Similar to many others who view this film, I was initially
made very uncomfortable by how graphic and explicit the content was. At first I
saw now reason as to why this film had to get so up close and personal and
really expose these women in the most vulnerable state; the only reason I could
think of was to use shock factor to make her point to the audience that sexual
relations between women are almost never shown in film. I viewed this film as a
way of rebelling against the culture of cinematography at the time, and as a
statement that lesbian sex was and is still such a taboo subject and should be
no more taboo than straight sex. Despite
this, after reading Hammer’s article “Lesbian Filmmaking: Self-birthing” I understood
this film from a completely different perspective. Hammer states that the
purpose of the film was to portray the sensuality of lesbian love and have the
viewer experience as best they can the touch and sensation between the women in
the film. I think this aspect of the film was amplifies by how there was little
to no dialogue, and so as a viewer you could relate easily to anyone in the
film. After I read and understood that the purpose of dyketactics was to show
the relation between two women rather than to promote a sociopolitical message
on the inequality and discrimination that surrounds the gay community, I found
a new appreciation for the film. I love that this film was made to show the
sensuality between lesbian lovers rather than to preach a message because it is
a refreshing break from many other feminist films that seem to all ridicule the
life of a 50s housewife, or ridicule the way lady gaga and Miley Cyrus act in
society.
No comments:
Post a Comment