominated for Best Director. I think a strong case can be made that “Roma” should have reversed this trend. Cuarón’s Best Director nomination is richly deserved, but overall this film is not Best Picture material. It is a movie made for people who make movies. If you are a film student or an aspiring director it is a must-see. But casual movie-goers looking for entertainment should probably look elsewhere.

- THE PRETENDERS -

BlacKkKlansman. “BlacKkKlansman,” like “Green Book,” takes on themes of racism through the recounting of an incredible real-life story. In this case our hero is Ron Stallworth, a young, ambitious detective with the Colorado Springs Police Department. As the Department’s first Black officer, Stallworth is given an assignment to go undercover and attend a campus rally by Kwame Ture, a firebrand leader of the Black Power movement. Finding that he likes undercover work, Stallworth impulsively reaches out to the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan with an eye towards infiltrating the group. Over the phone he plays the part of white supremacist to a tee, but when he finagles a face-to-face meeting he quickly realizes that maybe he hasn’t thought this thing through. With the help of fellow detective Phil “Flip” Zimmerman (Adam Driver in a nominated role), Stallworth embarks on a Cyrano de Bergerac-esque escapade in which he talks to the Klan - including Grand Wizard David Duke - over the phone while Flip meets them in person. Director Spike Lee (nominated) has been known for his fireworks around issues of race in the past, but here he adopts an almost journalistic tone, presenting the story without hyperbole and letting the facts speak for themselves. This sounds laudable, but it actually serves to make the film feel a little … bland. Especially when combined with a very muted performance by John David Washington whose Stallworth always feels like he’s just trying to get through this scene before someone realizes he’s not supposed to be on set. Neither of these issues is enough to tilt the picture over into “bad” territory - it’s definitely interesting and entertaining - but they are enough to kick it out of Best Picture territory.

A Star is Born. There seems to have been a pact made with the Old Gods that in each generation the greatest female performer of her time must remake a version of the 1937 film “A Star is Born” starring Janet Gaynor. In 1954 it was Judy Garland, in 1976 it was Barbra Streisand’s turn, now, in 2018, the mantle falls to Lady Gaga, who was nominated for her efforts. By now the story is familiar: established star at the peak of his fame takes a talented ingénue under his wing only to watch her career take off while his crumbles. Bradley Cooper stars, directs, and worked on the screenplay; he was nominated for his portrayal of the gravel-voiced Jackson Maine, and for the screenplay, but not for his direction. Cooper’s Jack is an alcoholic with a troubled past, but is also a talented singer-songwriter and modern-day troubadour. When Gaga’s Ally - whom he plucked from obscurity singing torch songs in a New York City drag bar - starts to achieve success as his wanes, it is not simple jealousy that drives him off the deep end. He objects to the WAY she achieves success. In one of their first conversations Jack tells Ally, “There are lots of people with talent. But having something to say and being able to say it in a way that makes people listen? THAT’s special.” So when Ally starts writing catchy pop songs and performing on stage with backup dancers (à la Lady Gaga) Jack is perturbed, but is characteristically incapable of expressing his concerns without sounding unsupportive. So he bottles up his feelings and turns to the bottle. Both Cooper and Gaga give fantastic performances and there are several numbers that Gaga performs that are transcendent (I see big things for that girl). It’s definitely a solid film, and Gaga’s songs are worth the price of admission, but it just didn’t rise to the level of greatness in my mind.

Vice. There has been a bit of a hot streak of transformative performances portraying real-life political figures. I’m thinking particularly of Daniel Day-Lewis’ Lincoln and Gary Oldman’s Churchill. But in both of those cases the figure in question had pretty much faded from living memory. Not so with Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s “Vice” President. Christian Bale (nominated) IS Dick Cheney to such an extent that if it weren’t for scenes depicting a young Cheney early in the film I don’t think I would have been able to identify the performer as Bale. It’s astonishing. And Amy Adams (nominated) is nearly as good as wife Lynne Cheney. But there is more to this film than just an epic performance by the leads. Director Adam McKay made his name with screwball comedies like “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers,” which most decidedly did not garner him Oscar nominations. But he turned a corner with 2015’s “The Big Short,” which did. Now he’s back and nominated again with “Vice” and, as with “The Big Short,” though he is swimming through serious waters he has not forgotten his comedic roots. “Vice” is by turns hilarious and infuriating, sometimes both at once. Given the current state of our politics the W era has taken on a warm glow of nostalgia for a time when, even if we didn’t agree with our leaders, we could sleep safe and secure in the knowledge that at least they weren’t actually agents of a foreign government. But “Vice” dredges up some of the seedier behind-the-scenes aspects to remind us that using Executive Privilege to undermine democracy is sadly nothing new. I probably should have liked “Vice” more than I did - Sam Rockwell’s (nominated) turn as W is not to be missed - but for some reason attempts to use the power of the presidency to subvert the intentions of the Founders just doesn’t seem as quaint and jovial as it once did.

So which SHOULD win?

For me it comes down to “Black Panther” and “Green Book.” Out of a top-to-bottom very strong class these two stand out in my mind as the ones that are really hitting on all cylinders. From direction and cinematography, to acting and art direction, to just straight up story telling, these are the most well-rounded of the bunch. And while I do love me some “Black Panther” (Wakanda forever!) I have to go with “Green Book” for its added layers of emotional resonance.

But which WILL win?

I said above that “Roma” is a movie made for people who make movies. Well … guess who votes for the Oscars? People who make movies. “Green Book” is actually in the running, but appears to be a distant second. I’m going with “Roma,” which would be the first foreign language film in history to win Best Picture.

Best Actress - This appears to be a two-way race between Glenn Close for “The Wife” and Olivia Colman for “The Favourite.” I’m going with Close.

Best Supporting Actress - It appears as though my favorites from “The Favourite” will be shut out, as this seems to be between Regina King for “If Beale Street Could Talk,” and Amy Adams for “Vice.” I’ll take Regina King.

Best Actor - When I saw “Vice” on 12/27/18 I walked out of the theater and tweeted: ‘Bale’s gonna win Best Actor. You heard it here first.’ And I still believe that’s what should happen. And it just might, but now it seems that Rami Malek has the buzz for “Bohemian Rhapsody.” (Did I mention that they shot the epic Live Aid set on THE FIRST DAY OF SHOOTING?) I can’t quibble too much; he was great too. I’m jumping on the Rami Malek bandwagon.

Best Supporting Actor - Mahershala Ali (“Green Book”) will need to clear off some more space on the mantle.

Best Director - Alfonso Cuarón in a runaway. I have no quarrel with this, just with Best Picture.

Best Cinematography - Alfonso Cuarón for “Roma.” See above.

Best Foreign Language Film - This hardly seems fair with “Roma” poised to become the first foreign-language film to actually win Best Picture, but … “Roma.”

Best Animated Feature - “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.” Seriously, if you haven’t seen this do yourself a huge favor and check it out.

Best Original Song - “Shallow” from “A Star is Born.” As an added bonus the song actually plays a key role in the plot and is performed in its entirety in the film.

Best Original Screenplay - I am really pulling for “Green Book,” because it’s a great story, but also a great story-behind-the-story, with Tony Lip’s son penning the screenplay. But it looks like “The Favourite” will win.

Best Visual Effects - “Black Panther” is unlikely to win Best Picture, but Marvel should take home an Oscar here for “Avengers: Infinity War.” (Actual winner: “First Man”)

That does it for this year. Until next year keep your popcorn warm and your soda cold.

0 notes