Artcore

[UberPubert]

It's obviously not going to be hard to find LGBT characters in movies about LGBT characters, just like it's not going to be hard to find black people in Tyler Perry movies, but if there are no LGBT protagonists in anything outside of the niche market for those characters, there's a bit of a problem.

But why? What's wrong with LGBT or Tyler Perry movies?

LGBT members make up a much smaller amount of the population than even blacks and hispanics (though I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive), but we still recognize it's not a problem that protagonists of that ethnicity are significantly less common as far as movie hits go.

 

[UberPubert]

The problem is that LGBT protagonists shouldn't only exist in movies about LGBT issues, in the same way black protagonists shouldn't only exist in movies about slavery or civil rights or those made by Tyler Perry. Heterosexual white people shouldn't be the only protagonists in mainstream movies while everyone else, from homosexuals, to blacks, to hispanics, are locked into niche or indie genres and markets.

Lots of people recognize that the incredibly disproportionate number of heterosexual white protagonists in media is a bit of a problem, and claiming that everyone else should be happy with their little niche markets is really problematic.

Well blacks and hispanics aren't locked into niche or indie genre markets because they make up a larger amount of the population than LGBT members.

While I recognize the number of white, hetero protagonists seems disproportionate to the number of protagonists of other ethnicites and sexual orientation, I also recognize that these protagonists are written and made to appeal to what is still a majority white - and extreme majority heterosexual - audience.

You could argue that too many movies are written and produced to appeal to the majority demographic, but it doesn't make much business sense to do otherwise, and it doesn't represent a "problem" with minority demographics. It's just a simple numerical difference.

 

[Evil Smurf]

My favourite film in the genre is a sweedish film called Fucking Åmål. Go see it, it is brilliant.

I absolute adore that movie <3 Mainly because I can recognise quite a bit of myself in both main characters

I love the writing. It was the first teen drama film I saw that did not follow the conventions and tropes of the American teen dramas like "American Pie." It shows lesbians as people and not objects, I'm a fan of women so it apeals to me.

What about the main characters do you see in yourself? Is it the awkward drive to be socially accepted? Or the overcoming of societies norms?

I need to get this on DVD.

 

[shogunblade]

The quirk of NC-17 being a death sentence is a very american phenomenon. The BBFC (formerly known as one of the stuffiest ratings boards in the world) has passed the film with an "18" rating, a rating that many mainstream films receive and are happy to receive. As all cinemas and stores will carry 18 certificate films no problem. It simply being a french art film will hamper distribution much more than it's rating here in the UK.

The fact that most films that depict any kind of female sexual pleasure are stamped NC-17 when torture porn routinely gets an R no problem is baffling. The simple fact that most places won't stock or show NC-17 films is also a 50s hangover of prudishness. All the while these films are leered at and muttered of in dark corners.

We laughed at Australia for their ratings flaws in video-games but the U.S. has effectively continued censoring wide distribution films all whilst warping the image of European cinema as purveyors of smutt and what we in the UK call "Wank fodder". It's immature and hypocritical.

I do think it is stupid that NC-17 receives the stigma that it does, but at the same time, when a movie gets that rating, it can help people go and see it. I don't know anybody who wanted to see Blue Valentine (I have not seen it yet) before it came out that it was an NC-17, and later rerated "R".

I have my hang-ups with the US, I, being born in America, find a lot of what is considered "R" rated by the MPAA versus "NC-17" to be completely stupid. Saw is okay for a young child to watch if an adult is around, but Shame is not? It's a level of hypocrisy that makes no sense to me at all, when I wouldn't let a little child watch "Saw" anyway, and I'd be more inclined for them to see "Shame" or "Requiem for a Dream", if I found a decent way to show it off.

I think the ratings board needs new members to justify the change of the times, and then we might decently rated movies. I say "Might", in any case.